Making Sense summary

Consider the term “memory.” We generally use this word to describe our brain’s capacity for storing information from the past. And we intuitively feel that remembering what we ate last night and remembering how to swing a tennis racket are more or less the same function. However, neurologically, these two forms of remembering are totally separate processes.

Throughout history, we’ve been consistently proven wrong about our own minds. Our theories about consciousness are no exception. At one time, for instance, many people felt that consciousness must be inextricable from our linguistic faculties. But, of course, that isn’t true.

Could we, one day, come up with an invention that tells us exactly how conscious something is? Well, the chances are good – since we already have one that works on humans.

Scientists at the University of Milan developed something called the perturbational complexity index. In it, numbers stand in as a measure of consciousness. A scientist uses transcranial magnetic stimulation to send a pulse of electromagnetic activity into the brain’s cortex. The scientist listens to the echo from the pulse, which can then be quantified as a number.

What percentage of the day do you spend lost in thought? Would you say five percent, or maybe 10?

In fact, those guesses are way off. All the available empirical data suggests that we’re actually lost in thought for 30 to 50 percent of our waking hours. Factor in the time we’re dreaming while asleep, and that number grows even larger. The bottom line is that we’re mentally not in control for two-thirds of our conscious lifetime. 

There are countless factors beyond our conscious awareness that influence our behavior at any given time.

People sitting in a room that smells like rotten garbage, for instance, become more socially conservative on questionnaires. If you point out to them that they were more socially liberal the previous week, when they took the same survey in a room that smelled like flowers, they will attempt to rationalize their behavior. They’ll say something like, “Oh, there was a political event recently that changed my views.” But in reality, they were simply influenced by sensory cues from their environment.

There’s no question that the United States has a brutal history of racism. There’s also no question that racism lives on in American society today, and that white people still retain certain social and economic advantages over Black people.

Open questions about racism persist, and it’s important to be able to have honest, good-faith discussions about them. To what extent is American society still racist? What should we do about it? And exactly how should we define racism, anyway?

In his essay “The Power of the Powerless,” the Czech writer and revolutionary Vaclav Havel offered a parable set in his Soviet-era homeland. A greengrocer places a sign in his store window that reads, “Workers of the world, unite!” – a famous quotation from The Communist Manifesto. The greengrocer doesn’t actually endorse the sentiment of the sign, but he places it in his window anyway so that he can go about his daily life without any trouble from the Communist authorities. Other people begin to engage in similar acts, following the same logic. Eventually, the public sphere is dominated by external signs of loyalty, and resistance becomes unthinkable.

Havel’s parable illustrates how essential it is for people to take a public stance against authoritarianism of any kind. But this is just one component of resisting tyranny.

Picture a giant urn full of different-colored balls. Some are white, some gray, and some black. Each ball represents an idea, invention, or cultural norm. The white ones are innovations that have positive outcomes. The gray ones have mixed positive and negative effects. And the black ones are harmful, with consequences so bad they could destroy civilization.

This concept is referred to as the urn of invention, and it was formulated by the philosopher Nick Bostrom. Throughout history, we’ve pulled many balls out of the urn of invention, and we will continue to do so. Thus far, we’ve gotten lucky – all the balls we’ve pulled have been white or gray. But, in terms of probability, there have to be some black balls in the urn, and it’s only a matter of time before we draw one. What happens when we do?

Did you know that when you look at your spouse, sibling, or best friend, you’re really looking at a bunch of math?

You’re probably wondering how that could possibly be. Well, when you look at another person, you’re really just seeing a collection of physical particles – up quarks, down quarks, and electrons. These particles consist of mathematical properties. An electron, for instance, has the properties minus one, one half, one, and so on. We have names for these properties, like electric charge, spin, and electron number – but these are just bits of language we use to describe the underlying math.

When we talk about “knowledge,” we often feel it requires a knowing subject – someone who is aware of facts or information about the world.

However, physicist David Deutsch defines knowledge in a different way. He says that knowledge is simply information that describes something true about the world. When a scientist speculates about something, and her speculation turns out to be true, she has created knowledge. It then exists – independent of the minds that are aware of it.