@ 27:11 WHOO! shout out to Omaha, NE!!

the henry doorly zoo is amazing.

Dr. Charles says: I mean naturally I can't know if anybody is conscious.

Hey guys

Maybe someone could help me. I'm a brazilian student of english and a big fan of radiolab, but I can't understand what Dr. Charles says in 09:23 / 09:27. "... naturally I con(?) that everybody is concious(?)".

Britsh accent sucks.

I found the terrier story to be really boring too.

I also really think it did not fit the kind of program that radio lab is.

You can't understand a dog in human terms, because a dog is not a human. Instead you have to try to understand them on a dogy level.

I mean the transference bias going on in the story was really obvious.
The narrator was unreliable. The story unsuitable.

Dr. V.S. Ramachandran talk on ted

http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html

@Priya on the topic of the coyote and Charlie, it's pretty harsh to go on about canine psychology, Charlie was there, and then he wasn't. For me, the story isn't about how dogs have evolved or how they are as much as it is about the storyteller trying to come to terms with something traumatic, and wondering what goes on in the minds of these animals in these situations. And as they've established in the show - its a subjective thing that we may never know.

I liked this episode, and its certainly one of the more abstract ones. As a documentary maker sometimes you go out thinking a topic will lead you down an amazing path with a more or less conclusive finale, and other times it just brings up questions that you don't even know if you can have an opinion about. This one certainly made me think about how deeply animals "think" - and how much we think - or want to think - that they think... okay cross-eyed now :-)

I listen to your show here in Seattle because it addresses aspects of experience that modern thinking people are wrestling with. It is clear that you want to include academic (scientific) viewpoints on these issues. But we are dealing here with being alive. And being alive includes more than science.

This particular episode contained only one segment that really revolved around scientists. But it was the first and sort of set the stage. And that segment firmly established our current modern myth about the mind and the soul: that they are all the result of brain function. This myth is unprecedented in our history on earth and I believe is very worthy of a large dose of skepticism. There are many modern students of life that join in this skepticism.

Talk to them, too!

First let me say that I've enjoyed Radiolab very much and have been fan of Robert Krulwich since the days when he did stories for Nightline in the '90s.

I was disappointed with this episode and felt it didn't meet the usual high standards that I've come to expect from the show.

You didn't really answer the question posed by the episode and went pretty far off topic.

I found the story of the terrier who was eaten by coyotes to be absolutely deplorable and agree with Priya's comments. The piece romanticized the savage death of a domestic animal in a way that turned my stomach. I was so sickened that I could not continue listening to the end of the show.

One of the hallmarks of Radiolab is that it uses science to explain things. The terrier story lacked that.

The other hallmark of Radiolab is that the program is delivered in a natural, conversational style--not a scripted style. Robert & Jad are just "chatting" and we get to listen in.

The terrier piece was clearly scripted in the stilted writing style—the I'm-reading-my-A+-essay-aloud-for-English-class style—that NPR is famous for. It's almost as if this piece was created for another show and crammed into Radiolab because you were short on material.

I've been making my way through past episodes of Radiolab and planned to listen to two episodes today, but the terrier story stopped me dead in my tracks. It left me with a very bad feeling about the show. For now I'm giving Radiolab a rest.

whao.. radio lab guys ....i thought i only thought about these things...like i think of some strange idea and nobody else cares...i now know people know
yeah!!!!!!!!

I think I may have a better explanation to the theory of Capgras Syndrome. I think I may have experienced the feeling described several times. Let me see if I can describe my experience:

Sometimes when I look at familar people, I get this strange sensation (it actually scares me sometimes)...I know it is them, but it feels different; it feels like something is off or missing. Similar to what was described in the segment, but I know they are not a stranger even if it feels that way. Even when I see pictures of myself, or look at myself in the mirror it feels like 2 different people. It is a weird uneasy feeling. I know it is me, but it does not seem like me.

I sometimes get the same sensation from words. Sometimes when I hear words, it does not feel right or seem familiar even though I know that is the right word. I am not talking about words that are infrequently used, I am talking about common every day words. The word just doesn't feel or sound familar anymore.

The best way I can describe, explain, or rationalize it--- is as moment of clarity or being present as Eckhart Tolle describes it in A New Earth and The Power of Now. Eckhart Tolle kind of put this feeling into perspective when he talked about being conscious/present and in the Now. Sometimes we spend so much time in the constant chatter in our heads, when we allow our minds to go silent or not focusing on the incessant chatter (as he describes it) the entire world appears different. Or, it is quite possible I am just crazy :)

I'm listening to "Who Are You" and you talked about how babies experience synesthesia. Synesthesia sometimes sticks with people into adulthood. It would be awesome if you did a piece on this.

excellent podcasts always entertaining and educational - I really appreciate the variety and the focus on science, philosophy, etc
Most importantly I ALWAYS learn...so many
Thanks

Man this show really goes off on some tangents sometimes, I don't feel like the question "who are you?" was really addressed at any time in the show.

In response to the comment, early in the program, "that blinding haze of whiteness might be how the world actually is."

To be generous, that is an inane comment.

There is no way the world actually is. This isn't some philosophical notion, it's neurobiology: we see what our brains produce in response to the energy that impacts our retinas. Yes, the retinas of infants and young children are more transparent to blue light than are adults, but they cannot see infrared, ultraviolet, cosmic rays, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation: we see what our brains produce, not what is.

In a lesser program I would have lower expectations, but the hosts are not ignorant fools, they have spent time with brilliant minds and learned a thing or two. Well, here's a third thing that you should ask the next neuroscientist that you talk to: what the world looks like independent of how our brains interpret the world. They will either invoke philosophers (Kant is a favorite "Ding an sich") or retreat into describing details of the neuroanatomy of the visual processing systems in the brain. Either way, what we see is not what is, it is a construct.

One of the things I love about Radiolab is that the show considers questions of animal emotion and cognition in a way that is reasonable and not polarizing. It doesn't claim to have any answers, but takes animals seriously. So I was really shocked that they featured the story with the woman whose dog got eaten by the coyotes. Despite thinking all of wild nature was romantic and life-affirming - from her dog chasing squirrels to coyotes howling at night - she hid in the closet the first time something actually wild happened to her family. OK, she was young, but she seems to have spent her time since then trying hard to make herself feel better about a situation that one really ought not feel good about. If she was actually interested in dogs she would know that they do not think they are coyotes; in fact domesticated dogs are afraid of coyotes and of wolves, unless they are introduced in safe and controlled conditions. She would also know that terriers are hardwired to defend their families and their homes at any cost, often belligerently. She would probably have figured out by now that the dog - a dog that went ballistic when he saw squirrels, remember? - would have charged coyotes that got too close to home, and was most likely trying to defend the family that left him outside, alone, with no access to a safe place, knowing that there were coyotes out there. How does she think she would feel being basically eaten alive, alone, and completely helpless? Not glorious, I would guess.

Hey! The soundtrack to I Heart Huckabees!

Great new skin and organization!

Oh, all of these segments were released as shorts earlier. I see now. Great-looking website, guys!

Why wasn't this one on the podcast?