第 210 期·中文精讀

馬特·沃克:睡眠

Matt Walker: Sleep

睡眠科學家講解睡眠如何影響記憶、學習與情緒,以及咖啡因、酒精和作息習慣對身體的長期作用。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

人類是這顆星球上唯一會主動剝奪自己睡眠的物種。其他動物偶爾睡不夠,理由都很硬:快餓死了,剛生了崽,正在飛越幾千公里的大洋。只有人,會在毫無生物學理由的情況下,主動把覺熬掉。

這件事的後果,比大多數人想的嚴重得多。加州大學伯克利分校的睡眠科學家馬特·沃克(Matt Walker)給出的解釋很樸素:大自然母親在整個進化史上,從來沒遇到過“睡眠剝奪”這個挑戰,所以她從來沒為它準備過任何備用方案。

一個想研究麻醉的醫學生,被睡眠絆住了

沃克最開始迷上的東西是麻醉。

他在英國讀醫學院,十八歲入學,五年制,在女王醫學中心。他記得自己當時被一件事震住了:幾秒鐘之內,一個完全清醒的人,全部的心智和覺知被徹底抹掉。他開始大量讀關於意識狀態的東西,包括催眠。那個年代,催眠、睡眠、夢,在學界都還是相當邊緣的領域,近乎江湖方術。

他說,據他所知,這個領域裡的人幾乎全是被意外捲進來的。你五歲時老師問長大想做什麼,沒有人會舉手說我想當睡眠研究員。

他自己的轉折點很狼狽。讀博時他想用腦電記錄儘早識別不同型別的痴呆,結果一敗塗地,一個結果都沒有。他每天拎著一堆期刊回家,週末坐在那裡讀,現在回想起來他都有點不好意思承認,因為那聽起來像是完全沒有社交生活。

讀著讀著他發現,大腦裡有些區域跟睡眠相關,有些痴呆會把這些區域啃掉,另一些痴呆則原封不動。他突然意識到自己全做錯了:他一直在病人清醒的時候測量他們,而正確答案應該是趁他們睡著的時候測。換了方法,結果立刻不一樣了。

接著他想問一個更大的問題:病人在走向痴呆過程中出現的睡眠紊亂,會不會是痴呆的原因,而不只是症狀?那是二十年前,當時沒人能回答一個最基本的問題:我們為什麼睡覺?他也不知道,科學史上一些最聰明的頭腦試過這個問題,全都失敗了。

他當時想得很輕鬆:去做兩年睡眠研究,把這個問題搞清楚,然後回去接著研究痴呆。二十年過去了,他還在原地被這個問題按著。

“難題不太在乎提問的人是誰。它給每個人出的難度都是一樣的。”(馬特·沃克)

而且今天已經不得不換個問法。原來那個“我們為什麼睡覺”的標準答案是“為了消除睏意”,這就像說“我們吃飯是為了消除飢餓”,什麼資訊都沒給你。現在真正該問的是:身體裡哪個生理系統,或者大腦裡哪項主要功能,不會因為睡眠充足而變得更好,或者不會因為睡眠不足而明顯受損?

到目前為止,答案基本是一個也沒有。

母雞造了脂肪細胞,卻沒造睡眠銀行

沃克講了一個很妙的類比。

我們的祖先經歷過饑荒也經歷過豐收,於是大自然想出一個絕頂聰明的方案:怎麼把卡路里的信用存起來,等欠債的時候再花。脂肪細胞就這麼誕生了。

那麼睡眠的脂肪細胞在哪?那個可以預存睡眠、等熬夜時再取的賬戶在哪?

沒有。因為大自然從來沒被逼著造過。

反過來說,睡眠在進化上簡直不可理喻。你睡著時找不到配偶,不能繁殖,照顧不了孩子,沒法覓食,而且還極其脆弱,隨時可能被吃掉。任何一條都足以讓睡眠被強烈淘汰,四條加在一起更是。可每一個被仔細研究過的物種都有睡眠。連幾百萬年前的蚯蚓都有活躍期和被動休眠期,研究者管它叫 lethargus。

睡眠似乎和這顆星球上的生命一起誕生,然後一路闖過了進化的每一道關。這也引出了睡眠研究界那句著名的話:如果睡眠不承擔某項至關重要的功能,那它就是進化過程中犯下的最大錯誤。

曾經有個“能量守恆假說”試圖解釋這一切,說我們睡覺是為了進入省電模式。這個假說被徹底打翻了。你躺在沙發上醒著,和躺在沙發上睡著,能量差只有 140 到 150 卡路里。為了這點熱量閉上眼睛,完全說不通。睡眠是一個極度活躍的過程。

意識像一條帶子,不是一個開關

過去學界認為,除了麻醉狀態,人只有三種意識狀態:清醒、非快速眼動睡眠(non-REM,非做夢睡眠)、快速眼動睡眠(REM,做夢睡眠)。

沃克現在覺得這個劃分太硬了。他更願意把它看成一個連續譜。

你白天做白日夢時的狀態,和此刻跟人面對面專注對話的狀態,差別巨大。一個是對外聚焦,一個是對內聚焦。而在非快速眼動睡眠的各個階段裡,你其實也在做夢,只不過程度不同,取決於你怎麼定義夢。他甚至認為非快速眼動睡眠裡也有相當多的意識活動,雖然這麼說可能有點勉強。

最極端的例子出現在嚴重缺覺時。某些腦細胞會自己睡過去。哪怕從行為上看這隻動物還醒著,單個或一小群腦細胞會進入類睡眠狀態。人也一樣,這叫微睡眠(microsleep)。眼皮半合,大腦短暫陷落,但你看起來仍然醒著。

微睡眠最要命的地方在駕駛座上。

時速 65 英里,兩噸多的車。你大概需要一秒從一條車道飄到另一條,兩秒就完全衝出路面。這時候來一次微睡眠,那可能是你這輩子最後一次微睡眠。

“它不是一個 1 或者 0 的階躍函式。”(馬特·沃克)

眼睛會出賣你有多困

Lex 在 MIT 做過五六年的駕駛研究,最關心的就是微睡眠和睏倦檢測。他想知道,用計算機視覺,不接觸人體,僅憑一張臉的影片,能不能判斷出睏意的上升。

沃克說線索很豐富。眼瞼的開合幅度、完全閉合的持續時間、半閉合的持續時間。瞳孔裡也有資訊,因為人在這些狀態之間滑動時,自主神經系統在變化,而它部分控制著瞳孔大小。再疊加方向盤的轉向角度和踏板壓力,很可能存在某種組合特徵,構成一個“你正在睡著”的表型。

現在的量產車大多隻用最粗的訊號:方向盤修正頻率。你得不停修方向,系統就判斷你可能在打瞌睡。這個訊號很強,也確實管用,但非常粗糙。

真正的麻煩在於個體差異太大。睏倦在不同人身上的表現,差別複雜得讓人意外。有人先眨眼變慢,有人先方向盤飄,有人先瞳孔變。沃克的想法是,不一定非要找一個覆蓋 90% 人的通用解,可以反過來做個人化的方案:先學會這個人清醒駕駛時的“簽名”,然後監測他偏離簽名的程度。

他把這個叫薩維爾街定製西裝式的睏倦特徵。

Lex 提到一個讓人意外的現象。按人類工效學幾十年的研究結論,人監督自動化系統時特別容易犯困走神,飛行員就是活標本。但至少在現有研究裡,坐在特斯拉 Autopilot 後面的人,警覺性並沒有下降。Lex 猜是因為你仍然可能死,那種風險感還在拽著你。

問題恰恰在這裡。系統越好、越可靠,那種緊迫感越淡,睏意就越容易湧上來。到那時候,就必須靠朝內的攝像頭追蹤面部,讓車知道“我困了,你得多擔待點”。

沃克完全同意用方向盤壓力來判斷注意力這種方案已經過時。他覺得如果願意投入,這個問題有遠比這精細的解法。

睡飽的大腦是一塊幹海綿

睡眠對記憶的作用,沃克拆成了四層,層層往上。

第一層,學習之前需要睡眠。睡飽的大腦像一塊幹海綿,吸水效率最高。缺覺的大腦像泡透了水的海綿,資訊根本灌不進去。這不是比喻,記憶迴路本身在缺覺時的狀態就變差了。

第二層,學習之後也需要睡眠,把剛形成的記憶按下儲存鍵。這個過程不像電腦那麼快,它要花幾個小時,因為這是腦細胞層面真實發生的物理生物變化。睡眠會把新記憶固化進神經架構裡,讓它更不容易被抹掉。沃克說,睡眠某種程度上是在給資訊做“面向未來的保險”。

第三層,是沃克最著迷的部分。睡眠不會只把單條記憶加固,它會把資訊智慧地整合、交叉連線、彼此關聯。他管這叫資訊鍊金術。你睡一覺醒來,得到的是一張重新編織過的、佈滿新連線的心智網路。

這大概就是為什麼世界上每種語言裡,都有類似“睡一覺再想這個問題”的說法。它跨越了文化邊界,是全人類共有的經驗。

沃克順便講了個語言趣聞。英語說 sleep on a problem,睡在上面。法語更接近 sleep with a problem,和問題一起睡。他說這一字之差,道盡了英法之間浪漫氣質的差別。

遺忘是一種清理,不是系統故障

第四層是沃克八年前開始著迷的東西:遺忘。他覺得遺忘可能是我們為記憶付出的代價,而放手本身有巨大的好處。

這話初聽荒謬。誰不想記住更多?

但大腦的儲存容量是有限的,雖然還沒被嚴格證明,他懷疑約束確實存在。我們不可能一輩子只做資訊堆積機,總得有個清空機制。從進化角度講,記住三年前把車停在哪毫無價值,你需要的是今天那個車位。

他提到一位神經學家盧里亞(Luria)寫的書《記憶大師的心靈》(The Mind of a Mnemonicist)。書裡研究的是那些幾乎能記住一切的記憶奇才。前半本書,盧里亞一直在找他們記憶的破綻,怎麼也找不到,他能給的任何東西他們都記得住。然後他做了一件很聰明的事,把問題翻了個面:一直記住有什麼好處,這個問法問不出東西,換個方向問,永遠不忘記有什麼壞處?

答案浮出來了。他筆下的那些人的生活,你多半不想要。

這個視角對 AI 同樣成立。機器學習裡最大的未解難題之一就是長期持續學習、終生學習。而記憶的正確形式,本質上就是遺忘:你必須在哪些東西值得留下這件事上做出極其嚴格的選擇。

Lex 分享了自己的困擾。他記得住想法、引文、觀點,但記不住名字和書名。跟安德魯·胡伯曼(Andrew Huberman)聊學術就很難受,因為學術溝通要求你說清楚這是誰、在哪篇論文裡說的。他很佩服胡伯曼這種能力,能把作者和標題當成想法的一部分一起記住。

沃克說自己一模一樣。臉過目不忘,名字總記不住,而且他覺得自己忘的其實很少。

他分析這事可能跟焦慮有關。第一次見一個人、被介紹名字的那一刻,恰恰是你略微緊張的時候,那個情緒狀態讓名字進不來。記憶本身沒問題,是當下的情緒狀態在攪局。

他說得挺動情。他記得住的,是兩個人共享的那種感覺、那段經歷。記不住的是那些經歷的詳細標籤。而人類社交偏偏要用那些標籤來證明“我記得你、你對我有分量”。

他記得跟 Lex 第一次在酒店大堂見面時的所有細節。你戴著耳機,他知道耳機的形狀和大小;你沒穿那件黑夾克;他記得你襯衫的織紋、鞋子的樣子,甚至記得你褲腳離鞋面有多高。兩年前見過的人,他能說出對方那天穿的那雙靴子很好看,對方自己都忘了那天穿了什麼。

“我們記不住的是標籤,記得住的是感受。”(馬特·沃克)

清醒是谷歌第一頁,做夢是第二十頁

沃克用一個比喻區分清醒和做夢時的聯想方式。

清醒時,我們看到的都是最明顯的連線,那是一次順利的谷歌查詢,第一頁就是答案。做夢完全是另一套邏輯。

他把夢比作記憶的團體治療。每個人胸前端著名牌,睡眠把白天散落的所有碎片收進一個房間,然後強迫你去跟那些坐在最後排的人說話,那些你第一眼覺得毫無關係的人。聊著聊著你會發現,其實有關係,只是這條連線藏得很遠、很不顯眼。

就像你搜一個詞,結果沒跳到它主頁的第一頁,而是跳到了第 20 頁,講某個小城裡的一場曲棍球比賽。可你仔細看,那裡確實有一條連結。

把兩樣本來不該放在一起的東西融合起來,一旦成功,帶來的往往是進化適應度上的巨大躍升。這聽起來就是創造力的生物學基礎。沃克認為,這正是快速眼動睡眠這套演算法被設計出來要做的事。

他還有個更生動的說法:記憶彈球機。白天學到的資訊被推杆打上去,彈進大腦皮層那個裝滿過往知識的閣樓,四處亂撞,撞亮哪裡就在那裡建一條新連線,再撞亮另一處,再建一條。你就是這樣一點點構建出自己的認知圖式。

所以他說,可以這樣講:我夢故我在。

案例太多了。門捷列夫(Mendeleev)為了搞清楚所有已知元素怎麼合乎邏輯地排在一起,折騰了好幾個月,甚至做了元素卡片,坐火車穿越歐洲時反覆排列。有一天他睡著了,夢裡所有元素開始起舞,然後啪地拼成一個邏輯網格,原子量什麼的都對上了。攻下這道醒著的大腦拿不下的死題的,是他睡著的大腦。

瑪麗·雪萊(Mary Shelley)的《弗蘭肯斯坦》來自拜倫宅邸裡的一場夢。保羅·麥卡特尼的《Yesterday》的旋律來自夢裡。他還有一首《Let It Be》也來自夢,歌裡那位“聖母瑪利亞”,很多人以為是宗教意象,其實是他母親瑪麗·麥卡特尼,她在夢裡把這歌送給了他。

最妙的是基思·理查茲(Keith Richards)。他睡覺時枕頭邊放著吉他和錄音機,某天早上醒來發現磁帶一直錄到了盡頭。倒回去一放,開頭是《Satisfaction》那幾個和絃,滾石樂隊歷史上最成功的一首歌,緊接著是四十三分鐘的鼾聲。

沃克強調這些是軼事,不能當科研資料。但實驗室裡的研究已經可靠地證明:睡眠確實能提升創造力,提升解決問題的能力。

工程師的睡前儀式,以及它的賬

Lex 講了另一位著名工程師吉姆·凱勒(Jim Keller)的習慣。遇到難題,凱勒會在睡前那段時間刻意、用力地想它,然後去睡覺。第二天起來,思路清晰得多,有時在過程中就能撞見新洞見。

沃克說,這跟被動接受睡眠的安排正好相反。那是一種主動的、有意識地拿睡眠為特定目標服務的做法,是輕輕撥一下舵。他不覺得這有什麼問題。

但他保留一份謹慎:這麼做是有賬要付的。你把睡眠的認知資源定向投給了那個技術難題,那麼當晚沒能上“自助餐檯”的其他東西呢?當天的情緒經歷被處理了嗎?會不會第二天你在問題解決上更鋒利了,情緒上反而更沒被照料到?

他的長期立場是:大自然經過幾百萬年迭代出來的夜間排程演算法,大體上靠得住。你可以輕輕撥一下,但別太用力。

Lex 順著這個往下想了一層。他說,如果完全放任身體自己執行,你可能達不到某種高度,因為大自然從來沒設計讓人去思考晶片架構或者訓練大型神經網路。她給的是架構和容量,往裡面裝什麼,是生活經驗決定的。

他還自嘲了一句:如果真去內省,想想大自然此刻想讓我幹什麼,考慮到我冰箱裡有食物、有張床可以睡,她大概是想讓我懶著。我做的很多事情,其實都在反抗她。

晚睡不是懶,是生物鐘跟社會作息對不上

沃克先破了個人設。研究睡眠並不會讓你對難熬的夜晚免疫。他自己也經歷過三四次嚴重的失眠,多數是被外部壓力觸發的“反應性失眠”。

他說失眠本質上是一種狀態:睡眠控制了你,而你控制不了睡眠。

更麻煩的是,作為睡眠科學家,失眠的時候你會變成這個領域裡最神經質的那個人。躺在床上睡不著,你腦子裡開始跑:我的背外側前額葉還沒關掉,去甲腎上腺素還沒降下來,交感神經還沒交棒給副交感。到這一步,你接下來兩小時就徹底沒救了,誰也拉不回來。

他還有一件自己都覺得不太光彩的事:有幾年,他一直在跟自己的時型(chronotype)作對。

時型就是你是早起型、晚睡型,還是介於兩者之間。社會極度偏愛早起型,所謂早起的鳥兒有蟲吃。沃克說,也許吧,但第二隻老鼠能吃到乳酪。

很多人跑來跟他說自己有嚴重失眠。他會問,是睡不著還是睡不踏實?對方說睡不著。他就問:如果你在一個荒島上,什麼責任都沒有,你會幾點睡、幾點醒?對方通常答:大概十二點睡,八點醒。他再問:那你現在幾點睡?答:工作得早起,所以我十點就上床了。

沃克說,你沒失眠。你的生物時型和當前作息錯位了。把兩者對齊,問題往往自己就沒了。

他自己有一陣也這麼擰著,覺得沒在六點半爬起來、七點進健身房就是自己有問題。現在他坦然承認,他一般 6 點 45 自然醒,有時拖到 7 點,晨練磨到九點才算完。他設的鬧鐘是 7 點 04 分,理由很簡單:為什麼不在這件事上獨特一點呢。他為此挺得意,別人看他的眼神像在看一個懶漢,他不在乎了。

Lex 說自己大概是極端晚睡型,最舒服的入睡時間是凌晨五點。沃克笑了:那就是極端的 evening type,而且這有個額外好處,你能一路睡過早上那些亂七八糟的事。別人在回郵件的時候你睡得正香,醒來時所有抓馬都已經被解決了。

問題是社會不同步。團隊協作要求大家同時清醒。沃克的原則只有一句:生物規律一旦跟你作對,通常是你輸。你輸掉的方式,是生病。

失眠的四條實戰建議

目前學界最好的方案是失眠認知行為療法(CBTI),找治療師做大概六週,現線上上就能做。它改變你對睡眠的信念、習慣、行為和圍繞睡覺這件事的整體壓力感。短期效果跟安眠藥一樣好,區別在停藥之後:安眠藥一停,收益消失,往往還會反彈性失眠,睡得比原來更糟;CBTI 結束之後,收益能延續好幾年。

沃克分享了他自己用過、確實有效的四條。

第一條,好好處理那個讓你焦慮的事。他觀察到一件奇怪的現象:夜裡想事情跟白天完全一回事。夜晚的念頭更大、更可怕、更容易災難化。晚上輾轉反側的事,第二天陽光下再看,你會問自己昨晚在幹什麼,有那麼嚴重嗎。先對這個情緒狀態建立一點理性的理解,本身就有幫助。

第二條,保持規律,同一時間上床,同一時間起床。然後是一條反直覺的建議:睡砸了一晚之後,第二天什麼都別改。別賴床,別提前睡,白天別補覺,咖啡也別多喝。

道理很直白。你賴床了,到了晚上該困的時候還不困,躺下又是一夜。你提前上床了,生理節律根本不打算讓你現在睡著,那一個小時就是幹躺著。補覺也一樣,它像壓力鍋的閥門,提前放掉了白天該積累的睡眠壓,晚上更難睡沉。他說得挺形象:下午睡一覺,等於正餐前先吃點零食,把飢餓感先墊掉了。

第三條,冥想。他一開始完全看不上,覺得太玄,難道要大家手拉手唱《Kumbaya》。但他讀了資料,被說服了。他開始冥想,六年沒停過,睡前冥想對他尤其有效。有意思的是冥想 App 公司一開始很困惑,他們希望使用者白天用,結果發現早晚兩個使用高峰,晚上那一波,使用者其實是在自我治療失眠。這些公司後來也不反對了,把它當成了一門生意。

第四條,一套睡前緩衝流程。腦子一旦轉起來,躺下就是一堆念頭在飛。他說睡眠像一個開關,更像一架飛機降落,你需要時間慢慢降到那個叫熟睡的地面上。我們給小孩洗澡、講故事、放床上,睡前流程一樣不少,為什麼長大就全扔了?成年人同樣需要。

他總結這四件事:理解焦慮、保持規律、冥想、睡前緩衝。失眠的時候,就靠它們一點點把控制權拿回來。

咖啡:起作用的是豆子,咖啡因背了功

沃克一開口就很反諷:從睡眠科學家嘴裡說出來可能有點怪,我建議你喝咖啡。

咖啡的健康收益現在證據很紮實。那怎麼解釋這個悖論:睡眠那麼好,咖啡因又傷睡眠,可咖啡本身也有一堆跟睡眠重疊的健康好處?

答案很簡單,抗氧化劑。對西方多數人來說,因為飲食不夠理想,他們攝入抗氧化劑的主要來源就是咖啡豆。這顆樸素的豆子被迫扛起了幾乎全鎮人的抗氧化需求。你可以看無咖啡因咖啡的資料,同樣有一整套不錯的健康收益。真正起作用的成分是咖啡豆本身,咖啡因背了這個功。

但咖啡因對睡眠的影響,至少有三層。

多數人會更難入睡。多數人會更難睡踏實。第三層最容易被忽略:就算你屬於那種晚飯喝四杯濃縮照樣秒睡、一夜不醒的人,你的深睡眠也不會那麼深。晚上喝咖啡,會損失 10% 到 30% 的深睡眠。給個參照:想讓深睡眠掉 20%,大概相當於讓你老 15 歲,或者每晚一杯咖啡。

還有劑量。超過三杯之後,健康收益開始掉頭向下,呈一條 U 形曲線。不多不少,剛剛好。

時間這一層更關鍵。咖啡因半衰期平均五到六小時,五六個小時後體內還剩一半。換算成四分之一衰期,就是 10 到 12 小時。你中午喝一杯,到午夜還有四分之一在腦子裡轉。沃克打了個比方:等於你半夜上床,關燈前先灌下四分之一杯咖啡。

為什麼 Lex 覺得自己幾乎對咖啡因免疫?有基因依據。肝臟裡一組叫細胞色素 P450 的酶控制咖啡因代謝,其中一個基因叫 CYP1A2。不同版本決定清除速度。有些人的版本極其高效,半衰期短到兩小時;另一些人,沃克自己舉手,清除得很慢,半衰期能到八九小時。

還有耐受性這一層。喝得越多,身體越會反制。辦法之一是把細胞表面的腺苷受體收回去,這叫受體內部化。原來細胞表面鋪著五個受體,刺激太猛了,收回兩個,只留三個。你就需要兩杯才能達到以前一杯的效果。突然戒斷時,系統已經習慣了某種刺激水平,受體卻還沒補回來,這就是咖啡因戒斷反應。

這跟成癮藥物的機制一模一樣。一個人對海洛因產生耐受,需要更大的量才有同等快感;戒斷一段時間後受體重新長回來,系統變敏感;如果再復吸,還用三個月前的劑量,那個劑量可能直接要命。劑量沒變,變的是系統的敏感度。

至於睡前多久停咖啡,沃克說個體差異太大。但對平均成年人,比較穩妥的建議是上床前 10 小時左右停,也就是下午 2 點前別再喝。如果你睡不好,先把咖啡減下來試試看。

夢是情緒急救,不只是副產品

睡眠研究裡有一派認為夢沒有意義,只是快速眼動睡眠這個生理狀態順帶產生的意識副產品。他們的比方是:你造燈泡是為了發光,發光的同時會產生熱,熱從來不是你造燈泡的理由。

沃克不同意。

理由是一筆簡單的能量賬:夢見東西,作為一種意識體驗,代謝成本比不做夢更高。你完全可以有快速眼動睡眠,但不產生夢的意識體驗,那樣更省能量。而大自然每燒掉一個 ATP,通常都有理由。夢更費能量這件事本身,就暗示它有功能。

功能已經找到了。

一個是創造力,前面講過。

另一個是夜間心理治療。夢是一種情緒急救。人睡著做夢時,大腦會把白天那些艱難、痛苦、有時是創傷性的經歷拿出來,像塗一層夜間的舒緩藥膏,把尖銳的邊角磨掉。你第二天回來,對這些事的感覺會好一些。所以治癒傷口的從來都是做夢睡眠裡的時間,乾巴巴的時間本身不治病。

他還有個重要補充:夢的內容同樣重要。

有研究讓人學一個虛擬迷宮。那些做夢、而且夢見了迷宮本身的人,醒來後在迷宮裡走得更好。做夢但沒夢見迷宮的,沒有變好。夢是必要的,但不充分,你得夢到那個東西。

心理健康也一樣。經歷過艱難事件的人,比如一場痛苦的離婚,那些做夢、而且夢見這件事本身的人,一年後臨床抑鬱的緩解程度更高。做夢一樣多、但沒夢見創傷本身的人,緩解得沒那麼多。

所以夢是實打實的功能,判斷它有沒有用,一半要看內容。

從工程角度看,這就是一個在安全環境裡模擬世界的系統。夢是一座虛擬現實訓練場,幾乎不承擔後果。一個清醒的心智每晚都被贈送這樣一份禮物,這件事很驚人。而且人類大腦非常擅長造出那種既狂野離譜、又依然紮根現實到足以有用的夢。

這正是強化學習裡“自我對弈”在做的事的粗糙版:讓智慧體跟自己的各個版本對打,在模擬中試錯,學出一個能指導現實行動的決策權重。計算機視覺裡的“資料增強”也是這樣:拿一張貓的圖,裁剪、旋轉、扭曲,讓你學會貓的本質,而不只是背下那堆畫素。真正難的是從“通常和貓相關的畫素”走到“貓在三度空間投射到二維影象裡的原型”,這是我們自己也說不清的事。

他還有個說法很有意思。做夢時,大腦裡的理性部門,也就是前額葉皮層,那個相當於 CEO 的部分,關掉了。而情緒中樞、記憶中樞、視覺中樞、運動中樞全都更活躍,有些甚至比清醒時還活躍。相當於從資訊處理的角度看,獄警下班了,犯人們在裡面開派對。

“我們至少擁有兩種意識狀態,一種理性,一種非理性,都在做資訊處理。”(馬特·沃克)

化學層面也一樣。大腦裡去甲腎上腺素(noradrenaline)負責製造高度聚焦、注意力收窄的狀態,像一束很窄的聚光燈。而快速眼動睡眠是一天二十四小時裡唯一一段大腦完全沒有去甲腎上腺素的時期。訊號噪比徹底變了,噪聲被注進神經架構裡,等於用化學手段硬把大腦推入那種放鬆的聯想處理狀態。

沃克說,你如果把一張快速眼動睡眠的腦掃描圖給我,不告訴我是哪個狀態,只讓我判斷這個人在想什麼,我會說:他大概不理性,前額葉關著呢;他大概情緒很濃,杏仁核在亮;他肯定在用影象思考,視覺皮層在後腦勺亮著;他腦子裡大概塞滿了過往經歷和自傳體記憶;他大概還在動,運動皮層很活躍。這些加在一起,就是夢。

夢裡的你是徹底的瘋子,但你還是你

沃克說,你昨晚入睡進入夢鄉那一刻,你變成了一個徹底的瘋子,有五個充分的理由。

你看見不存在的東西,那是幻覺。你相信不可能為真的事,那是妄想。你對時間、地點、人物完全混亂,那是定向障礙。你的情緒劇烈波動,精神病學上叫情感失穩。最妙的是,你早上醒來,幾乎把這一切都忘了,那是失憶。

這五樣裡任意一樣出現在清醒時,你大概得去看醫生。

但就在這麼一片精神病般的混亂底下,有一個你始終沒丟:你在夢裡幾乎從不變成別人。極少數情況下你能做第三人稱視角的夢,好像從身體上方飄起來看自己,但那種“我”的感覺幾乎不會消失。

Lex 順著這個往 AI 那邊想。他問,意識到底是不是智慧的必要條件?AI 圈大多數人認為兩者獨立,可以造一個超級智慧但完全沒有意識。Lex 不同意。他說,如果把超級智慧定義成下棋下得好,那當然可以沒有。但把它定義成能在一個活生生的人類世界裡做事、能完成各種跨領域任務,意識似乎就是嵌入人類經驗、嵌入社會的前提。可我們連意識是什麼都還不知道,更別說怎麼在機器裡造出來。

沃克說他喜歡這個問題還處在這麼早期的階段。對他而言,答案只是通向更多問題的方式。問題讓他興奮,答案不會。

他甚至覺得,大家一窩蜂想複製人類意識,本身就是思維盲區。我們已經有人類意識了,為什麼非得把人工智慧的終極形態定義成人類意識的複製品?為什麼不去設想一個完全不同的、更了不起的、跟人類意識正交的東西?

Lex 說他喜歡這個思路。他做機器人,想給機器人的恰恰是深度體驗世界、體驗人的能力,而那種體驗未必要長得像人類。人跟機器人之間的連線,可以像人跟狗、人跟貓那種連線一樣,裡面有種說不清的魔法。

沃克還補了一句讓人放鬆的話:一百年後,不管我們今天做什麼,人們回頭看都會覺得我們的想法幼稚得可笑。既然如此,那就有了徹底的自由,你甚至不需要正確,只需要去試。Lex 說,試本身就是自由。

缺覺偷走的是快樂,不只是心情

講到情緒,沃克給了一個很多人會意外的資料。

把情緒粗分成正負兩類。你缺覺的時候,隨著清醒時間拉長、睡眠變少,負面情緒確實會上升。但多數人以為負面情緒受損最重,實際不是。受損程度大一個數量級的是正面情緒。你不再從本來讓你愉悅的事情裡獲得愉悅。這個狀態叫快感缺失(anhedonia),而快感缺失往往就是抑鬱的核心。抑鬱跟大多數人想的不一樣,它很多時候表現為失去了感受好事的能力,而不停地被負面情緒淹沒只是其中一部分。

而且這個變化來得非常快。

Lex 說他能對上號。缺覺的時候,他倒不至於抑鬱,但會朝那個方向滑一步:那些給他意義的事情開始失去意義。這件事反而讓他意識到生活裡有多少值得享受的東西,因為一旦暫時失去,你才知道沒有它的時候日子有多難熬。好在他始終清醒地知道,睡一覺就能修好。

他甚至會利用這個狀態。缺覺加上斷食的時候,他看人特別清楚,能清楚識別出生活裡哪些事不對、哪些合作的人沒盡力、哪些人在消耗他。他不據此行動,因為那不是做決定的時機,但他會把資訊記下來。狀態好的時候他看誰都美,這也會給自己惹麻煩。

沃克補了一記更重的。缺覺與自殺意念、自殺嘗試,以及最不幸的自殺完成,都有很強的關聯。研究睡眠二十年,他們沒有發現任何一種精神疾病是睡眠正常的。這意味著睡眠很可能是精神疾病的潛在致病因素,也應該被當作預防嚴重精神疾病的工具。

他引用

他引用了一句他特別喜歡的話,來自美國企業家 E. Joseph Cossman:絕望與希望之間最好的橋,是一夜好眠。他說自己寫了幾百頁書,灑了那麼多墨,其實想說的就是這一句,人家一句話就說完了。

你熬的夜,到底是為了什麼

這場對話最有張力的部分,是關於“人到底該怎麼活”的正面交鋒。

Lex 很坦率。他喜歡自己那種混亂的作息。他愛自己做的幾乎每一件事,那種愛在外人看來往往不像愛。它包含掙扎,看起來像壓力但又不是壓力,是激情帶來的躁動和混亂,是卡在一個問題上難受到接近抑鬱,是過去幾周幾個月全是失敗和自我懷疑。但他愛這一切。所以他有時會通宵寫程式碼,有時白天睡,有時一晚只睡很少,再補一兩個小時的覺。他查過,丘吉爾的作息跟他很像。特斯拉據說一晚只睡兩小時,愛迪生三小時,但愛迪生其實是多相睡眠,白天打很多盹,家裡還擺了午睡床。

沃克接得很真誠。他說自己也一樣,愛自己做的事。就算有人給他足夠的錢讓他餘生不用工作,他什麼都不會改。

“當科學家是我的身份,不只是我的職業。”(馬特·沃克)

睡眠、健身、洗澡、吃飯,都是他這場跟睡眠的戀愛之間的間隙動作。他說他愛上睡眠,像愛上某個人一樣,二十年了還完全沉醉其中。有時腦子裡實驗想法在沸騰,他會因此睡不著。

但他不能從科學上為那種作息背書。他說那樣做是對不起你,因為“它不會沒有爆炸半徑,不會沒有健康代價”。

他提到撒切爾夫人和里根,兩人都很自豪地炫耀自己睡得少,四小時左右。而沃克知道睡眠和阿爾茨海默病之間的關聯,他常常想,這兩人最後都死於阿爾茨海默病,這是不是隻是巧合。也許睡眠剝奪的橡皮筋能拉很久,但最終會斷。或許它不讓你在 32 歲因微睡眠撞車被甩出基因池,也不讓你在 42 歲心梗、52 歲癌症或中風,它也許在七十多歲才來找你。

特斯拉死於冠狀動脈血栓。哈佛有一項研究,跟蹤一群一開始完全沒有心血管疾病跡象的人多年,結果發現每晚睡不到六小時的那組人,冠狀動脈鈣化的風險增加了 300%。冠脈就是你心臟的生命走廊,所謂“死於大面積心梗”,就是冠脈被堵住了。

丘吉爾一生與抑鬱纏鬥,他管它叫“黑狗”,會定期來拜訪他。他是一位出色的畫家,有些畫裡就畫出了自己的黑暗。愛迪生輕視睡眠,但他是個習慣性午睡者,有照片拍到他趴在發明工作臺上打盹。而就在幾個月前,又有一項哈佛研究清楚表明,多相睡眠跟更差的身體結果、認知結果,尤其是更差的情緒結果相關。

Lex 承認自己不是按資料最優的方式生活,也承認有孩子會強制他規律起來。他觀察到很多成功的人有了孩子之後反而生產力上升,被逼著把生活整理好,把有限的清醒小時用得更狠。

但他接著提了一個更尖銳的問題。

他說,幾乎沒有人,尤其是關心他的人,會跑來跟他說:你有夢想,再拼一點。所有人都在說:多睡點。他們是對的。可健康應該是好生活的一個組成部分,未必是全部。矽谷那些工作環境裡,他覺得“工作生活平衡”被過度強調了。那個詞講著講著就變形了:對,社交、家庭、吃好睡好當然好,但也該去發現你的激情,也該給自己一個拼盡全力追一個夢、犯錯、冒大險的機會,哪怕短期看起來在犧牲健康。

沃克回應得很乾脆:“是否錯誤”和“是否不健康”是兩個問題。我不同意前者,同意後者。

他說,從生物學醫學角度,睡得那麼少是有健康代價的,這個他不含糊。但他覺得,去告訴一個人“你做錯了”,本身就不對。只要他沒傷害別人,那就是那個人自己的選擇。他說自己不會評判任何人怎麼活。

Lex 又往前推了一步。他說他想說一句更強的話:別把自己放在審判席上判斷別人健不健康,去被那個人達到的高度打動。

看奧運會。運動員為了登頂付出的東西,可能是在拿壽命換。奧運之後常常有抑鬱,生理一團糟,心理、生理、私人生活全亂。可美就是抵達高處,而抵達高處有時真的需要犧牲健康。那種犧牲不是坐在桌前拿張紙算計,說我要用七年壽命換一塊金牌。它是一段混亂的、不做這種計算的旅程。

沃克認同,說如果你舉這面旗,他敬禮。因為核心問題是你到底想最佳化什麼。唯一潛在的危險是,你從來沒問過自己這個問題。

很多人一頭扎進內卷,從沒停下來問“我為什麼在做這個”。如果你只是朝九晚五,然後被拖成朝九晚九,乾的又是一份磨人的工作,那是一回事。但如果是夢想、是人生使命,只要你知道自己可能在對自己做什麼,而且你接受,他完全沒意見。

他說自己作為科學家,不能、不該、也不會告訴任何人該怎麼活。他只想讓你多知道一點,把那些“未知的未知”變成“已知”。然後你帶著這些資訊,還選不選這條路?如果你還想,那就行了。他只提供資訊。

他最後說了句很動情的話。如果你 32 歲開始幹這份工作,某天早上一睜眼已經 65 歲,心想我這一輩子去哪了,我到底在幹什麼。他說那樣的場景讓他想抱抱你。他不願那樣的事發生在你身上,他希望你有機會先想清楚自己在做什麼,別留下那種後悔。

他還講了一個常被忽略的事實。很多關於晚年和臨終的研究都顯示,大多數人回頭看一生,不會後悔自己沒更拼命地工作,後悔的是沒多花時間陪家人、陪朋友。當然他說這也不是對每個人的答案。醫學領域裡有太多人為了攻克某個難題犧牲了自己的壽命,我們今天所有的人都在受益。

他舉了個更簡單的例子。今晚凌晨四點如果他闌尾破裂,他會無比感激有一支急診團隊把他推進手術室。那些人沒在睡覺,他們在救命。他們某種程度上是從自己的生命裡剪下一小塊,貼給了別人。他對這種選擇沒有任何異議。

把睡眠當投資,而不是成本

沃克反覆回到一個樸素的換算:睡眠是投資,不是成本。你睡飽時的效率和效果,通常超過你沒睡飽時。要燒開一鍋水,為什麼要用中火慢慢燒,而不開大火一半時間燒開?

他給那些鼓吹“長工時、早起拼搏”的公司提了個資料:清醒 20 小時之後,一個人的認知受損程度,跟法定醉酒差不多。他說他不認識哪家公司、哪個 CEO 會說“我這個團隊很棒,他們一直醉著”。但大家卻把那種連著飛三個時區、凌晨兩點還在回郵件、六點又坐在辦公室的“機場戰士”當成英雄。這裡有一種“睡眠陽剛之氣”在作祟。

他不否認有人是為了純粹的熱愛在熬,那種他敬佩。他反對的是愛迪生那種“睡眠是浪費時間”的想法。如果你不睡是因為你覺得睡覺很蠢,那完全錯了。如果你不睡是因為你深深熱愛某件事,那是灰色地帶,但至少值得尊重。

關鍵只有一句:你得知道自己在拿什麼換什麼,然後確認,你換的那個東西,值得。

Lex 也在這裡做了一個自我坦白。他說他享受著這種瘋狂的生活,請大家別批評他,擁抱他。他知道自己在做什麼犧牲,他喜歡通宵寫程式碼、累了直接在地毯上睡過去的那種生活。但他也承認自己不是按科學資料最優的方式在活,而只是按自己想要的方式在活,這兩件事不一樣。

沃克說他懂。然後他補了一句很溫柔的話:他不想讓 Lex 少活,他想讓 Lex 擁有儘可能多的高質量生命。如果高質量的人生意味著在這個星球上只待五十年,但這五十年裡每天都興奮、每天都被自己在做的事情點亮,那就是一段值得走的五十年。

死亡是一面鏡子,不是一個句號

Lex 說他經常思考死亡,冥想死亡,今天死也可以。他說他不那麼怕死,五十年後也不會更怕。當然還有很多想體驗的事,但一切已經很棒了。所以對他而言,長壽不是重要目標。他說得很平靜:我現在不怕死,五十年後也不會更怕。

沃克說他一樣。他也常常想到死亡,但不為死亡本身焦慮。除了死前可能的痛苦讓他有點在意,很多人會受那個苦,這一點讓他牽掛。他把死亡當工具用,當作一面透鏡。把自己放到未來那個死亡的時點上,回頭審視現在的生活,然後問:有沒有什麼我會後悔、所以現在就該改的?

他說得挺清楚,他關心的不是死,是用死來給生活排優先順序。把它當成一次校正,看看有沒有哪條路走偏了,現在還來得及調回來。

Lex 說這跟他想的完全一樣:想清楚你今天該怎麼活,才能讓未來的你不後悔今天的活法。把未來的自己放到生命終點那個位置上,回頭看,很多現在看不清的東西會突然清楚。

兩人都提到了在生命裡對“正直”的看重。沃克說,建立一份聲譽要二十年,毀掉它只要兩分鐘。他說自己最怕的不是出錯,是錯了之後還多錯一天。“我不想在錯誤裡多待,一秒鐘都不想。”這是科學家的本能,被真相驅動,而不是被立場驅動。

他還講了一個關於科學的觀察。數學裡你證出一個定理,它從那一刻起就是真理。科學裡你永遠找不到真理,你能做的只是排除掉那些不太可能為真的選項,留下“可能為真”的空間。但他喜歡科學這種混亂,因為它關心的重點從來是追問,而不是結論。

Lex 說他和沃克有一個共同點:極度自我懷疑,冒名頂替綜合徵,把自己放得很低。但同時又有一股勁,推著自己拼命往前跑。一邊覺得自己不夠好,一邊拼命變好。沃克說他希望自己就是這樣的人,安安靜靜地被驅動,愛著完美的念頭,知道自己永遠達不到,但永遠不會停止靠近。

科學傳播這件事,他也有點怕

聊到最後,Lex 提到沃克剛開了一檔播客。他先誇了一句:你是一位很棒的科普者。

然後他問了一個很私人的問題。Lex 說自己很怕跟人說話,甚至在跟沃克對話之前都很焦慮、自我懷疑,但他還是做了。他問沃克,明明對拋頭露面這件事也有點發怵,又想把睡眠這件事講出去,這個矛盾怎麼處理?

沃克說,他跟 Lex 一樣,更怕的是不去試。不去試這件事本身,比試了失敗更讓他害怕。

他的播客有兩個很簡單的目標:把睡眠科學民主化,把人類和那個它極度匱乏的睡眠重新撮合到一起。形式跟長訪談不一樣,是十分鐘以內的短獨白,一個月兩期,當作伴隨你一天的“一小片睡眠好處”。

他說做科普沒有標準答案。安德魯·胡伯曼(Andrew Huberman)能連著講兩小時,資訊密集、引用翔實、激情不減,像一挺永不停火的加特林機槍,而且子彈顆顆都是精品,他非常敬佩。但他也坦白,自己不會這麼做,也不會建議別人這麼做,因為那樣的工作強度會把人壓垮。他拿丹·卡林(Dan Carlin)的《硬核歷史》打比方,丹對自己要求太高,壓力大到一年只能出兩期。

他說,任何一頁十個事實、一本書三百五十頁,出廠時不可能零錯誤。他自己第一版書裡就有錯,第二版改了。關鍵是有沒有一顆謙卑的心,承認錯了就改,做正確的事。他相信胡伯曼也是這個心態。

聊到這裡,兩人都覺得這個圈子挺有意思。胡伯曼、沃克、大衛·辛克萊(David Sinclair)也在考慮做音訊節目。Lex 說他很期待。播客這種媒介比期刊自由得多,比講座又親近得多,非常有感染力。他說有一群搞科學的人變成朋友、互相支援、各自把東西講出去,這件事很讓人開心。

沃克笑著說,至於能不能堅持下去,答案可能不是堅持,是“演變成別的什麼”。但他會堅持。

一點私人的補充:他也失眠,也怕被說懶

這場對話裡,沃克幾次卸下了專家的鎧甲。

他說研究睡眠這一行的人,一點都不比普通人更抗熬。他自己也有過三四段嚴重的失眠,通常是被壓力觸發的。當睡眠科學家躺在床上睡不著,腦子裡會自動開始播報:我的背外側前額葉還沒關,去甲腎上腺素還沒降,交感神經還沒交棒給副交感。他說到這一步,你接下來兩個小時就完了,誰也救不了你。他講這段的時候帶著點自嘲。

他也講了自己對時型的掙扎。社會偏愛早起的人,他曾經也強迫自己六點半起床、七點出現在健身房,否則就覺得自己有問題。現在他不再這樣想了。他說如果非要說自己有什麼關於睡眠的羞恥,那就是有幾年他在跟自己的生物鐘較勁。

他的結論很樸素:跟生物規律對著幹,通常贏的是生物規律,而它贏的方式是讓你生病。所以現在他寧願被人看作懶,也把覺睡對。

聊到生命的意義時,他給了一個很沃克式的答案。

他說,對他個人而言,生命的意義是吃、是睡、是墜入愛河、是哭,然後是死。哦,中間大概還要開開賽車。他頓了頓,說還有個話題今天沒聊,性。也許下次再來聊,單開三個小時。

Lex 笑著答應了。

節目最後,Lex 唸了一段特斯拉的話。就是那位據說每晚只睡兩小時的尼古拉·特斯拉:過去一切偉大的東西都曾被嘲笑、被譴責、被打擊、被壓制,最後才在掙扎中更有力、更凱旋地浮現出來。

這句話放在這裡有點微妙。一個拿睡眠換事業的人,說出了一段關於掙扎與勝利的話。而就在三個小時之前,沃克剛剛告訴大家,特斯拉很可能死於冠脈血栓,而長期睡不夠六小時的人,冠脈鈣化風險高出三倍。

兩件事同時是真的。這才是整場對話最有意思的地方。

如果只能帶走幾件事

  • 昨晚沒睡好,今天什麼都別改:不賴床,不提前睡,白天不補覺,咖啡不多喝。讓睡眠壓力照常積累,晚上才睡得回去。
  • 先判斷自己是不是真的失眠。問一句:如果毫無責任在身,我自然想幾點睡、幾點醒?再對照現在的作息。很多“失眠”其實是生物鐘和作息錯位,把兩者對齊,問題往往自己就沒了。
  • 睡前留出至少半小時的緩衝流程,別從高強度工作直接切到躺下。睡眠是降落,不是關燈。你給孩子的睡前流程,自己也該有。
  • 把咖啡因截止時間定在下午兩點左右。如果你屬於代謝快的少數人,可以往後挪,但別用“我喝了照樣睡得著”來說服自己。深睡眠的損失你感覺不到,但它扣掉了 10% 到 30%。
  • 想借睡眠攻一個硬問題,就在睡前那一小時刻意、集中地想它,把問題喂進去。也留個心眼:當晚被頂掉的情緒處理,第二天可能會以別的方式找回來。
  • 別在缺覺的時候做人際判斷。你會看得更清楚,也更容易看偏。把觀察到的東西記下來,等睡飽了再決定信不信。
  • 情緒持續低落,先查睡眠,再查別的。快感缺失來得比負面情緒更快,也更容易被誤認為別的問題。缺覺時最先被偷走的,是你從喜歡的事裡獲得快樂的能力。
  • 看到別人熬夜拼命,先別急著評判健不健康;聽到別人勸你多睡,也別急著反駁。真正該問的是那個沒人替你問的問題:你現在最佳化的到底是什麼,你清楚代價,還願意付嗎?
文稿來自公開 Kaggle 資料集(rajneesh231/lex-fridman-podcast-transcript),為早期自動轉錄存檔,可能存在識別錯誤。
The following is a conversation with Matt Walker, sleep scientist, professor of neuroscience and psychology at Berkeley, author of Why We Sleep, and the host of a new podcast called The Matt Walker Podcast. It's 10 minute episodes a couple of times a month, covering sleep and other health and science topics. I love it and recommend it highly. It's up there with the greats, like the Huberman Lab Podcast with Andrew Huberman, and I think David Sinclair is putting out an audio series soon too. I can't wait to listen to it. I'm really excited by the future of science in the podcasting world. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors, Stamps.com, Squarespace, Athletic Greens, BetterHelp, and Onnit. Their links are in the description. As a side note, let me say that to me, a healthy life is one in which you fall in love with the world around you, with ideas, with people, with small goals and big goals, no matter how difficult, with dreams you hold onto and chase for years. Life should be lived fully. That, to me, is the priority. That, to me, is a healthy life. Second to that is the understanding and the utilization of the best available science on diet, exercise, supplements, sleep, and other lifestyle choices. To me, science in the realm of health is a guide for what we should try, not the absolute truth of how to live life. The goal is to learn to listen to your body and figure out what works best for you. All that said, a good night's sleep can be a great tool in making life awesome and productive, and Matt is a great advocate of the how and the why of sleep. We agree on some things and disagree on others, but he's a great human being, a great scientist, and, as of recently, a friend with whom I enjoy having these wide ranging conversations. This is the Lux Friedman podcast, and here is my conversation with Matt Walker. You should try these shades on. Let's see what you look like. So they are now your shades, and that's not the question. It's the same thing as Putin took the Super Bowl ring, and it's now his ring. Yeah, one wonders if he was offered it, but they are yours. When did you first fall in love with the dream of understanding sleep? Like, where did the fascination with sleep begin? So back in the United Kingdom, you can sort of start doing medicine at age 18, and it's a five year program, and I was at the Queen's Medical Center in the UK, and I remember just being fascinated by states of consciousness, and particularly anesthesia. I was thinking, isn't that, within seconds, I can take a perfectly conscious human being, and I can remove all existence of the mentality and their awareness within seconds, and that stunned me. So I started to get really interested in conscious states. I even started to read a lot about hypnosis, and all of these things, hypnosis, even sleep and dreams at the time, they were very esoteric. It was sort of charlatan science at that stage, and I think almost all of my colleagues and I are accidental sleep researchers. No one, as I recall, in the classroom when you're sort of five years old, and the teacher says, what would you like to be when you grow up? No one's putting their hand up and saying, I would love to be a sleep researcher. And so when I was doing my PhD, I was trying to identify different forms of dementia very early on in the course, and I was using electrical brainwave recordings to do that, and I was failing miserably. It was a disaster, just no result after no result. And I used to go home to the doctor's residence with this sort of little igloo of journals that at the weekend I would sort of sit in and read, and which I'm now thinking, do I really want to admit this? Because it sounds like I had no social life, which I didn't, I was a social leper. But, and I started to realize that some parts of the brain were sleep related areas, and some dementias were eating away those sleep related areas. Other dementias would leave them untouched. And I thought, well, I'm doing this all wrong. I'm measuring my patients while they're awake. Instead, I should be measuring them while they're asleep. Started doing that, got some amazing results. And then I wanted to ask the question, is that sleep disruption that my patients are experiencing as they go into dementia, maybe it's not a symptom of the dementia. I wonder if it's a cause of the dementia. And at that point, which was, cough, cough, 20 years ago, no one could answer a very simple fundamental question. Why do we sleep? And I at the time didn't realize that some of the most brilliant minds in scientific history had tried to answer that question and failed. And at that point, I just thought, well, I'm going to go and do a couple of years of sleep research and I'll figure out why we sleep. And then I'll come back to my patients in this question of dementia. And as I said, that was 20 years ago. And what I realized is that hard questions care very little about who asks them. They will meter out their lessons of difficulty all the same. And I was schooled in the difficulty of the question, why do we sleep? But in truth, 20 years later, we've had to upend the question rather than saying, why do we sleep? And by the way, the answer then was that we sleep to cure sleepiness, which is like saying, we eat to cure hunger. That tells you nothing about the physiological benefits of food, same with sleep. Now we've actually have to ask the question, is there any physiological system in the body or any major operation of the mind that isn't wonderfully enhanced when we get sleep or demonstrably impaired when we don't get enough? And so far, for the most part, the answer seems to be no. So far, the answer seems to be no. So why does the body and the mind crave sleep? Crave sleep then? Why do we sleep? How can we begin to answer that question then? So I think one of the ways that I think about this or one of the answers that came to me is the following. The reason that we implode so quickly and so thoroughly with insufficient sleep is because human beings seem to be one of the few species that will deliberately deprive themselves of sleep for no apparent good reason, biological. And what that led me then to was the following. Mother nature as a consequence. So no other species does what we do in that context. There are a few species that do undergo sleep deprivation, but for very obvious, clear biological reasons. One is when they're in a condition of severe starvation. The second is when they're caring for their newborn. So for example, killer whales will often deprive themselves. The female will go away from the pod, give birth, and then bring the calf back. And during that time, the mother will undergo sleep deprivation. And then the third one is during migration when birds are flying trans oceanographic 2,000, 3,000 miles. But for the most part, it's never seen in the animal kingdom, which brings me back to the point, therefore mother nature in the course of evolution has never had to face the challenge of this thing called sleep deprivation. And therefore she has never created a safety net in place to circumnavigate this common influence. And there is a good example where we have, which is called the adipose cell, the fat cell. Because during our evolutionary past, we had famine and we had feast. And mother nature came up with a very clever recipe, which is how can I store caloric credit so that I can spend it when I go into debt? And the fat cell was born, brilliant idea. Where is the fat cell for sleep? Where is that sort of banking chip for sleep? And unfortunately we don't seem to have one because she's never had to face that challenge. So even if there's not some kind of physics, fundamental need for sleep that physiologically or psychologically, the fact is most organisms are built such that they need it. And then mother nature never built an extra mechanism for sleep deprivation. So it's interesting that why we sleep might not have a good answer, but we need to sleep to be healthy is nevertheless true. Yeah, and we have many answers right now. In some ways the question of why we sleep was the wrong question too. It's what are the plory potent many reasons we sleep? We don't just sleep for one reason because from an evolutionary perspective, it is the most idiotic thing that you could imagine. When you're sleeping, you're not finding a mate, you're not reproducing, you're not caring for your young, you're not foraging for food, and worse still, you're vulnerable to predation. So on any one of those grounds, especially as a collective, sleep should have been strongly selected against in the course of evolution. But in every species that we've studied carefully to date, sleep is present. Yeah, so it is important. So like you're right. I think I've heard arguments from an evolutionary biology perspective that sleep is actually advantageous, maybe like some kind of predator prey relationships. But you're saying, and it actually makes way more sense what you're saying is it should have been selected against. Like why close your eyes? Yeah, why? Because there was an energy conservation hypothesis for a while, which is that we need to essentially go into low battery mode, power down, because it's unsustainable. But in fact, that actually has been blasted out the water because sleep is an incredibly active process. In fact, the difference between you just lying on the couch but remaining conscious versus you lying on the couch and falling asleep, it's only a savings of about 140, 150 calories. In other words, you just go out and club another baby seal or whatever it was, and you wouldn't worry. So it has to be much more to it than energy conservation, much more to it than sharing ecosystem space and time, much more to it than simply predator prey relationships. If sleep really did, and looking back, even very old evolutionary organisms like earthworms, millions of years old, they have periods where they're active and periods where they're passively asleep. It's called lethargicus. And so what that in some ways suggested to me was sleep evolved with life itself on this planet, and then it has fought its way through heroically every step along the evolutionary pathway, which then leads to the sort of famous sleep statement from a researcher that if sleep doesn't serve an absolutely vital function or functions, then it's the biggest mistake the evolutionary process has ever made. And we've now realized Mother Nature didn't make a spectacular blender with sleep. You've mentioned the idea of conscious states. Do you think of sleep as a fundamentally different conscious state than awakeness? And how many conscious states are there so when you're into it, you're understanding of what the mind can do, do you think awake state, sleep state, or is there some kind of continuum? There's a complicated state transition diagram. Like how do you think about this whole space? I think about it as a state space diagram. And I think it's probably more of a continuum than we have believed it to be or suggested it to be. So we used to think absent of anesthesia that there were already three main states of consciousness. There was being awake, being in non rapid eye movement sleep or non dream sleep, and then being in rapid eye movement sleep or dream sleep. And those were the three states within which your brain could percolate and be conscious. Conscious during non REM sleep is maybe a stretch to say, but I still believe there is plenty of consciousness there. I don't believe that though anymore. And the reason is because we can have daydreams and we are in a very different wakeful state in those daydreams than we are when we are as we are now together present and extra septively focused rather than intra septively focused. And then we also know that as you are sort of progressing into those different stages of sleep during non REM sleep, you can also still dream, depends on your definition of dreaming, but we seem to have some degree of dreaming in almost all stages of sleep. We've also then found that when you are sleep deprived, there are even individual brain cells will fall asleep. Despite the animal being, you know, behaviorally from best we can tell awake, individual brain cells and clusters of brain cells will go into a sleep like state. And humans do this too. When we are sleep deprived, we have what are called microsleeps where the eyelid will partially close and the brain essentially falls lapses into a state of sleep, but behaviorally you seem to be awake. And the danger here is road traffic accidents. So these are the, what we call these sort of microsleep events at the wheel. Now, if you're traveling at 65 miles an hour in a two ton vehicle, you know, it takes probably around one second to drift from one lane to the next and it takes two seconds to go completely off the road. So if you have one of these microsleeps at the wheel, you know, it could be the last microsleep that you ever have. But I don't now see it as a set of, you know, very binary distinct, you know, step function state. It's not a one or a zero. I see it more of a, as a continuum. So I've for five, six years at MIT really focused on this human side of driving question. And one of the big concerns is the microsleeps, drowsiness, these kinds of ideas. And one of the open questions was, is it possible through computer vision to detect or any kind of sensors? The nice thing about computer vision is you don't have to have direct contact to the person. Is it possible to detect increases in drowsiness? Is it possible to detect these kinds of microsleeps or actually just sleep in general? Among other things, like distraction, these are all words that have so many meanings and so many debates, like attention is a whole nother one. Just because you're looking at something doesn't mean you're loading in the information. Just because you're looking away doesn't mean your peripheral vision can't pick up the important information. There's so many complicated vision science things there. So I wonder if you could say something to, they say the eyes are the windows to the soul. Do you think the eyes can reveal something about sleepiness through computer vision, just looking at the video of the face? And Andrew Huberman and I, your friend, have talked about this. I would love to work on this together. It's a fascinating problem. But drowsiness is a tricky one. So there's, what kind of information? There's blinking and there's eye movement. And those are the ones that can be picked up with computer vision. Do you think those are signals that could be used to say something about where we are in this continuum? Yeah, I do. And I think there are a number of other features too. I think, you know, aperture of eye. So in other words, partial closures, full closures, duration of those closures, duration of those partial closures of the eyelid. I think there may be some information in the pupil as well, because as we're transitioning between those states, there are changes in what's called the automatic nervous system, or technically it's called the autonomic nervous system, part of which will control your pupillary size. So I actually think that there is probably a wealth of information. When you combine that probably with aspects of steering, angle steering maneuver. And if you can sense the pressure on the pedals as well, my guess is that there is some combinatorial feature that creates a phenotype of, you are starting to fall asleep. And as the autonomous controls develop, that it's time for them to kick in. Some manufacturers, auto manufacturers sort of have something beta version, maybe an alpha version of this already starting to come online, where they have a little camera in the wheel that I think tries to look at some features. Almost everybody doing this and it's very alpha. So, you know, the thing that you currently have, some people have that in their car, there's a coffee cup or something that comes up that you might be sleepy. The primary signal that they're comfortable using is the steering wheel reversals. So basically using your interaction with the steering wheel and how much you're interacting with it as a sign of sleepiness. So if you have to constantly correct the car, that's a sign of like you starting to drift into microsleep. I think that's a very, very crude signal. It's probably a powerful one. There's a whole nother component to this, which is it seems like it's so driver and subject dependent. How our behavior changes as we get sleepy and drowsy seems to be different in complicated, fascinating ways where you can't just use one signal. It's kind of like what you're saying, there has to be a lot of different signals that you should then be able to combine. The hope is there's the searches for like universal signals that are pretty damn good for like 90% of people. But I don't think we need to take necessarily quite that approach. I think what we could do in some clever fashion is using the individual. So what you and I are perhaps suggesting here is that there is an array of features that we know provide information that is sensitive to whether or not you're falling asleep at the wheel. Some of those, let's say that there are 10 of them, for me, seven of them are the cardinal features. For you, however, you know, six of them and they're not all the same sort of overlapping are those for you. I think what we need is algorithms The third benefit, however, is that sleep, we've learned more recently is much more intelligent than we ever gave it credit for. Sleep doesn't simply just take individual memories and strengthen them. Sleep will then intelligently integrate and cross link and associate that information together. And it's almost like informational alchemy. So that you wake up the next morning with a revised mind wide web of associations. And that's probably the reason that, you know, you've never been told to stay awake on a problem. And in every language that I've inquired about that phrase or something very similar seems to exist, which means to me that this creative associative benefit of sleep transcends cultural boundaries. It is a common experience across humanity. Now I should note that I think the French translation of that is much closer to you. I think you sleep with a problem. Whereas the British, you sleep on a problem. The French, you sleep with a problem. I think it says so much about the romantic difference between the British and the French, but let's not go there. That's brilliant. So such a subtle, but such a fundamental difference. Yeah. Oh, goodness me. Sleep with the problem. Yes, exactly. That's why I love the French. So, and we can sort of double click on any one of these and go into detail, but the fourth, I became really enchanted by about eight years ago in our research, which was this idea of forgetting. And I started to think that forgetting may be the price that we pay for remembering. And in that sense, there is an enormous benefit to letting go. And you may be thinking, that sounds ridiculous. I don't want to forget. In fact, my biggest problem is I keep forgetting things, but the brain has a, well, we believe, has a finite storage capacity. We can't prove it yet, but my suspicion is that that's probably true. It doesn't have an infinite storage capacity. It has constraints. If that's the case, we can't simply go through life being constantly informational aggregators unless we are programmed to say, we've got a hard drive space of about 85 to 90 years and we're good and we can do that. Maybe that's true. I don't think that's true. I think forgetting is an incredibly good and useful thing. So for example, it's not beneficial from an evolutionary perspective for me to remember where I parked my car three years ago. So it's important that I can remember today's parking spot, but I don't want to have the junk kind of DNA from a memory perspective of where I parked my car two years ago. Now, I actually have in some ways a problem with forgetting, and again, I'm not trying to sort of be laudatory, but you know, I tend not to forget too many things. And I don't think that that's a good thing. And there's a wonderful neurologist, Luria, who wrote a book called The Mind of the Mnemonicist. And it was a brilliant book, both because it was written exquisitely, but he was studying these sort of memory savants who basically could remember everything that he gave them. And he tried to find a chink in their armor. And the first half of the book is essentially about him seeing how far he can push them before they fail. And he never found that place. He could never find a place where they stopped remembering. And then in his brilliance, he turned the question on its head. He said, not what is the benefit of constantly remembering, but instead, what is the detriment to never forgetting? And when you start to realize his descriptions of those individuals, it's probably a life that you would not want. But it's fascinating both from a human perspective, but also AI perspective. There's a big challenge in the machine learning community of how to build systems that are able to remember for prolonged periods of time, lifelong continuous learning. So where you build up information over time. So memory is one of the biggest open problems in AI and machine learning. But at the same time, the right way to formulate memory is actually forgetting because you have to be exceptionally selective at which kind of stuff you remember. And that's where the step of assimilation, integration that you're referring to is really important. I mean, we forget most of the things. And the question is exactly the cost of forgetting at the very edge of stuff that could be important or could not be, how do we remember or not those things? Like for example, doing a podcast, I've become cognizant of one feature of my forgetting that's been problematic, which is I forget names and titles of books and so on. So when I read, I remember ideas. I remember quotes, I remember statements and like that's the space in which I'm thinking. But when you communicate to others, you have to say this person in this book said that. So it's the same thing with like Andrew Huberman is masterful at this. This is important academia, remembering the authors of a paper and the title of the paper as part of remembering the idea. And I've been feeling the cost of not being able to naturally remember those things. And so that's something I need to sort of work on, but that's an example. Are you good with faces? Yes, very good at faces. But not good with names. So I am exactly like you. And there is an understanding of that in the brain too. We understand that there is partitioning of those in terms of the territory of the brain that takes care of faces and facts and places and that they can be separate. So I will never forget a face, but as I said, I usually forget very little, but for some reason, names are a struggle. I think in some ways, because I'm probably just a slightly anxious person. So when you first meet someone, which is usually the time when a name is introduced, you were saying you were sort of anxious maybe about sort of sitting down with me, but I find that a little bit activating. And so it's not as though there's anything wrong with my memory. It's just the emotional state I'm in when I'm first meeting someone. It's a little bit perturbing, but I will never forget the face. I completely relate to that because I almost don't hear people's names when they tell me because I'm so anxious. Yeah. But I think there's certain quirks of social interaction that show that you care about the person, that you remember that person, that they matter to you, that they had an impact on you. And one of the ways to show that is you remember their name. But that's a quirk to me because a lot of people I meet have a deep impact on me, but I can't communicate that unless I know their name, unless I know some of the details that we humans seem to use to communicate that we remember each other. What I remember well is the feeling we shared, is the experience we shared. What I don't remember well is the detailed labels of those experiences. And I need to certainly work on that. I don't know. I think it's just allowing yourself to be innate and who you are is also a beautiful thing too. I'm not suggesting it's not important to try and better oneself. But I also sometimes worry about the misery that that puts us in. But like you, I do struggle with name, but I know the first time when we met in the lobby, I know exactly what you look like. I know that you were wearing headphones. I know the shape and the size of those headphones. You didn't have your black jacket on. I know exactly what the weave of your shirt looked like and what your shoes look like. And I knew exactly the height of your, the end of your pants from the top of your shoes. And so those things I don't forget. And I can remember when people, I met people two years ago and I'll say, oh yes, we met there. And I remember you had those fantastic boots on. I thought they were pretty great pair of boots. And they're like, how do you, I didn't even remember what I was wearing that day. It's fascinating. Yeah, I'm the exact same way, but you can't, until we have Neuralink or something like that, we can't communicate that you remember all those things. I know, that's what I wanted. So you have to be able to use tricks of human communication for that. But so that, I mean, that's the, it's ultimately is a trick of like, which to remember, which to forget. And the forgetting is so, it's so fascinating to say this. I mean, it seems to be deeply connected to that assimilation process. So forgetting, you try to fit all the new stuff into this big web of the old stuff and the things that don't fit, you throw out. I think the assimilation, the way I've been thinking about it with sleep and it's particularly sort of dream sleep that we think can help with this assimilation is that during wake, we have one version of associative processing. And what I mean by that is we see the most obvious connections. So I think of wakefulness as a Google search gone right. Whereas I see dream sleep as doing something very different. I think dream sleep is a little bit like group therapy for memories that everyone gets a name badge and sleep gathers in all of the individual pieces of the day and it sort of starts to get you to forces you, in fact, to speak to the people, not at the front of the room that you think you've got the most obvious connection with, but to speak with the people all the way at the back of the room that at first you think, I've got no idea what's going on in the room. You think I've got no obvious connection with them at all. But once you get chatting with them, you learn that you do have a very distant, non obvious connection, but it's still a connection on the same. And it's almost as though you're doing a Google search where I input Lex Friedman and it doesn't take me to the first page of your home site. It takes me to page 20, which is about some like field hockey game in Utah. It turns out that there actually is a link. If I look at it, it's a distant, non obvious one. And to me, I find that exciting because when you fuse things together that shouldn't normally go together, but when they do, they cause marked advances in evolutionary fitness. It sounds like the biological basis of creativity. And that's exactly what I think dream sleep and the algorithm of dream sleep is designed to do. It's not a Boolean like system where you have the sort of assumptions of true and false. Maybe it's more fuzzy logic system. And I think REM sleep is a perfect environment within which we do, it's almost like memory pinball. You get the information that you've learned during the day and then you pull the lever back and you shoot it up into the attic of your brain, this cortex filled with all of your past historical knowledge. And you start to bounce it around and see where one of those things lights up and you build a new connection there and you build another one there too. You're developing schemas. And so in that way, I think you could argue, we dream, therefore we are. Yeah, so in terms of this line between learning and thinking through a new thing that seems to be deeply connected, there's this legendary engineer named Jim Keller who keeps yelling at me about this. He says it's very effective. He likes to, for difficult problems before bed, think about that difficult problem. We're not talking about like drama at work or all that kind of stuff. No, like a scientific for him engineering problem. He likes to like intensely think about it to prime his mind before sleep and then go to sleep. And then he finds that the next day, he's able to think much clearer and there's new ideas that come, but also just, I guess it's more well integrated. And sometimes during the process of like, he's able to like wake up and like see new insights. That's right. If he's deeply sort of aggressively thinking through a problem. And there's many scientific demonstrations of this. The Mendeleev with the periodic table of elements, he was trying for months to understand. I mean, talk about an ecumenical problem of epic proportions. Here's your question today. You have to understand how all of the known elements in the universe fit together in a logical way. Good luck, take care. It was non trivial at the time. And he would try and try, he was so obsessed with it. He created playing cards with all of the different elements on. And then he would go on these long train journeys around Europe and he would just sort of deal these cards in front of them and he would shuffle them, shuffling and shuffling. And he would just try to see if he could find what the answer was. And then, so the story goes, he fell asleep and he had a dream. And in that dream, all of these elements started to dance and play around and they snapped into a logical grid, atomic weights, et cetera, et cetera. And it wasn't his waking brain that solved the problem. It was his sleeping brain that solved the impenetrable problem that his waking brain could not. And there's been count, even in the arts and in music, some wonderful dreams, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley's epic Gothic novel came to her in a dream at Lord Byron's home. And then we've got, Paul McCartney. Yesterday, the song came to him in a dream. He was filming, gosh, what was the movie? I don't recall it. I should be shocked because I'm from Liverpool myself. And, but he was on Wimpole Street in London and filming. And he came up with that song, the melody in his sleep, not to be outdone by the Beatles. And by the way, Let It Be also came from a dream that McCartney had. People usually give it religious overtones. Mother Mary comes to me speaking words of wisdom, let it be. If you've ever asked who Mother Mary is, it's not the biblical content. It's his mother. It's Mary McCartney. And she came to him in a dream and gifted him the song. But the best story I've heard is not to be outdone by the Beatles. The Stones, Keith Richards, who I think once was suggested it. Who was it? It was a comedian who was saying that in an interview with Rolling Stone, Keith Richards suggested or inferred that young kids should not do drugs. And they said, well, look, young kids can't do drugs because you've done all of the drugs. And I always thought that, but Keith Richards described he would always go to bed with his guitar and a tape recorder. And then probably who would have a whole set of other things in the bed with him. And who knows how many other people, but anyway. And then he said in his autobiography, and I'm paraphrasing here, but one morning I woke up and I realized that the tape had recorded all the way to the end. So I rewound the tape and I hit play. And there in some kind of ghostly form were the opening chords to Satisfaction, the most famous successful Rolling Stone song of all time. Followed by then 43 minutes of snoring. That's awesome. That riff came to him. One of the most famous riffs in all of rock and roll came to him by way of a dream inspired insight. So I think there is too many of those anecdotes. And we've now got the side, I don't rely on anecdotes as science. We've now done the studies in the laboratory and we can reliably demonstrate that sleep inspires creativity, inspires problem solving capacity. Well, the interesting thing is, is it possible to some of the ideas that you talk about to turn them into a protocol that could be practiced rigorously? So what Jim Keller espouses is saying, not just the fact that sleep helps you increase the creativity, but turn it into a process. Like literally, like don't do it accidentally. Like an athlete does certain things to optimize their performance. They have a training routine. They have a regimen of like cycling and sprints and long distance stuff. In the same way, thinking about your job as an idea generator in the engineering space is like, this is good for my performance. So like for an hour before bed, think through a problem like every night and then use sleep to work through that problem. I mean, he's the first person that I heard like of the people I really respect that do like what I do, which is like programming engineering type work, like using sleep, not accidentally, but with a purpose, like using sleep. That's just basically the difference between, as you said, a passive approach to it versus an active deterministic or hope for a deterministic approach to it. In other words, that you are actually trying to harness the power of sleep in a deliberate way rather than an unthoughtful way. I still think that mother nature through it, the 3.6 million years of evolution has probably got it mostly figured out in terms of what information should be uploaded at night and worked through. I think her algorithm is probably pretty good at this stage. It's not to suggest though, that we can't try to tweak it and nudge it. It's a very light hand on the tiller is what he's doing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Just like, for example, for me, fasting has improved my ability to focus deeply and productivity significantly. And in that same way, it's possible that playing with these ideas of thinking before bed or some hours before bed or some playing with different protocols will have a significant leap over what mother nature naturally does. So if you let your body do what it naturally does, you may not achieve the same level of performance because mother nature has not designed us to think deeply about chip design or programming artificial intelligence systems. Well, she's gifted us the architecture and the capacity to do that. What we do with that is what life's experience dictates. She gives us the blueprint to do many. Well, if I were to sort of introspect and self analyze what mother nature wants me to do, I think given my current lifestyle that I have food in the fridge and a bed to sleep on, I think what mother nature wants me to do is to be lazy. And so I think I'm actually resisting mother nature because so many of my needs are satisfied. And so I have to resist some of the natural forces of the body and the mind when I do some of the things I do. So there's that dance, like I've been thinking about doing a startup and that's obviously going against everything that my body and mind are telling me to do because it's going to be basically suffering. But the only reason I want... As you know, it will be over. Yes, but nevertheless, there's some kind of inner drive that wants me to do it. And then you start to ask a question, well, how do you optimize the things you can't optimize like sleep, like diet, like the people that you surround yourself with in order to maximize happiness and performance and all those kinds of things without also over optimizing. And that's such an interesting idea from a engineer. So as you may know, you don't often get those kinds of ideas from engineers. Engineers usually just don't read books about sleeping. They're usually like the... They're not the healthiest of people. I think that's changing over time, especially with Silicon Valley, especially with the tech sector. People are starting to understand what's a healthy lifestyle, but usually they're kind of on the insane side, especially programmers. But it's nice to hear somebody like that use sleep and use some of the things that you talk about strategically on purpose. When I get to that idea of not just trying to use what Mother Nature gave, but seeing if you can do something more or different, in a conservative mindset, I would then pose the question at what cost? Because when you do something perhaps that deviates from the typical pre programmed, you know, Mother Nature's program, I suspect it usually comes at the cost of something else. So maybe he is able to direct and focus his sleeping cognition on those particular topics that will gain him better problematic resolution the next day when he wakes up. The question is though, at what cost of the other things that didn't make it onto the menu of the finger buffet of sleep that night? And is it that you don't process the emotional difficulties or events, and therefore you are less emotionally resolved the next day, but you are more problem resolved the following day. And so I always try to think, and I truly don't want to sound puritanical either about sleep, and I think I've come off that way many a times, especially when I started out in the public. The tone of the book, in some ways, I look back and think, could I have been a little softer? And the reason was I was that way back in when I started writing the book, which was probably something like 2014 or 15, sleep was the neglected stepsister in the health conversation of the day. And I was just so sad to see the amount of suffering and disease and sickness that was caused by insufficient sleep. And for years before I'd been doing public speaking, and I'd tell people about the great things that happen when you get sleep. People would say, that's fascinating. And then they would go back and keep doing the same thing about not sleeping enough. And then I realized you can't really speak about the good things that happen. It's like the news, what bleeds leads. And if you speak about the alarmingly bad things that happen, people tend to have a behavioral change. And so the book as a consequence, I think probably came out a little bit on the strong side of trying to convince people. Well, you were trying to help a lot of people and that's a powerful way to help a lot of people. I was genuinely trying to help people, but certainly for some people for whom sleep does not come easy, then it was probably a tricky book to read too. And I think I feel more sensitive to those people now and empathetically connected to them. So I think the, again, the point was simply that I don't mean to sound too puritanical in all of this. And the same way with caffeine and coffee. I am just a scientist and I am not here to tell anyone how to live their life. That is not my job at all. And life is to be lived to a degree and life is to be lived if you want to do a startup. All I want to do is empower people with the understanding of the science of sleep. And then you can make an informed choice as to how you want to live your life. And I offer no judgment on how anyone wishes to live their life. I just want to try and see if the information that I have about sleep would alternatively change how you would think about your life decisions. And if it doesn't, no problem. And if it does, I hope it's been of use. Well, maybe this is me trying to justify my lifestyle to you. But Dr. Seuss said, you know you're in love when you can't fall asleep because reality is finally better than your dreams. I love that quote too. Okay. My sleeping schedule is complicated and it has to do primarily with the fact that I love basically everything that I do. And that love takes a form that may not appear to be love from the external observer perspective. Cause it's often includes struggle. It often includes something that looks like stress even though it's not stress. It's like this excitement, it's this turmoil and chaos of passion, of struggling with a problem of being sad and down to the point even depressed of how difficult the problem is, the disappointment that the last few weeks and months have been a failure and self doubt, all that mix. But I love it. And a part of that is sometimes staying up all night working on a thing I'm really passionate about. And that means sleep schedules that are just like, you know, sometimes sleeping during the day, sometimes very often sleeping very little but taking naps that are like an hour, two hours and so on. That kind of weird chaos. And now I'll also try to give myself back up. I was trying to like research yesterday is anybody else productive, wild like this? And there's of course a lot of anecdotal evidence and some of it could be just narratives that people have told to the public when in reality they sleep way more. But there's a bunch of people that are famous for not sleeping much. So on the topic of naps, I read this a long time ago and I checked this, Churchill was big on big naps. And is actually just reading more about Winston Churchill's sleep schedule is very much like mine. So I basically wanna give myself the opportunity to at night to stay up all night if I want to. And a good nap is a big part of that in the late evening. Like I'll often, this destroys social life completely but I'll often take a nap in the late afternoon or the evening and that sets me if I want to stay up all night. And things like that, that I read that Nikola Tesla slept only two hours a night, Edison the same three hours but he actually did the polyphasic sleep like where it's just a bunch of naps. What can you say about this madness of love and passion of loving everything you do and the chaos of sleep that might result in? I love the Seuss quote and I've had that experience too. Like you, I adore what I do. If someone gave you enough money to live the rest of your life, got a roof above my head, rice and beans on the table and they said, you don't have to work anymore. I would do nothing different. I would do exactly, this sounds a little crass and I hope it doesn't sound this way but being a scientist is not what I do, it's who I am. And when that's the case, sleep, working out, showering and eating are the things that I do in between my love affair with sleep. I fell for sleep like a blind roofer. And it was a love affair that started 20 years ago and I remain utterly besotted today. It's the most beguiling thing in the world to me. And I could easily and I have, it's kept me up at night. When my mind is fizzing with experimental ideas or I think I've got a new hypothesis or theory, I will struggle with sleep. I really will, it doesn't come easy to me because my mind is just so on fire with those ideas. So I understand the struggle, but I couldn't advocate from a scientific perspective, the schedule because the science just doesn't, I would feel as though I'm doing you a disservice to say it's okay, that won't come with some blast radius, some health consequences. You can add Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan to that list too. Both of them were very proud chest beaters of how little sleep that they get. Thatcher said four hours, Reagan something similar. And I, knowing the links that we now know between sleep and Alzheimer's disease, I've often wondered whether it was coincidental then that both of them died of the terrible disease of Alzheimer's meaning, maybe it doesn't get you by way of being popped out of the gene pool in a car accident because you had a microsleep at the wheel at age 32, or it doesn't get you at 42 with heart attack or even 52 with cancer or a stroke, maybe it gets you in your seventies. I think the elastic band of sleep deprivation can stretch only so far before it snaps and it ultimately seems to snap. Nicola Tesla, I think he died of a coronary thrombosis, I believe. And there was a wonderful study done out of Harvard where they took a group of people who had no signs of cardiovascular disease. And what they found is that when they track them for years afterwards, they were completely healthy to begin with. Those people who are getting less than six hours of sleep ended up having a 300% increased risk of developing calcification of the coronary artery, which is the major sort of corridor of life for your heart. When someone says, he died of a massive coronary, it's because of a blockade of the coronary artery. And Tesla passed away from a coronary thrombosis. We also know that insufficient sleep is linked to numerous mental health issues. We know that Churchill had a wicked battle with depression. Gosh, my goodness, he used to call it black dog that would come and visit him. And I think many of his paintings, he was exquisite painter, but some of them would depict his darkness with depression as well. Edison is interesting. People have argued that he would short sleep and he didn't put much value in sleep. Whether or not that's true, we don't know, but he was a habitual napper. You're right, during the day, I've got some great pictures of him on his inventor's bench taking a nap. And in fact, I believe he set up nap carts around his house so he could nap. But what we also know, a study, again, coming out of Harvard just a couple of months ago, demonstrated very clearly that polyphasic sleep is associated with worse physical outcomes, worse cognitive outcomes, and especially worse mood outcomes. So from that sense, sleeping like a baby is not perfect for adults. So there's a fascinating dance here of the mean and the extreme, like the average and the high performers. So I, this gets to like the meaning of life kind of discussion, but let's go that way. And also happiness. So when studying sleep and when studying anything like diet and exercise, I think you have to really get a lot more data about individuals to make conclusive statement. That's when people talk about like, is meat, red meat good for you or bad for you, right? It's just so often correlated with other life decisions when you choose to eat meat or not. My sense is that whatever life decisions you make, if they reduce stress and lead to happiness, that's also going to be a big boost that needs to be integrated into the plots in the science, right? So I'll give you an example of somebody who is unarguably seen as unhealthy. My friend, Mr. David Goggins. So he's clearly, obviously, almost on purpose destroying his body. He's destroying his body and to say that he's doing the wrong thing or the unhealthy thing feels like, feels wrong. But I'm not sure exactly in which way he feels wrong. One of the things I'm bothered by, and again, I apologize for the therapy sessions, a framework of this, but I'm bothered by the fact that a lot of people tell me or David that they're doing things wrong. A lot of people in my life, when they see me not sleep, they'll tell me to sleep more. Now they're correct, but one fundamental aspect that I'd like to complain about is not enough people, almost nobody, especially people that care for me, will come to me and say, you have a dream, work harder. It's like the healthy thing should be a component of a life well lived, but not everything. And I don't know what to do with that because you certainly don't want to espouse. And just like you said, when you were working in your book, there is a belief, sleep was a secondary citizen in the full spectrum of what's a healthy life. But at the same time, I'm bothered by in Silicon Valley and all these kinds of work environments that I get to work with, with engineers, is there's to me too much focus on work life balance. And what that usually starts meaning is like, yeah, yeah, of course, it's good to have a social life, it's good to have a family, it's good to eat well and sleep well, but we should also discover our passion. We should also give ourselves a chance to work our ass off towards a dream and make mistakes and take big risks that in the short term seem to sacrifice health. And I think to come back to how you started about David Goggins, who I've never met, but who I admire incredibly and have an immense reverence for the man. You said two things, is it wrong to do those things to yourself? And is it unhealthy to do those things to yourself? I disagree with the former and I agree with the latter. So from a health biological medicine perspective, sleeping in the way that you've described or that other people may be sleeping in terms of insufficient amounts, now to your point too about into individual differences, usually when I see a bar graph and a mean, I usually say, show me your variance. I want to see your variance. In other words, show me the distribution of that effect. How many people were below the mean? How many, is it all tightly clustered around this one thing? So it's a very robust effect or was this huge fan of effect where for some people there was no effect at all and other people there was a whopping effect and everything in between. So I don't discount into individual variability, but, and I will come back to those two points about, is it wrong and is it unhealthy in just a second? When it comes to sleep, we have found huge amounts of into individual differences in your response to a lack of sleep. But one of the fascinating things, so let's say that I take you and we're going to measure your attention, your emotion, your mood, your blood pressure, your blood sugar glucose regulation, your autonomic nervous system and your different gene expression. Let's say I'm just going to measure a whole kaleidoscope of different outcomes, brain and body. And I find that on our measure of cognition on your attentional ability to focus, you are very resilient. You just don't show any impairment at all even after being awake for 36 hours straight. Does that mean that you are resilient in all of those other domains as well? The answer is no, you're not. So you can be resilient in one, but very vulnerable in another. And we've not found anyone who isn't at least vulnerable in one of those domains, meaning that it's somewhat safe to say that not getting sufficient sleep will lead to some kind of impairment in any one given individual. It may not be the same impairment, but it's likely to be an impairment. But to come back to the question, I think it's wrong to tell anyone that it's wrong to do what they're doing, even if they are compromising their sleep, even if they're compromising their mental health. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, then I think the answer is that's that person's choice. Yeah, but that's that person's life. I'd like to push back further. So see, the way you kind of said it, yes, you're absolutely right. But I would like to say a stronger statement, which is you should let go of that judgment of somebody is wrong and allow yourself to be inspired by the great heights they have reached. So take yourself out of the seat of being a judger of what is healthy or not, and appreciate the greatness of a particular human. You watch the Olympics, the kind of things that some athletes do to reach the very heights. The Olympics are taking years off of their life. They suffer depression after the Olympics often. The physiology is disastrous. Everything, their personal life, there's their psychology, their physiology, everything, it's a giant mess. So the question is about life. Healthy now means longevity, quality of life over a prolonged period of time, optimum performance over a prolonged period of time. But to me, beauty is reaching great heights. And there's a dance there that sometimes reaching great heights requires sacrifice of health and not like a calculation where you sat down on a sheet of paper and say, I'm going to take seven years off my life for an Olympic gold medal. No, it requires more chaotic journey that doesn't do that kind of calculus. And I just want to kind of speak to the, in the culture that struggles of what is healthy and not, we want to be able to speak to what is healthy and at the same time be inspired by the great heights that humans reach no matter how healthy or unhealthy they live. Yeah, I agree with that. I think if that's a flag you're hoisting, I will definitely salute it because it really depends, what are you trying to optimize for in your life? And if you are, I think the only danger potentially with that mindset is that if you look at many of the studies of old age and end of life, most people say I never look back on my life and wish I worked harder. I wish instead I'd spent more time with family, friends and engaged in that aspect. Now I'm not saying though, coming back to your point, that that is the standard rubric for everyone. I don't believe it is too. And there are many things that you and I are both benefiting from today, even in the field of medicine, where people have sacrificed their own longevity for the quest of solving a particular medical problem. And they died quicker because of their commitment, because they wished to try and solve that problem in their pursuit of greatness scientifically. And I now benefit. Am I grateful that they did that? Incredibly grateful. You know, a simpler demonstration is this. If tonight at 4 a.m. in the morning, I have a ruptured appendix, I have an appendicitis, I am incredibly grateful that there is an emergency team that will take me to the hospital at 4 a.m. in the morning. They are awake, they're not sleeping and they save my life. And that's part of what their life's mission and quest is. And they saved another's life by, in some ways, shaving a little of their own off. So I don't take, I have no umbrage with that mentality at all. I think you just have to be very clear about what you're optimizing for. And my worry is that most people fall into the rat race and they never actually ask the question, why am I doing this? If you're just working nine to five or, and you allow that nine to five to stretch into much longer, but it's nevertheless a job that's kind of like wears you down. That's one thing. Another thing is when it is like, you're, it's a dream, it's a life mission. And for that, I think as long as you know what it is that you could be doing to yourself and you are comfortable and A okay with that, I have no problem with that at all. Again, as I said, as a scientist, I cannot, should not, and will not tell anyone what they should do with their life. All I want you to be able to do is say, okay, now I understand more about the, previously these would be known unknowns and these were the unknown unknowns. And now I am slightly more cognizant. I have more knowns than I had before regarding my sleep and my health, knowing that information, do I still choose to make this decision? And if that's what I offered, then I think I've done my job. That's all I want to offer is just added information into the decision algorithm. And what you end up choosing as an output of that algorithm has nothing to do with me. It's not my business and I will never judge anyone for it. And as I said, I'm immensely grateful for people who have sacrificed much in their lives to give me what I have. So you're saying as long as the sacrifice sort of grounded in knowledge of what the sacrifice is, that sleep is important, all those kinds of things. And that you're comfortable with it. That is, it is your conscious choice rather than feeling as though you're trapped or that you are just, you haven't thought about it. And you start that job at age 32 and then you wake up the next morning and you're 65 and you think, where did my life go? What was I doing? That to me, I would feel, I would want to hug you. And I would say, I'm just, and I'm not saying, I don't want to sound belittling here at all. I would just not wish that for you. I would wish that you could have thought about what it was that you're doing and not have that regret. Yeah, so I guess I'm, this is for you, the listener. I'm coming out of the closet here a little bit. The fact that I enjoy the madness I live in. So please do not criticize me, embrace me. I understand the sacrifices I'm making. I enjoy sleeping on the floor when I'm passionate programming all night and just pass out on the carpet. I love this life. Okay, so it's, but it's definitely something I think about that there's a balance, a strike where. I just want you to have as much of it though. Of life. See, quality of life is important. I should have said, I want you to have as much high quality life. And if high quality of life means I spend five decades on this planet, but yet in that time, I am thrilled every day. I'm turned on every day by what I do. And I reveled in this thing called my life's work. I think that that is a 50 year journey of absolute delight and fulfillment that you should take. I think about my death all the time. I meditate on death. I'm okay to die today. So to me, longevity is not a significant goal. I'm so happy to be alive. I don't even think it would suck to die today. I'm as afraid of it today as I will be in 50 years. I don't wanna die as much today as I will in 50 years. There's of course all these experiences I would like to have, but everything's already amazing. It's like that Lego movie. So I don't know. So to me, I just wanna keep doing this. And there's of course things that could affect, like you mentioned, dementia and these deterioration of the mind or the body that can significantly affect the quality of life. And so you want to do. As long as you're aware of that, and that's the price you pay for the entry into this magical kingdom that you are experiencing, which is a lovely thing. I feel privileged too. I can't believe the life that I live. It's incredible. And just like you, I think about mortality a great deal. I think a lot about death, but I don't worry about death. I probably, with the exception of the potential pain that comes before it, that some people, many people can suffer, that maybe concerns me. But I actually think about mortality as a tool, I use it as a lens through which I can then retrospect. And by placing myself at the point of future mortality, I can then use it as a retrospective lens to focus and ask the following question. Is there anything I feel I would regret and therefore change in the life that I currently have now? That's the way I meditate and use mortality as a question, is to try and course correct and focus my life. I worry not about dying, but I like to think about death as a way to prioritize my life. If that makes sense, I don't know if that makes sense. No, it makes total sense to decide how do you want to live today so that in the future you do not regret the way you've lived today. Right, and to place yourself in the future at your point of mortality is one way to, I think, as an exercise to retrospectively look back and not lose out on informed choices that you could otherwise lose out on if you weren't thinking about mortality. Yeah, it clarifies your thinking. So I mentioned I sleep on the floor, take naps and power naps, and it's just kind of madness. Is there weirdnesses to your own sleep schedule as a scientist that does incredible work, has a lot of things going on, has to lead research, has to write research, has to be a science communicator, also have a social life, all those kinds of things. Is there certain patterns to your own sleep that you regret or you participate in that you find you enjoy? Is there some personal stuff, quirks or things you're proud of that you do in terms of your sleep schedule? The funny thing about being a sleep researcher is that it doesn't make you immune to the ravages of difficult nights of sleep, and I have battled my own periods of insomnia in my life too. And I think I've been fortunate in ways because I know how sleep works and I know how to combat insomnia. I know how to get it under control because insomnia in many ways is a condition where all of a sudden your sleep controls you rather than you control your sleep. Wow, yeah, that's a beautiful way to put it, yeah. And I know when I'm starting to lose control and it's starting to take control, and I understand how to regain, but it doesn't happen overnight. It takes a long time. So you've struggled with insomnia in your life? I have, not all of my life. I would say I've probably had three or four really severe bouts, and all of them usually triggered by emotional circumstances, by stress. Stress that's connected to actual events in life or stress that's unexplainable? Well, externally triggered. Yeah, it's sort of what we would call reactive stress. And so that's sort of point number one about the idiosyncrasies. The point number two is that when you are having a difficult night of sleep, as a sleep researcher, you basically have become the Woody Allen neurotic of the sleep world. Because at that moment, I'm trying to fall asleep and I'm not, and I'm starting to think, okay, my dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex is not shutting down. My noradrenaline is not ramping down. My sympathetic nervous system is not giving way to my parasympathetic. At that point, you are dead in the water for the next two hours and nothing is bringing you back. So there is some irony in that too. I would say for myself though, if there is something I'm not proud of, it has been at times railing against my chronotype. So your chronotype is essentially, are you a morning type, evening type or somewhere in between? And there were times because society is desperately biased towards the morning types. This notion of the early bird catches the worm. Maybe that's true, but I'll also tell you that the second mouse gets the cheese. Yeah, so I think one of the issues around, firstly, people don't really understand chronotype because I'll have some people when I'm sort of out in the public, they'll say, look, I struggle with terrible insomnia. And I'll ask them, is it problems falling asleep or staying asleep? And they'll say, falling asleep. And then I'll say, look, if you are on a desert island with nothing to wake up for, no responsibilities, what time would you normally go to bed and what time would you wake up? And they would say, I'd probably like to go to bed about midnight and wake up maybe eight in the morning. And then I'd say, so what time do you now go to bed? And they'd say, well, I've got to be up for work early. So I get into bed at 10. I say, well, you don't have insomnia. You have a mismatch between your biological chronotype and your current sleep schedule. And when you align those two, and I was fighting that for some time too, I'm probably mostly right in the middle. I am desperately vanilla, unfortunately, in many aspects of life, but this included, I'm neither a strong morning type nor a strong evening type. So ideally I'd probably like to go to bed around 11, 10.30, 11, probably somewhere between 10.30, 11, and wake up, I naturally wake up usually most days before my alarm at 7.04, and it's 7.04 because why not be idiosyncratic in terms of setting an alarm? I love it. And so I... That's kind of awesome. I've never heard about that. That's amazing. I'm gonna start doing that now, setting alarms like a little bit off the... Yeah, I know. I'm never quite sure why we all... It's a celebration of uniqueness. Yeah, and I am quite the odd snowflake in that sense too. So I would usually then try to force myself because I had that same mentality that if I wasn't up at 6.30 and in the gym by seven that there was something wrong with me. And I quickly abandoned that. But if I look back, if there was a shameful act that I have around my sleep, I think it would be that for some years until I really started to get more detailed into sleep. And now I have no shame in telling people that I will probably usually wake up around 6.45 naturally, sometimes seven when people are looking at me thinking, you're a sloth, you're lazy. And I don't finish my daily workout until I'm not working until probably nine o clock in the morning thinking, what are you doing? Now I will work late into the day. If I could, I would work 16 hours. It's my passion just like yours. So I don't feel shame around that, but I have changed my mentality around that. It's complicated because I'm probably happiest going to bed, if I'm being honest, like at 5 a.m. That's fine. You're just an extreme evening type. But the problem is it's not that I'm ashamed for it. I actually kind of enjoy it because I get to sleep through all the nonsense of like the morning. Isn't that a beautiful thing? Like people are busy with their emails and I just am happy as a cow. And I wake up after all the drama has been resolved. And cows are happy and the drama has been resolved. Exactly. But in society you do, especially, I mean this is what I think about is when you work on a larger team, especially with companies, you are, everybody's awake at the same time. So that's definitely been a struggle to try to figure out, just like you said, how to balance that, how to fit into society and yet be optimal for your chronotype, you said. Yeah, you have to sleep in synchrony with it and harmony. Because normally what we know is that if you fight biology, you'll normally lose. And the way you know you've lost is through disease and sickness. You said you suffered through several bouts of insomnia. Is there, aside from embracing your chronotype, is there advice you can give how to overcome insomnia from your own experience? Right now the best method that we have is something called cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia or CBTI for short. And you work with, for people who don't know what it is, you work with a therapist for maybe six weeks and you can do it online, by the way, I recommend probably jumping online, it's just the easiest. And it will change your beliefs, your habits, your behaviors and your general stress around this thing called sleep. And it is just as effective as sleeping pills in the short term. But what's great is that unlike sleeping pills, when you stop working with your therapist, those benefits last for years later. Whereas when you stop your sleeping pills, you typically have what's called rebound insomnia, where your sleep not only goes back to being as bad as it was before, it's usually even worse. For me, I think I found a number of things effective. that can firstly understand when you are well slept. So let's say that people have sleep trackers at night and then your car integrates that information and it understands when you are well slept. And then you've got the data of the individual behavior unique to that individual, snowflake like, when they are well slept. This is the signature of well rested driving. Then you can look at deviations from that and pattern match it with the sleep history of that individual. And then I don't need to find the sort of, you know, the one size fits all approach for 99% of the people. I can create a very bespoke tailor like set of features, a Savile Row suit of sleepiness features. You know, that would be my, if you want to ask me about moon shots and crazy ideas, that's where I go. But to start with, I think your approach is a great one. Let's find something that covers 99% of the people because the worrying thing about microsleeps of course, unlike, you know, drugs or alcohol, which you know, certainly is a terrible thing to be behind the wheel. With those often you react too late. And that's the reason you get into an accident. When you fall asleep behind the wheel, you don't react at all. You know, at that point, there is a two ton missile driving down the street and no one's in control. That's why those accidents can often be more dangerous. Yeah, and the fascinating thing is, in the case of semi autonomous vehicles, like Tesla autopilot, this is where I've had disagreements with Mr. Elon Musk, and the human factors community, which is this community that one of the big things they study is human supervision over automation. So you have like pilots, you know, supervising an airplane that's mostly flying autonomously. The question is, when we're actually doing the driving, how do microsleeps or general, how does drowsiness progress and how does it affect our driving? That question becomes more fascinating, more complicated when your task is not driving, but supervising the driving. So your task is to take over when stuff goes wrong. And that is complicated, but the basic conclusions from many decades is that humans are really crappy at supervising because they get drowsy and lose vigilance much, much faster. The really surprising thing with Tesla autopilot, it was surprising to me, surprising to the human factors community, and in fact, they still argue with me about it, is it seems that humans in Teslas with autopilot and other similar systems are not becoming less vigilant, at least with the studies we've done. So there's something about the urgency of driving. I can't, I'm not sure why, but there's something about the risk, I think the fact that you might die is still keeping people awake. The question is, as Tesla autopilot or similar systems get better and better and better, how does that affect increasing drowsiness? And that's when you need to have, that's where the big disagreement was, you need to have driver sensing, meaning driver facing camera that tracks some kind of information about the face that can tell you drowsiness. So you can tell the car if you're drowsy so that the car can be like, you should be probably driving or pull to the side. Right, or I need to do some of the heavy lifting here. Yeah, so there needs to be that dance of interaction of a human and machine, but currently it's mostly steering wheel based. So this idea that your hands should be on the steering wheel, that's a sign that you're paying attention is an outdated and a very crude metric. I agree, yeah. I think there are far more sophisticated ways that we can solve that problem if we invest. Can I ask you a big philosophical question before we get into fun details? On the topic of conscious states, how fundamental do you think is consciousness to the human mind? I ask this from almost like a robotics perspective. So in your study of sleep, do you think the hard question of consciousness that it feels like something to be us, is that like a nice little feature, like a quirk of our mind, or is it somehow fundamental? Because sleep feels like we take a step out of that consciousness a little bit. So from all your study of sleep, do you think consciousness is like deeply part of who we are or is it just a nice trick? I think it's a deeply embedded feature that I can imagine has a whole panoply of biological benefits. But to your point about sleep, what is interesting if you do a lot of dream research and we've done some, it's very, very rare at all, in fact, for you to end up becoming someone other than who you are in your dreams. Now you can have third person perspective dreams where you can see yourself in the dream as if you're sort of, you've risen above your physical being. But for the most part, it's very rare that we lose our sense of conscious self. And maybe I'm sort of doing a sleight of hand because it's really what I'm saying, it's very rare that we lose our sense of who we are in dreams. We never do. Now that's not to suggest that dreams aren't utterly bizarre. And I mean, when you slept last night, which I know may have been perhaps a little less than me, but when you went into dreaming, you became flagrantly psychotic. And there are five essentially good reasons. Firstly, you started to see things which were not there, so you were hallucinating. Second, you believe things that couldn't possibly be true, so you were delusional. Third, you became confused about time and place and person, so you're suffering from what we would call disorientation. Fourth, you have wildly fluctuating emotions, something that psychiatrists will call being affectively labile. And then how wonderful, you woke up this morning and you forgot most if not all of that dream experience, so you're suffering from amnesia. If you were to experience any one of those five things while you're awake, you would probably be seeking psychological help. But so I place that as a backdrop against your astute question, because despite all of that psychosis, there is still a present self nested at the heart of it, meaning that I think it's very difficult for us to abandon our conscious sense of self. And if it's that hard, the old adage in some ways, that you can't outrun your shadow. But here it's more of a philosophical question, which is about the conscious mind and what the state of consciousness actually means in a human being. So I think that that to me, you become so dislocated from so many other rational ways of waking consciousness. But one thing that won't go away, that won't get perturbed or sort of, you know, manacled, is this your sense of conscious self? Yeah, that's a strong sign that consciousness is fundamental to the human mind. Or we're just creatures of habit who gotten used to having consciousness. Maybe it just takes a lot of either chemical substances or a lot of like mental work to escape that. I mean, it's like trying to launch a rocket. You know, the energy that has to be put in to create escape velocity from the gravitational pull of this thing called planet earth is immense. Well, the same thing is true for us to abandon our sense of conscious self. The amount of biological, the amount of substances, the amount of wacky stuff that you have to do to truly get escape velocity from your conscious self. What does that tell us about then the fundamental state of our conscious self? Yeah, it also probably says that it's quite useful to have consciousness for survival and for just operation in this world. And perhaps for intelligence. I'm one of the, on the AI side, people that think that intelligence requires consciousness. So like high levels of general intelligence requires consciousness. Most people in the AI field think like consciousness and intelligence are fundamentally different. You could build a computer that's super intelligent. It doesn't have to be conscious. I think that if you define super intelligence by being good at chess, yes. But if you define super intelligence as being able to operate in this living world of humans and be able to perform all kinds of different tasks, consciousness, it seems to be somehow fundamental to richly integrate yourself into the human experience, into society. It feels like you have to be a conscious being. But then we don't even know what consciousness is and we certainly don't know how to engineer it in our machines. I love the fact that there are still questions The first is that I had to really address what was stressful and try to come up with some degree of meaningful rationality around it. Because I think one of the things that happens, there's something very, talking about conscious states, to come all the way back to, gosh, I don't know, I feel like we've only been chatting for like 20 minutes, but you're gonna tell me it's been a while. Yeah, it's been a while. Okay, I'm desperately, I feel terribly sorry. But let's come back to conscious states, which is where we started. There is something very strange about the night that thoughts and anxieties are not the same as they are in the waking day. They are worse, they are bigger. And I at least find that I am far more likely to catastrophize and ruminate at night about things that when I wake up the next day in the broad light of day, I think it's nowhere near that bad, man. What were you doing? It's not that bad at all. So to gain firstly, some rational understanding of my emotional state that's causing that insomnia was very helpful. The second thing was to keep regularity, just going to bed at the same time waking up. And here's an unconventional piece of sleep advice. After a bad night of sleep, do nothing. Don't wake up any later, don't go to bed any earlier, don't nap during the day, and don't drink any more coffee than you would otherwise. Because if you end up sleeping later into the morning, you're then not going to be tired at your normal time at night. So then you're gonna get into bed thinking, well, I had a terrible night of sleep last night. And yes, I slept in this morning to try and compensate, but I'm still gonna get to bed at my normal time. But now you get into bed and you haven't been awake for as long as you normally would. So you're not as sleepy as you normally would be. And so now you sit there lying in bed and it's another bad night. And the same thing is, if you go to bed any earlier, so don't wake up any later, wake up at the same time, don't go to bed any earlier, because then you're just probably your chronotype, your biological rhythm doesn't want you to be asleep. And you think, well, it's a terrible night, I'm gonna get into bed at 9 p.m. rather than my standard 10, I'm just gonna be lying in bed awake for that hour. Naps will take our double edged sword, they can have wonderful benefits. And we've done lots of studies on naps for both the brain and the body. But they are a double edged sword in the sense that napping will just take the edge off your sleepiness. It's a little bit like a valve on a pressure cooker. When you nap during the day, you can take some of that healthy sleepiness that you've been building up during the day. And for some people, not all people, but for some people that can then make it harder for them to fall asleep at night and then stay asleep soundly across the night. So the advice would be, if you're struggling with sleep at night, don't nap during the day. But if you are not struggling with sleep, and you can nap regularly, naps are just fine. And we can play around with optimal durations depending on what you want. Just try not to nap too late into the day because napping late into the day is like snacking before your main meal. It just takes the edge off your sleep hunger as it were. But that would be, so that's my unconventional second piece of advice regarding insomnia. The third is meditation. I found meditation to be incredibly powerful. I started reading about meditation as I was researching that aspect of the book many years ago. And as a hard nose scientist, I thought this sounds very woo woo. This is sort of, we all hold hands and sing come by hour and everything's going to be fine with sleep. I read the data and it was compelling. I couldn't ignore it. And I started meditating and that was six years ago and I haven't stopped. And I find meditation before bed incredibly powerful. The meditation app companies were perplexed at this at first. They want people to meditate during the day. But when they looked at their usage statistics, they found that they would have people in the morning meditating. And then there's a huge number of people using the meditation app in the evening. What they were doing was self medicating their insomnia. And they finally, rather than railing against it, they started to see it as a cash cow, rightly so. So I found meditation to be helpful. Having a wind down routine is the other thing that's critical for me. I can't just go from, because when my mind is switched on and I think you may be like this too, if I get into bed, that Rolodex of thoughts and information and excitement and anxiety and worry is just whirling away. And it's not gonna be a good night for me. So I have to find a wind down routine. And that makes sense when you realize what sleep is like. Sleep is not like a light switch. Sleep is much more like trying to land a plane. You know, it takes time to descend down onto the terra firma that we call sound sleep at night. And we have this for kids. You know, I don't have children, but you know, a lot of parents will say, you know, we have to have the bedroom, sorry, the bedtime routine. You know, you bathe the kid, you put them in bed, you read them a story. You have to go through this routine, this wind down routine for them. And then they fall asleep wonderfully. Why do we abandon that? As adults, we need that same wind down routine. So that's been the other thing that's been very helpful to me. So don't do anything different. If you have a bad night of sleep, keep doing the same thing. Manage your anxiety, understand it, rationalize it. Then meditation, and then finally having some kind of disengagement wind down routine. Those are the four things that have been very helpful to me. That's brilliant. So the regularities really do a lot of work against insomnia. Is there, is it possible to have a healthy sleep life without the regularities? I say that because I'm all over the place and I've gotten good at being all over the place. So I'll often, like what happens, I'll go stretches of time. There'll be sometimes a month where I, my days are like, this is embarrassing to admit, but they're like, just you and I here, just you and I. It's like 28 hours or 30 hour days. Like I'll just go all the way around comfortably and happily, I love it. And then there'll be a nap. I mean, if you like add up the hours when I'm just like sleeping as much as I want, it'd probably be like six hour average per 24 hours. Like that kind of, so it works out nicely, maybe even seven hours, I don't know. But that it's obviously irregular and there's chaos in the whole thing. Like sometimes it's shorter sleep, sometimes it's longer. Is that totally not a good thing, do you think? The best evidence that we have to speak to this question is people who are doing rotating shifts. And unfortunately the news is not good. They usually have a higher instance of many diseases such as depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, stroke. And again, that's just me communicating the data that we have and I'm not telling you that you should do anything different. The other thing is that there's nothing in your biology that suggests that that's how your body was designed to sleep. It is a system that loves habit. You know, if your circadian clock in your brain, it's called the suprachiasmatic nucleus, sits in the middle of your brain, had a personality trait, it would be a creature of habit. It loves habit. That's how your biology is designed to work is through very archetypal prototypical expected cycles. And when we do something different to that, then you start to see some of the pressure stress fractures in the system. But again, to your point, if that's something that you don't mind, you know, adopting and understanding and then I think you should keep doing what you're doing. Yeah, it's complicated. Of course you have to be a student of your own body and explore it. One of the reasons I want to have kids is kids enforce a stricter schedule. I think I definitely feel that I'm not living the sort of data wise, scientifically speaking, the optimal life. And me just living the way I want to live day to day is perhaps not the optimal way. And there's certain things that I've seen very successful people that I know in my life when they get, when they have kids, they actually, the productivity goes up, they get their shit together. There's a lot of aspects that, yeah, the regularity. I mean, that creatures a habit. That's the thing that's power. And then you start to optimally use the hours that you have in the day. Let me ask you about that. Well, actually, I just have one quick point on that too. You know, we often think about sleep as a cost, but instead I think of sleep as an investment. And the reason is because your effectiveness and your efficiency when you're well slept typically exceeds that when you're not. And to me, it's the idea of if I'm going to boil a pot of water, why would I boil it on medium when I could boil it in half the time on high? And I sometimes worry that when I speak to Fortune 500 companies and they're of this mentality of longer hours, getting people to rise and grind, the first point is that after about 20 hours of being awake, a human being is as cognitively as impaired as they would be if they were legally drunk. And the reason I bring that point up is because I don't know any company or CEO who would say, I've got this great team, they're drunk all the time. But we often lord the airport warrior who's flown through three different time zones in the past two days, is on email at 2 a.m. and then is in the office at six. And I think there is some aspect, not in all people, but there is sort of some aspect of that slight sleep machismo. And that's not what you are very different. You are driven by a purity of passion and a very authentic, incredibly genuine goal of wanting to do something remarkable with your life. That's not the issue I think I'm speaking about. It's just simply that I think maybe this notion of wanting to be awake for longer to try and get more done can sometimes be at odds with the fact that you can actually get so much more done if you're well slept. And it's this trade off. I actually admire people that take the big risk and work hard, whether that means staying up late at night, all those kinds of things, but it cannot be in the framework, in the context like what Edison said, which is sleep feels like a waste of time. So if you're not sleeping because you think sleep is stupid, that's totally wrong. But if you're not sleeping because you're deeply passionate about something, that to me, it's a gray area, of course, but that to me is much more admirable. And everything you're espousing is saying whatever the hell you're doing, you better be aware that sleep, long term and short term is really good for you. So if you're not sleeping, you're sacrificing, just make sure you're sacrificing for the right thing. I see vodka and getting drunk the same way. I know it's not good for me. I know I'm not gonna feel good days after. I know it's gonna decrease my performance. And there's nothing positive about it, except it introduces chaos in my life that introduces beautiful experiences that I would not otherwise have. It creates this turmoil of social interaction that ultimately makes me happy that I've experienced them in the moment and later the stories, you get to meet new people. It's like alcohol in this society is an incredible facilitator of that. So that's a good example of not sleeping and drinking way too much vodka. Again, it's this notion of life is to be lived to a degree. But if you do have children, I think one of the other things that then maybe comes into the picture is the fact that now there are other people that you have to live for than yourself. Yeah, but come on, like once they're old enough, like if you can't defend for yourself, you're too weak, get stronger. It's gonna be that kind of fatherhood. I got it, I'm understanding so much more about Lex Freeman than I did before. That's why you have to have for me, that would be my wife would be probably softer. It's good cop, bad cop, because I think I'm. But of course, actually, because I don't have kids, I've seen some tough dudes when they have kids become like the softies. They become like, they do everything for their kids. It's become like, it's totally transforms their life. I mean, Joe Rogan is an example of that. I just seen so many tough guys completely become changed by having kids, which is fascinating to watch because it just shows you how meaningful having kids is for a lot of people. Although I would say having chatted with Joe for some time, I think he is a delightful, sweetheart, independent of children. I think, don't get me wrong, I don't wanna be in a ring with him. He would face me five ways till Tuesday, but I think he's a desperately sweet man and a very, very smart individual. Yeah, I mean, but he talks about the compassion he's gained from realizing just watching kids grow up that we were all kids at some point, you get a new perspective. I think just like me, I still get this with him. He's super competitive and there's a certain way to approach life. You're striving to do great things and you're competitive against others and that intensity of that aggression, that can lack compassion sometimes and empathy. And when you have children, you get a sense like, oh, everybody was a child at some point, everybody was a kid. And you see that whole development process. It can definitely enrich, expand your ability to be empathetic. Let me ask about diet. So what's the connection between diet and sleep? So I do intermittent fasting, sometimes only one meal a day, sometimes no meals a day. Is there a good science on the interaction between fasting and sleep? We have some data, I would prefer more, but we have data both on time restricted eating and then we have some data on fasting to a degree. On time restricted eating, I think that it has some benefits, although the human replication studies have actually not borne out quite the same health benefit extent that the animal studies have. There've been some disappointing studies, one here close to where we are right now at UCSF recently. So I think time restricted eating can be a good thing and there are many benefits of time restricted eating. Is sleep one of them? No, it doesn't seem to be because there are probably at the time that we're recording this, three pretty decent studies that I'm aware of. Two out of the three were in obese individuals, one out of the three were in healthy weight individuals. And what they found is that time restricted eating in all three of those studies didn't have any advantageous benefit to sleep. It didn't necessarily harm sleep, but it didn't seem to improve it. When it comes to fasting though, which is a different state, we don't have too many studies, experimental studies with longterm fasting. The best data that we have is probably from religious practices and probably the most data we have is during Ramadan where people will fast for 29 to 30 days from sunrise to sunset. And under those conditions, there are probably five distinct changes that we've seen. None of them seem to be particularly good for sleep. The first is that the amount of melatonin that you release, and melatonin is a hormone. It's often called the hormone of darkness or the vampire hormone, not because it makes you look longingly at people's necklines, but it's just because it comes out at night. Melatonin signals to your brain and your body that it's dark, it's nighttime, and it's time to sleep. Those individuals, when they were undergoing that regimen of fasting, the amount of melatonin that was released and when it was released, the amount of melatonin decreased and when it was released came later. That was the first thing. The second thing was that they ended up finding it harder to fall asleep as quickly as they normally would otherwise. The third thing was that the total amount of sleep that they were getting decreased. The fourth fascinating thing was that a wake promoting chemical called orexin increased. And this is why a lot of people will say, when I'm fasting, it feels like I can stay awake for longer and I'm more alert, I'm more active. And I'll come back from an evolutionary perspective why we understand that to be the case. And then the fourth factor is that fasting didn't decrease the amount of deep sleep that seemed to be unaffected. It did, however, decrease the amount of REM sleep or dream sleep. And we know that REM sleep dreaming is essential for emotional first aid, mental health, it's critical for memory, creativity. It's also critical for several hormone functions. It's when there's direct correlations between testosterone release peaks just before you go into REM sleep and during REM sleep too. So REM sleep is critical. But so those are the five changes that we've seen. None of them seem to be that advantageous for sleep. But the fourth point that I mentioned, which was orexin, which is this wake promoting chemical and a good demonstration or a very sad demonstration of its power is when it becomes very deficient in the brain and it leads to a condition called narcolepsy where you're just unpredictable with your sleep. So orexin when it's in high concentrations keeps you awake when you lose it. It can put you very much into a state of narcolepsy where you're sleeping a lot of the time in unpredictable sleep. Why on earth when you are fasting would the brain release awake promoting chemical? And our answer is right now is the following. One of the few times that I mentioned before that we see animals undergoing insufficient sleep or prolonged sleep deprivation is under conditions of starvation. And that is an extreme evolutionary pressure. And at that point, the brain will forgo some. It won't forgo all, but it will forgo some of its sleep. And the reason is so that it can stay awake for longer because the sign of starvation is saying to the brain, you can't find food in your normal foraging perimeter, you need to stay awake for longer so you can travel outside of your perimeter for a further distance and maybe you will find food and save the organism. So in other words, when we fast, it's giving our brain this evolutionary signal that you are under conditions of starvation. So the brain responds by saying, oh my goodness, I need to release the chemical that helps the organism stay awake for longer which is orexin. So that they can forage for more food. Now, of course, your brain from an evolutionary perspective doesn't know about this thing called Safeway that you could easily go to and break the fast. But that's how we understand fasting. And I think my dear friend, Peter Attia has done a lot of work in this area too. I think fasting and David Sinclair's brilliant work, goodness me, what an individual too. The work is pretty clear there that time restricted eating and fasting have wonderful health benefits. Fasting creates this thing called hormesis, just like exercise and low level stress and sauna, heat, shock. And hormesis is a biological process I think as David Sinclair has once said, in simple layman's terms is, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. And I think there is certainly good data that fasting and time restricted eating has many benefits. Is sleep one of them? It doesn't seem to be, it doesn't seem to enhance sleep. But it's interesting to understand its effects on sleep. I've fasted, it's a study of NF2. I once fasted 72 hours and another time 48 hours. And I found that I got much less sleep and it was very restful though. I hesitate to say this, but this is how I felt, which is I needed less sleep. I wonder if my brain is deceiving me because it feels like I'm getting a whole extra amount of focus for free. And I wonder if there's longterm impacts of that. Because if I fast 24 hours, get the same amount of calories, one meal a day, there's a little bit of discomfort. Like just maybe your body gets a little bit colder. Maybe there's just, I mean, hunger. But the amount of focus is crazy. And so I wonder, it's like, I'm a little suspicious of that. I feel like I'm getting something for free. I'm the same way with sweetener, like a Splendor or something. It's like, it's gotta be really bad for you, right? Because why is it so tasty, right? And I think, yeah, as we said before with biology, if there's a gain, there's often a cost too. But we at least understand the biological basis of what you're describing. It's not that you actually don't need less sleep. It's that this chemical is present that forces you more awake. And so subjectively you feel as though I don't need as much sleep because I'm wide awake. And those two things are quite different. It's not as though your sleep need has decreased. It's that your brain has hit the overdrive switch, the overboost switch to say, we need to keep you awake because food is in short supply. So you mentioned during sleep, there's a simulation, all those kinds of things for learning purposes, but there's also these, you mentioned the five ways in which we become psychotic in dreams. What do you think dreams are about? Why do you think we dream? What place do we go to when we dream? And why are they useful? Not just the assimilation aspect, but just like all the crazy visuals that we get with dreams. Is there something you can speak to that's actually useful? Like why we have such fun experiences in that dream world? So one of the camps in the sleep field is that dreams are meaningless, that they are an epiphenomenal byproduct of this thing called REM sleep from which dreams come from as a physiological state. So the analogy would be, let's think of a light bulb, that the reason that you create the apparatus of a light bulb is to produce this thing called light in the same way that we've evolved to this thing called REM sleep to serve whatever functions REM sleep serves. But it turns out that when you create light in that way, you also produce something called heat. It was never the reason that you designed the light bulb, it's just what happens when you create light in that way. And the belief so too was that dreaming was essentially the heat of the light bulb. That REM sleep is critical, but when you have REM sleep with a complex brain like ours, you also produce this conscious epiphenomenon called dreaming. I don't believe that for a second. And from a simple perspective is that I suspect that dreaming is more metabolically costly as a conscious experience than not dreaming. So you could still have REM sleep, but absent the conscious experience of dreaming was probably less metabolically costly. And whenever mother nature burns the energy unit called ATP, which is the most valuable thing, there's usually a reason for it. So if it's more energetically demanding, then I suspect that there is a function to it. And we've now since discovered that dreams have a function. The first, as we mentioned, creativity. The second is that dreams provide a form of overnight therapy. Dreaming is a form of emotional first aid. And it's during dream sleep at night that we take these difficult, painful experiences that we've had during the day, sometimes traumatic, and dream sleep acts almost like a nocturnal soothing balm. And it sort of just takes the sharp edges off those difficult, painful experiences so that you come back the next day and you feel better about them. And so I think in that sense, dreaming, it's not time that heals all wounds. It's time during dream sleep that provides emotional convalescence. So dreaming is almost a form of emotional windscreen wipers. And I think, and by the way, it's not just that you dream. It's what you dream about that also matters. So for example, scientists have done studies with learning and memory where they have people learn a virtual maze. And what they discovered was that those people who then dreamed, but dreamed of the maze were the only ones who, when they woke up, ended up being better at navigating the maze. Whereas those people who dreamed, but didn't dream about the maze itself, they were no better at navigating the maze. So it's not just that you, it's not sort of necessary, but not sufficient. It's necessary that you dream, but it's not sufficient to produce the benefit. You have to be dreaming about certain things itself. And the same is true for mental health. What we've discovered is that people who are going through a very difficult experience, a trauma, for example, a very painful divorce, those people who are dreaming, but dreaming of that difficult event itself, they go on to gain resolution to their clinical depression one year later. Whereas people who were dreaming just as much, but not dreaming about the trauma itself, did not go on to gain as much clinical resolution to their depression. So it's, I think to me, those are the lines of evidence that tell me dreaming is not epiphenomenal. And it's not just about the act of dreaming, it's about the content of the dreams, not just the fact of a dream itself. It's, first of all, it's fascinating. It makes a lot of sense, but then immediately takes my mind to, from an engineering perspective, how that could be useful in, for example, AI systems of, if you think about dreaming as an important part about learning and cognition and filtering previous memories of what's important, integrating them. You know, maybe you can correct me, but I see dreaming as a kind of simulation of worlds that are not constrained by physics. So like you get a chance to take some of your memories, some of your thoughts, some of your anxieties, and play with them, like construct virtual worlds and see how it evolves. Like to play with those worlds in a safe environment of your mind, safe in quotes, because you could probably get into a lot of trouble with the places your mind will go. But this definitely is applied in much cruder ways in artificial intelligence. So one context in which this is applied is the process called self play, which is a reinforcement learning where agents play against itself or versions of itself. And it's all simulated of trying different versions of themselves and playing against each other to see what ends up being a good. The ultimate goal is to learn a function that represents what is good and what is not good in terms of how you should act in the world. You create a set of decision weights based on experience, and you constantly update those weights based on ongoing learning. But the experience is artificially created versus actual real data. So it's a crude approximation of what dreams are, which is you're hallucinating a lot of things to see which things are actually. No, I think it's been a theory that's been put forward, which is that dreaming is a virtual reality test space that is largely consequence free. What an incredible gift to give a conscious mind to each and every night. Now the conscious mind, the human mind is very good at constructing dreams that are nevertheless useful for you. Like they're wild and crazy, but they're such that they are still grounded in reality to a degree where anything you learn in dreams might be useful in reality. This is a very difficult thing to do because it requires a lot of intelligence, it requires consciousness. This has been effectively recently being used in a self supervised learning for computer vision with the process of what's called data augmentation. That's a very crude version of dreams, which is you take data and you mess with it and you start to learn how a picture of a cat truly represents a cat by messing with it in different ways. Now the crude methods currently are cropping, rotating, distorting, all that kind of stuff. But you can imagine much more complicated generative processes that start hallucinating different cats in order for you to understand deeply of what it means for something to look like a cat. What is the prototype of a archetype of a cat? Yeah, the archetype. I mean, that's a very difficult process for computer vision to go from what are the pixels that are usually associated with a cat to like, what is a cat in the visual space? In the three dimensional visual spaces projected on an image, on a two dimensional image, what is a cat? Those are like fundamentally philosophical questions that we humans don't know the answer to, like linguistically. But when we look at a picture of a cat and a dog, we can usually tell pretty damn well what's the difference. And I don't know what that is because you can't reduce that to pointy ears or non pointy ears, furry or not furry, something about the eyes. It's been a long standing issue in cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience too, is how does the brain create an archetype? How does it create schemas that have general applicability, but yet still obtain specificity? That's a very difficult challenge. I mean, we can do it, we do it. It's rather bloody amazing. And it seems like part of the toolbox is this controlled hallucination, which is dreams. Well, it's a relaxing of the rigid constraints. I often think of dreaming as, it's from an information processing standpoint, the prison guards are away and the prisoners are running a mock in a delightful way. And part of the reason is because when you go into dream sleep, the rational part of your brain called the prefrontal cortex, which is the part, it's like the CEO of the brain. It's very good at making high level, rational, top down decisions and controlled actions. That part of the brain is shut down during REM sleep. But then emotional centers, memory centers, visual centers, motoric centers, all of those centers actually become more active. In fact, some of them are more active than when we're awake in the dream state. That's fascinating. So your brain from a neural architecture perspective is radically different. Its network feature is not the same as wakefulness. And I think this is an immensely beneficial thing that we have at least two different rational and irrational conscious states that we do information processing in. The rational, the veritical, the page one of the Google search is wakefulness. The more irrational, illogical, hyper associative Google page 20 is the REM sleep. Both I think are critical, both are necessary. That's fascinating. And again, fascinating to see how that could be integrated in the machines to help them learn better and to reason better. And in some ways we also know it from a chemical perspective too. When you go into dream sleep, it is a neurochemical cocktail like no other that we see at the rest of the 24 hour state. There is a chemical called noradrenaline or norepinephrine in the brain. And you know of its sister chemical in the body called adrenaline. But upstairs in the brain, noradrenaline is very good at creating a very hyper focused, attentive, narrow, it's sort of very convergent way of thinking to a point, sharp focus, that's the only thing. The spotlight of consciousness is very narrow. That's noradrenaline. When you remove noradrenaline, then you go from a high SNR, a high signal to noise ratio where it's just you and I in this moment, I don't even know what's going on elsewhere. I am with you, noradrenaline is present. But when you go into REM sleep, it is the only time during the 24 hour period where your brain is devoid of any noradrenaline, it is completely shut off. And so the signal to noise ratio is very different. It's almost as though we're injecting a greater amount of noise into the neural architecture of the brain during dream sleep, as if it's chemically brute forced into this relaxed associative memory processing state. And then from an anatomical perspective, just as I described, the prefrontal cortex goes down and other regions light up. So it is a state that seems to be very, I mean, if you were to show me a brain scan of REM sleep and tell me that it's not REM sleep, just say, look, based on the pattern of this brain activity, what would you say is going on in this person's mind? I would say, well, they're probably not rational. They're probably not having logical thought because their prefrontal cortex is down. They're probably feeling very emotional because their amygdala is active, which is an emotional center of the brain. They're definitely going to be thinking visually because the back of the brain is lit up, the visual cortex. It's probably going to be filled with past experience and autobiographical memories because their memory centers are lighting up. And there's probably going to be movement because their motor cortex is very active. That to me sounds very much like a dream. And that's exactly what we see in brain scanners when we've put people inside of them. One of the things I notice sleep affects is my ability to see the beauty in the world. So what do you think is the connection between sleep and your emotional life, your ability to love other human beings and love life? Yeah, I think it's very powerful and strong. So we've done a lot of work in the field of sleep and emotion and sleep and moods. And you can separate your emotions into two main buckets, positive and negative. And what's interesting is that when you are sleep deprived and the more hours that you go into being awake and the fewer hours that you've had to sleep, your negative mood starts to increase. And we know which individual types of emotions are changing. I've got a wonderful postdoc in my lab called Etty Ben Simon, who's doing some incredible work on trying to understand the emotional, individual emotional tapestry of affective, meltdown when you're not getting sufficient sleep. But let's just keep with two dimensions, positive and negative. Yes. Most people would think, well, it's the negative that takes the biggest hit when I'm sleep deprived. It's not. By probably in a log order, magnitude larger is a hit on your positive emotions. In other words, you stop being sleep deprived of positive emotions, in other words, you stop gaining pleasure from normally pleasurable things. And it's a state that we call anhedonia. And anhedonia is the state that we often call depression. So depression to most people's surprise isn't necessarily that you're always feeling negative emotions. It's often more about the fact that you lose the pleasure in the good things in life. That's what we call anhedonia. That's what we see in sleep, an insufficient sleep. And it happens quite quickly. Yeah, it's kind of fascinating. I think I do, it's not depression, but like it's a stroll into that direction, which is when I'm sleep deprived, I stop being able to see the meaning in life. The things that gave me meanings starts to lose meaning. Like it makes me realize how enjoyable everything is in my life because when I start to lose it, when I'm severely sleep deprived, you start to see how much life sucks when you lose it. But that said, I'm just cognizant enough that sleep fixes all of that. So I use those states for what they're worth. In fact, I personally like to pay attention to the things that bother me in doing that time. Cause they also reveal important information to me. That's interesting. I have to use like a Rorschach to, yeah. I mean, there's, so I find this when I fast combine with sleep deprivation, I'm clear to see with people, clear and identifying the things that are not going right in my life or people that I'm working with are not doing as good of a job as they could be doing. Like people that are negative in my life, I'm more able to identify them. So I don't act on that. It's a very bad time to act on those decisions, but I'm like recording that information because I usually, when I'm well rested and happy, I see the beauty in everybody, which can get you into trouble. So you have to balance those two things. But yes, it's fascinating. But there's irony there too, which is the fact that, you know, when you're well rested and well slept, just as you said, you see the beauty in life and it sort of enlivens you and sort of gives you a quality of life that's emotionally very different. Yet then we are contrasting that against the need for not getting enough sleep because of the beautiful things that you want to accomplish in life. And I don't actually see them as, you know, sort of completely counterintuitive or paradoxical because I still think that you can strive for all of the brilliant things that you are striving for, to have the monumental goals, the Herculean challenges that you wish to take on and solve. They can still enthrall you and excite you and stimulate you. But because of the insufficient sleep that they can or that goal can produce, it will shave off the beauty of life that you experience in between. And again, this is just about the trade off. I will say though that, and this is not applicable to your circumstance, we do know that insufficient sleep is very strongly linked to suicide ideation, suicide attempts and tragically suicide completion as well. And in fact, in 20 years of studying sleep, we have not been able to discover a single psychiatric condition in which sleep is normal. And I think that that is a profound, I think it tells us so much about the role of sleep as a potential causal agent in psychiatric conditions. I also think it's a potential sign that we should be using sleep as a tool for the prevention of grave mental illness. Yeah, it's both a cause and a solution. So yeah, I mean, me personally, I've gone through a few dark periods quite recently and it was almost always sleep is not the cause, but sleep is the catalyst from going to a bad time to a very bad time. Yeah. And so it's definitely true. And it's funny how sleep can just cure all of that. There's actually a beautiful quote by an American entrepreneur called E. Joseph Kosman, who once said that the best bridge between despair and hope is a good night's sleep. And I spilled quite so much ink and hundreds of pages in elegantly trying to say the same thing in my book. And he said it in one line and it's beautiful. What do you think is, we've been talking about how to extend this life, how to make it a good life. We've been talking about love. What do you think is the meaning of this whole ride? Of life? Of life. Why do we wanna make it a good one? Do you think there's a meaning? Do you think there's a answer to the why? For me personally, I think the meaning of life is to eat, is to sleep, is to fall in love, is to cry, and then to die. Oh, and probably race cars in between. Race cars. Well, there's a whole topic of sex we didn't talk about. So that's probably in there. Should we do that? Maybe if you'll have me back, I would love to do. I will go around to. Next time we will do another three hours on sex alone. Has it been? Yeah. It has been over three hours. Gosh, okay. Matt, I'm a big fan of your work. I think you're doing really important work. Even despite all the things I've been saying about the madness of my own sleep schedule, I think you're helping millions of people. So it's an honor that you spend your valuable time with me and I can't wait until your podcast comes out. I'm a huge fan of podcasts, I'm a huge fan of you, and it's just an honor to know you and to get a chance, hopefully in the future, to work together with you. You're a brilliant man and you're doing amazing things. And I feel immensely honored to have met you, to now know you, and to start calling you a friend. Thank you for what you do for the world and for me included. Thank you, Matt. Take care. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Matt Walker and thank you to Stamps.com, Squarespace, Letter Greens, BetterHelp, and Onnit. Check them out in the description to support this podcast. And now, let me leave you with some words from Nikola Tesla, who we discussed in this podcast as sleeping very few hours a night. All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, and suppressed, only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time. that are so embryonic because, you know, I suspect it's the same with you. Answers to me are simply ways to get to more questions. You know, it's questions where, you know, questions turn me on, answers less so. And I love the fact that we are still embryonic in our sense of arguing about even what the definition of consciousness is. But I also find it fascinating. I think it's thoroughly delightful to absorb yourself in the thought. Think about the brain and we can move back across the complexity of phylogeny from, you know, humans to mammals to sort of birds to reptiles, amphibians, fish. You can, bacteria, whatever you want. And you can go through this and say, okay, where is the hard line of, you know, what we would define as consciousness? And I'm sure it's got something to do with the complexity of the neural system. Of that, I'm fairly certain. But to me, it's always been fascinating. So what is it then? You know, is it that I just keep adding neurons to a Petri dish and I just keep adding them and adding them and adding them. At some point when I hit a critical mass of interconnected neurons, that is the mass of the, you know, the interconnected human brain, then bingo. All of a sudden it kicks into gear and we have consciousness. Like a phase shift, phase transition of some kind. Correct, yeah. But there is something about the complexity of the nervous system that I think is fundamental to consciousness. And the reason I bring that up is because when we're trying to then think about creating it in an artificial way, does that inform us as to the complexity that we should be looking at in terms of development? I also think that it's a missed opportunity in the sort of digital space for us to try to recreate human consciousness. We've already got human consciousness. What if we were to think about creating some other form of, why do we have to think that the ultimate in the creation of, you know, an artificial intelligence is the replication, you know, of a human state of consciousness? Can we not think outside of our own consciousness and believe that there is something even more incredible or more complimentary, more orthogonal? So I'm sometimes perplexed that people are trying to mimic human consciousness rather than think about creating something that's different. I think of human consciousness or consciousness in general as this magic superpower that allows us to deeply experience the world. And just as you're saying, I don't think that superpower has to take the exact flavor as humans have. That's my love for robots. I would love to add the ability to robots that can experience the world and other humans deeply. I'm humbled by the fact that that idea does not necessarily need to look anything like how humans experience the world. But there's a dance of human to robot connection the same way human to dog or human to cat connection, that there's a magic there to that interaction. And I'm not sure how to create that magic, but it's a worthy effort. I also love, just exactly as you said, on the question of consciousness or engineering consciousness, the fun thing about this problem is it seems obvious to me that a hundred years from now, no matter what we do today, people, if we're still here, will laugh at how silly our notions were. So like, it's almost impossible for me to imagine that we will truly solve this problem fully in my lifetime. And more than that, everything we'll do will be silly a hundred years from now, but it's still, that makes it fun to me because it's like you have the full freedom to not even be right, just to try. Just to try is freedom. And that's how I see that. Get me that T shirt, please. I love that. So, and human robot interaction is fascinating because it's like watching dancing. I've been dancing tango recently and just, it's like, there is no goal. The goal is to create something magical and whether consciousness or emotion or elegance of movement, all of those things aid in the creation of the magic. And it's a free, it's an art form to explore how to make that, how to create that in a way that's compelling. Yeah, I love the line in Sense of a Woman with Al Pacino where he's speaking about the tango and he said, really, it's just freedom that if you get tangled up, you just keep tangoing on. I still, to this day, I think first or second time I talked to Joe Rogan on his podcast, I said, we got into this heated argument about whether Sense of a Woman is a better movie than John Wick. Because it's one of my favorite movies for many reasons. One is Sense of a Woman. Partially. I didn't know that, by the way. I was just gonna. You just. Yeah, I didn't know if you would actually know of the movie. Awesome, awesome. No, yeah, I said, I love the tango scene. I love Al Pacino's performance. It's a wonderful movie. Then Joe was saying, John Wick is better. So we, to this day, argue about this. I think it depends on what conscious state you're in that you would be ready and receptive to. But Sense of a Woman, I think it has one of the best monologues at the end of the movie that has ever been written or at least performed. When Al Pacino defends the younger. Yeah, I often think about that. There's been times in my life, I don't know about you, where I wish I had an Al Pacino in my life, where integrity is really important in this life. It is. And sometimes you find yourself in places where there's pressure to sacrifice that integrity. And you want, what is it, Lieutenant Colonel or whatever he was. To come in. Slate. To come in on your side and scream at everyone and say, what the hell are we doing here? Being, you know, unfortunately British and sort of having that slightly awkward sort of Hugh Grant gene. It's very, very, very at the opposite end of the spectrum of the remarkable feat of Al Pacino at the end of that scene. But, and yeah, integrity is, it's a challenging thing and I value it much. And I think it can take 20 years to build a reputation and two minutes to lose it. And there is nothing more that I value than that integrity and, you know, if I'm ever wrong about anything, I truly don't want to be wrong for any longer than I have to be. You know, that's what being in some ways a scientist is. You're just driven by truth. And the irony relative to something like mathematics is that in science, you never find truth. What you do in science is you discount the things that are likely to be untrue, leaving only the possibility of what could be true. But in math, you know, when you create, you know, a proof, it's a proof for, you know, from that point forward, there is truth in mathematics. And there's, I think there's a beauty in that, but I kind of like the messiness of science because again, to me, it's less about the truth of the answer and it is more about the pursuit of questions. But their integrity becomes more and more important and it becomes more difficult. There's a lot of pressures, just like in the rest of the world, but there's a lot of pressures than a scientist. One is like funding sources. I've noticed this, that, you know, money affects everyone's mind, I think. I've been always somebody that I believe money can't, you can't buy my opinion. I don't care how much money, billions or trillions. But that pressure is there and you have to be very cognizant of it and make sure that your opinion is not defined by the funding sources. And then the other is just your own success of, you know, for a couple of decades, publishing an idea and then realizing at some point that that idea was wrong all along. And that's a tough thing for people to do, but that's also integrity is to walk away, is to say that you were wrong. That doesn't have to be in some big dramatic way. It could be in a bunch of tiny ways along the way. Right. Like reconfigure your intuition about a particular problem. That's, and all of that is integrity. When everybody in the room, you know, believes a certain thing, everybody in the community believes a certain thing, to be able to still be open minded in the face of that. Yeah, and I think it comes down in some ways to the issue of ego that you bond your correctness or your rightness, your scientific theory with your sense of ego. You know, I've never found it that difficult to let go of theories in the face of counter evidence in part because I have such low self esteem. Well, I kind of liked that. I always liked that combination. I have the same, I'm like very self critical, imposter syndrome, all those things, putting yourself below the podium, but at the same time having the ego that drives the ambition to work your ass off. Like some kind of weird drive, maybe like drive to be better. Like thinking of yourself as not that great and always driving to be better. And then at the same time, because that can be paralyzing and exhausting and so on, at the same time, just being grateful to be alive. But in the sciences, in the actual effort, never be satisfied, never think of yourself highly. It seems to be a nice combination. I very much hope that that is part of who I am and I remain very quietly motivated and driven. And I, like you, love the idea of perfection and I know I will never achieve it, but I will never stop trying to. So similar to you, which sounds weird because there's all these videos of me on the internet. So I think I just naturally lean into the things I'm afraid of and I'm uncomfortable doing. Like I'm very afraid of talking to people and just even before talking to you today, just a lot of anxiety and all those kinds of things. About talking to me? Yeah, yeah. Oh, I like. Nervousness. Fear in some cases, self doubt and all those kinds of things. But I do it anyway. So the reason I bring that up is you've launched a podcast. I have. Allow me to say, I think you're a great science communicator. So this challenge of being afraid or cautious of being in the public eye and yet having a longing to communicate some of the things you're excited about in the space of sleep and beyond. What's your vision with this project? I think firstly to that question, like you, I am always more afraid of not trying than trying. Yeah. That to me frightens me more. But with the podcast, I think really I have two very simple goals. I want to try and democratize the science of sleep and in doing so, my goal would be to try and reunite humanity with the sleep that it is so desperately bereft of. And if I can do that through a number of different means, the podcast is a little bit different than this format. It's going to be short form monologues from yours truly that will last usually less than just 10 minutes. And I see it as simply a little slice of sleep goodness that can accompany your waking day. It's hard to know what is the right way to do science communication. Like your friend, mine, Andrew Huberman, he's an incredible human being. Oh gosh. So he does like two hours of, I wonder how many takes he does. I don't know, but it looks like he doesn't do any. Yeah, I suspect he's that magnificent of a human being. When I talk to him in like in person, he always generates intelligent words, well cited, nonstop for hours. So I don't. He's a Gatling gun of information and it's pristine. And passion and all those kinds of things. So that's an interesting medium. I wouldn't have, it's funny because I wouldn't have done it the way he's doing it. I wouldn't advise him to do it the way he's doing it. Cause I thought there's no way you could do what you're doing. Cause it's a lot of work, but he is like doing an incredible job of it. I just think it's the same with like Dan Carlin and hardcore history. I thought that the way Andrew's doing it would crush him the way it crushes Dan Carlin. So Dan has so much pressure on him to do a good job that he ends up publishing like two episodes a year. So that pressure can be paralyzing. The pressure of like putting out like strong scientific statements that can be overwhelming. Now, Andrew seems to be just plowing through anyway. If there's mistakes, he'll say there's corrections and so on. I just, I wonder, I actually haven't talked to him too much about it. Like psychologically, how difficult is it to put yourself out there for an hour to a week of just nonstop dropping knowledge. Any one sentence of which could be totally wrong. It could be a mistake. And there will be mistakes. And I, in the first edition of my book, there were errors that we corrected in the second edition too. But there will be probabilistically, if you've got 10 facts per page of a book and you've got 350 pages, odds are it's probably not going to be utter perfection out the gate. And it will be the same way for Andrew too. But having the reverence of a humble mind and simply accepting the things that are wrong and correcting them and doing the right thing. I know that that's his mentality. I do want to say that I'm just kind of honored to be, it's a cool group of like scientific people that I'm fortunate enough to now be interacting with. It's you and Andrew and David Sinclair has been thinking about throwing his hat in the ring. Oh, I hope so. David is another one of those very special people in the world. So it's cool because podcasts are, it's cool. It's such a powerful medium of communication. It's much freer than more constrained like publications and so on. Or it's much more accessible and inspiring than like, I don't know, conference presentations or lectures. And so it's a really exciting medium to me. And it's cool that there's this like group of people that are becoming friends and putting stuff out there and supporting each other. So it's fun to also watch how that's going to evolve in your case, because I wonder it'll be two a month. Or devolve is the answer to that. Well, I mean, some of it is persistence through the challenges that we've been talking about, which is like. I think I've got a lot to learn. Yeah. But I will persist. Can I ask you some detailed stuff? You mentioned that. Oh my goodness, go anywhere you wish with sleep. So I'm a big fan of coffee and caffeine. And I've been, especially in the last few days, consuming a very large amount. And I'm cognizant of the fact that my body is affected by caffeine different than the anecdotal information that other people tell me. I seem to be not at all affected by it. It's almost, it feels like more like a ritual than it is a chemical boost to my performance. Like I can drink several cups of coffee right before bed and just knock out anyway. I'm not sure if it's a biological chemical or it has to do with just the fact that I'm consuming huge amounts of caffeine. All that to say, what do you think is the relationship between coffee and sleep, caffeine and sleep? If there's an interesting distinction there. There is a distinction. So I think the first thing to say, which is going to sound strange coming from me is drink coffee. The health benefits associated with drinking coffee are really quite well established now. But I think that the counterpoint to that, well, firstly, the dose and the timing make the poison. And I'll perhaps come back to that in just a second. But for coffee, it's actually not the caffeine. So, a lot of people have asked me about this rightful paradox between the fact that sleep provides all of these incredible health benefits and then coffee, which can have a deleterious impact on your sleep has a whole collection of health benefits. Many of them Venn diagram overlapping with those that sleep provides. How on earth can you reconcile those two? And the answer is that, well, the answer is very simple. It's called antioxidants, that it turns out that for most people in Western civilization because of diet, not being quite what it should be, the major source through which they obtain antioxidants is the coffee bean. So the humble coffee bean has now been asked to carry the astronomical weight of serving up the large majority of people's antioxidant needs. And you can see this if, for example, you look at the health benefits of decaffeinated coffee, it has a whole constellation of really great health benefits too. So it's not the caffeine. And that's why I liked what you said, this sort of separation of church and state between coffee and caffeine. It's not the caffeine, it's the coffee bean itself that provides those health benefits. But coming back to how it impacts sleep, it impacts sleep in probably at least three different ways. The first is that for most people, caffeine can make it obviously a little harder to fall asleep. Caffeine can make it harder to stay asleep. But let's say that you are one of those individuals and I think you are, and you can say, look, I can have three or four espressos with dinner and I fall asleep just fine and I stay asleep soundly across the night. So there's no problem. The downside there is that even if that is true, the amount of deep sleep that you get will not be as deep. And so you will actually lose somewhere between 10 to 30% of your deep sleep if you drink caffeine in the evening. So to give you some context, to drop your deep sleep by let's say 20%, I'd probably have to age you by 15 years, or you could do it every night with a cup of coffee. I think the fourth component that is perhaps less well understood about coffee is its timing, and that's why I was saying the timing and the dose make the poison. The dose, by the way, once you get past about three cups of coffee a day, the health benefits actually start to turn down in the opposite direction. So there is a U shape function. It's sort of the Goldilocks syndrome, not too little, not too much, just the right amount. The second component is the timing though. Caffeine has half life of about five to six hours, meaning that after five to six hours, 50% of that on average for the average adult is still in the system, which means that it has a quarter life of 10 to 12 hours. So in other words, if you have a coffee at noon, a quarter of that caffeine is still circulating in your brain at midnight. So having a cup of coffee at noon, one could argue is the equivalent of tucking yourself into bed at midnight, and before you turn the light out, you swig a quarter of a cup of coffee. But that doesn't still answer your question as to why are you so immune? So I'm someone who is actually unfortunately very sensitive to caffeine. And if I have even two cups of coffee in the morning, I don't sleep as well that night. And I find it miserable because I love the smell of coffee. I love the routine. I love the ritual. I think I would love to be invested in it. It's just terrible for my sleep. So I switched to decaf. There is a difference from one individual to the next, and it's controlled by a set of liver enzymes called cytochrome P450 enzymes. And there is a particular gene that if you have a different sort of version of this gene, it's called CYP1A2. That gene will determine the speed of the clearance of caffeine from your system. Some people will have a version of that gene that is very effective and efficient at clearing that caffeine. And so their half life could be as short as two hours rather than five to six hours. Other people, hands up Matt Walker, have a version of that gene that is not very effective at clearing out the caffeine. And therefore their half life sort of sensitivity could be somewhere between eight to nine hours. So we understand that there are individual differences, but overall, I guess the top line here is drink coffee and understand that it's not the caffeine, it's the coffee that's the benefit and the dose makes the poison. Is there some aspect to it that it's like a muscle in terms of all the combination of letters and numbers that you just said? Is there some aspect that if I can improve the quarter life, the half life, could decrease that number if I just practice? Like I drink a lot of coffee, so like habit alters how your body's able to get rid of the caffeine. Not how the body is able to get rid of the caffeine, but it does alter how sensitive the body is to the caffeine. And it's not at the level of the enzyme degrading the caffeine. It's at the level of the receptors that caffeine will act upon. Now it turns out that those are called adenosine receptors and maybe we can speak about what adenosine is and sleep pressure and all of that good stuff. But as you start to drink more and more coffee, the body tries to fight back and it happens with many different drugs by the way, and it's called tolerance. And so one of the ways that your body becomes tolerant to a drug is that the receptors that the drug is binding to, these sort of welcome sites, these sort of picture myths, as it were, that receive the drug, those start to get taken away from the surface of the cell and it's what we call receptor internalization. So the cell starts to think, gee whiz, there's a lot of stimulation going on, this is too much. So I'm just going to, when normally I would coat my cell with let's just say five of these receptors for argument's sake, things are going a little bit too ballistic right now. I'm going to take away at least two of those receptors and downscale it to just having three of those. And now you need two cups of coffee to get the same effect that one cup of coffee got you before. And that's why then when you go cold turkey on coffee, all of a sudden the system has equilibrated itself to expecting X amount of stimulation and now all of that stimulation is gone. So it's now got too few receptors and you have a caffeine withdrawal syndrome. And that's why, for example, with drugs of abuse, things like heroin, when people go into abstinence, as they're sort of moving into their addiction, they will build up a progressive tolerance to that drug. So they need to take more of it to get the same high. But then if they go cold turkey for some period of time, the system goes back to being more sensitive again. It starts to repopulate the surface of the cell with these receptors. But now when they reuse and they fall off the wagon, if they go back to the same dose that they were using before 10 weeks ago or three months ago, that dose can kill them. They can have an overdose. Even though they were using the same amount at those two different times, the difference is that it's not the dose of the drug, it's the sensitivity of the system. And that's the same thing that we see with caffeine. In terms of training the muscle, as it were, the system becomes less sensitive, can calibrate. Is there a time, the number of hours before bed, that's a safe bet to most people to recommend you shouldn't drink caffeine this many hours? Like, is there an average half life that you should be aiming at? Or is this advice kind of impossible because there's so much variability? There is huge variability. And I think everyone themselves to a degree knows it, although I'll put a caveat on that too because it's a slightly dangerous point. So the recommendation for the average adult and who, where is the average adult in society? There is no such thing. But for the average adult, it would be probably cutting yourself off maybe 10 hours before. So assuming a normative bedtime in society, I would say try to stop drinking caffeine before 2 p.m. and just keep an eye out. And if you're struggling with sleep, dial down the caffeine and see if it makes a difference. Can I ask you about sleep and learning? So how does sleep affect learning? Sleep before learning, sleep after learning, which are both fascinating kind of dynamics of the mind's interaction with this extra conscious state. Yeah, sleep is profoundly and very intimately related to your memory systems and your informational systems. The first is you just mentioned is that sleep before learning will essentially prepare your brain almost like a dry sponge ready to sort of, you know, initially soak up new information. In other words, you need sleep before learning to effectively imprint information into the brain to lay down fresh memory traces. And without sleep, the memory circuits of the brain, and we know we've studied these memory circuits, will, you know, they essentially become waterlogged as it were for the sponge analogy, and you can't absorb the information as effectively. So you need sleep before learning, but you also need sleep unfortunately after learning too, to then take those freshly minted memories and effectively hit the save button on them, but it's nowhere near as quick as a digital system. It takes hours because it's a physical biological change that happens at the level of brain cells. But sleep after learning will cement and solidify that new memory into the neural architecture of the brain, therefore making it less likely to be forgotten. So, you know, I often think of sleep in that way as, it's almost sort of future proofing information. In what way? Well, it means that it gives it a higher degree of assurance to be remembered in the future rather than go through the sort of degradation that we think of as forgetting. So the brain has in some ways by default, you know, there is forget, and actually I would love to, I was going to say sleep is relevant for memory in three different ways, but I'm going to amend that and say there's four different ways, which is learning, maintaining, memorizing, abstraction, assimilation, association, then forgetting, which the last one sounds oxymoronic based on the former three, but I'll see if I can explain. So sleep after learning then sort of, you know, sets that information like amber in solidification.

本集資源與出處