The Infinite Monkey Cage - Philosophy

Episode Date: December 6, 2010

Physicist Brian Cox and comedian Robin Ince are joined by special guests Alexei Sayle and philosopher Julian Baggini to discuss Stephen Hawking's recent comment that "philosophy is dead". Does the progress of science mean the need for disciplines such as philosophy and even religion are negated as we understand more and more about how the world works. Or are there some things, such as human consciousness, that science will never be able to fully explain.Producer: Alexandra Feachem.

In our new podcast, Nature Answers, rural stories from a changing planet, we are traveling with you to Uganda and Ghana to meet the people on the front lines of climate change. We will share stories of how they are thriving using lessons learned from nature. And good news, it is working. Learn more by listening to Nature Answers wherever you get your podcasts. This is the first radio ad you can smell. The new Cinnabon pull-apart only at Wendy's. It's ooey, gooey and just five bucks with a small coffee all day long.

Taxes extra at participating Wendy's until May 5th. Terms and conditions apply. This is a download from the BBC. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk slash Radio 4. Welcome to the Infinite Monkey Case, the show that thinks it thinks, therefore it might be. I think I am Robin Ince, but every now and again I do worry there might be a brain in a vat, so if there wasn't enough to worry about already. And I'm Brian Cox, and as you might have worked out from the nonsense being spouted there, today we're talking about philosophy.

Richard Feynman, unarguably one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, said that philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, as far as one can see, rather naive and probably wrong. So there the battle lines are drawn. Philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science,

particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. These were the much-publicised words of Stephen Hawking in his most recent book, The Grand Design. So today we ask, is philosophy dead? Can science tell us everything we need to know to live our life? Brian.

Science is the collection of things we know, I would say. And if you want to label the things we don't know philosophy or comedy or anything else, then feel free to do it, comedian. So there we are. Philosophy may be a guide on how you should live your life, but give a scientist going through relationship problems a copy of Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus

and they'll explain that the atmospheric conditions on both planets are incompatible towards specifically gendered life and throw it in the bin. That's their problem. Joining us today, our first guest is both a man of science and a man of philosophy, being a physician and a philosopher. It's Professor Ray Tallis. Our next guest is a professional philosopher who has attempted to answer the big questions of why we are here, what is truth, and what does it mean to live in Rotherham. Author of Welcome to Every Town and the Duck That Won the Lottery,

Julian Beggini. And while much of our contemporary comedy revolves around marketing and arena tours, there was a time when some stand-ups were still intent on slaying the bourgeoisie, when they weren't reminding us that Descartes knew nothing about the Ford Cortina. Author, comedian and Marxist, Alexei Sayle. Alexei, first question for you.

If philosophy is dead, does that have ramifications for the Marxists? Yes and no. If philosophy is dead... Well, it would do if it was true, yes. My parents were both in the Communist Party. They told me it was Lenin who came down the chimney at Christmas. I became more left-wing and became a Maoist. And we used to have these study groups where we studied Marx. And I had this epiphany where suddenly it all seemed true. I mean, as an analysis of history, Marx seemed absolutely true to me. And this was about 18. And I haven't really gone back to it since. So I thought Donovan was a great poet at that age as well. So I don't know

whether... But it still seems to me that a Marxist analysis of history seems completely accurate. So you'd certainly say that political philosophy is not dead. No, yeah, exactly. I mean, the more cerebral stuff. My wife did philosophy and she was trying to explain it to me today. I mean, she was talking about Wittgenstein and that, you know, if a lion could speak, we wouldn't understand what it said.

I couldn't understand what my wife was saying. I mean mean me and the cat were both sitting there with kind of vacant expressions she tried to explain and then you and the cat had a chat i realized that you'd refuted everything she's saying and the cat apparently is a marxist it all ties together amazing but certainly today for example marx is you know as it seems to me, as he ever was. So Julian, what then could Stephen Hawking have meant when he said that philosophy is dead? Well, he's saying what a lot of scientists think. Basically, scientists seem to have this weird idea about philosophers that they are kind of just failed scientists, really,

that what philosophers are trying to do is to work out why things fall towards the ground or why things orbit suns and of course they can't do that as well as scientists they should just go away um but you know actually it's true i mean originally everything was called philosophy so aristotle was doing what we now call biology and cosmology as well as ethics and politics but the fact that philosophers are at the moment not the best people to come to if you want to understand how the physical world actually works doesn't mean there aren't leftover scraps of intellectual work for them to get cheering on which is what kind of what we got that's what philosophy does we get all the questions which we haven't worked out ways of answering in a kind of systematic evidence-based way for we get left with all the conceptual stuff but the problem is

all that stuff is left over there's no solution to that you can't pretend it doesn't exist if you want to know how should i live a good life i'm afraid you can't discover that by looking in a microscope or doing an fmri scan and looking into your brain you just have to think about it think about what it means to live a good life and and work it out that way so it seems then you've in some ways accepted what he said i suppose he's talking about metaphysics isn't he really is he saying that's dead as a discipline but obviously political philosophy as alexis said is not dead it's vibrant and always will be but it is is stephen hawking essentially saying that in in terms of the questions you would answer with

science or with physics then philosophy has no place well he probably is now that is uh i think an open question. I mean, sometimes I think that philosophy only seems dead because it just isn't moving very much, very quickly. So, you know, but it doesn't mean it's actually, you know, dead completely. People really disagree about this. I mean, if you, I mean, I think Ray's got opinions on this probably more informed and more eloquent than mine. I don't think Julian's been strong enough supporting philosophy. First of all, science has never needed philosophy more. It's basically getting into huge trouble. It cannot cope with consciousness. The very concept of matter

actually makes it impossible that there should be appearances, that there should be consciousness. Take an object like your body. It has a particular appearance from one angle, right? From your front. Another appearance on an angle, the back. And all sorts of different appearances and different angles. It has no intrinsic appearance as a piece of matter. Without consciousness, it doesn't have appearances. So how can you have a material conception

or material basis for matter? And that's why the brain theory of consciousness is going down the pan, which is a physical or physicalist theory. So the physicists can't deal with consciousness. They pretend they can, talking about observers in special theory of relativity and talk about the observer in quantum mechanics,

but basically they're in huge trouble. I mean, my God, I must have a death wish telling you that because you're a real expert, but it just seems to me that nobody has quite sorted out the status of consciousness within material physics never mind consciousness itself but i i would argue that the way to answer unanswered questions is via the scientific method do some experiments observe what's happening build some theories check them which is the way that's been successful up to now in building the modern world.

So consciousness, I would argue, I don't see the reason to believe that there's a phenomena that we observe that is not explicable in that way. Let's talk about success. I'm massively grateful to physicists. Thanks to physicists, I have greater life expectancy, health expectancy, comfort expectancy, and fun expectancy.

Thanks very much. So what you do works. But actually, it seems to me that you don't even see the question sometimes. And one good example is time. You've completely mislaid tensed time, the difference between looking back in regret and looking forward in hope. That's a big thing to lose. And in fact, I think you've pretty well lost time altogether. You've reduced time basically to a dimension which has quantities. And that basically is stripped time

of all that matters about time. So you've mislaid time as it matters to us without even noticing it. Enter the philosopher to wake you up. From the physicist's point of view, there's no difference between yesterday's dental appointment and tomorrow's dental appointment. My God, for you and me, there is.

You're talking about emotional feelings of time which which are built into our language i suppose your regrets and hopes and aspirations but i suppose one could argue that they're a part of the conscious experience so what you're trying to do is you're trying to you're trying to take consciousness which we don't understand but you could argue there's some kind of emergent property based on the laws of physics as we know them, and then you're trying to use that to make comments about the physical laws. Now, I would say the physical laws, they're not separate from consciousness.

Indeed, consciousness is an emergent property based on them. But I think... Hang on a second. Hang on a second. I see some amazing fancy footwork here. No, no. There seems to be some confusion. Wait a moment second. I see some amazing fancy footwork here. No, no. There seems to be some confusion. Wait a moment. Wait a minute. Consciousness and physics. Consciousness is in your left hand and physics is in your right hand.

I'm not... I've got my hands up. Okay, but if you... Jazz hands. Jazz hands always pull this round. If you separate them, you have great difficulty deriving the one from the other. Of course, matter came first before conscious human beings. Of course, a lot of people say when matter takes a certain form,

then eventually consciousness will arise. Just like that, as Tommy Cooper would say. And this is the Tommy Cooper theory of consciousness emerging out of matter. It just doesn't wash with philosophers who can see the questions and even essay one or two answers. Thing is, philosophers can see the questions that physicists have

forgotten. Julian, does it wash? Well, I think, in a way, I think part of the problem here is, like, Ray's accusing physics of not being something else. I think that's the real problem. The thing is, there are all sorts of different levels of description, ways of understanding, and they don't all neatly fit into each other. So you've got physics, right? But if you're doing biology,

you're still looking at the same physical world, but you're not looking at it in the same way as a physicist does. You're looking at it through a different lens. You're using a different framing. Now, I think the point about consciousness experience is it's not that the physicists have done a great service, they've taken away the past and the future from us. It's just that physics isn't to do

with the subjective awareness of consciousness. It's doing something else. So you're right, it leaves something else, understanding consciousness, but since when did physics claim to be explaining the nature of consciousness? Well, doing something else. So you're right, it leaves something else, understanding consciousness, but since when did physics claim to be explaining the nature of consciousness? It probably will at some point. First of all, I started...

We are beginning to journey away from our snappy 27 minute show. Many people who haven't actually listened to module 1 to 5 as yet may well be missing out on some of the points. Is it becoming contaminated with thought?

No, it's... What we have got is, later on, if you want to see both Ray and Brian in their swimming trunks surrounded by mud fighting this out... LAUGHTER There's an Italian listening to this, where everything is run by Berlusconi and is all topless models wrestling, even on the radio,

and listening to this in the entertainment slot at 4.30. They will respect us as a nation. They will quake in their boots. This is the simple entertainment. Well, what can the science programmes be like? I think we have had some very deep thoughts so far. Actually, the thought I haven't got on my head yet is, you know, Alexei's idea of Lenin as Santa Claus.

I just imagine him coming down. What does he do? He redistributes all the toys, does he? That's fantastic. See, Lenin as Santa Claus is all right. Stalin as Santa Claus was a disaster. Because always last year, it turned out you saw these pictures where you had a huge number of presents. They have no memory of receiving those presents,

but the photos are there. I think Santa and Stalin were the same people, because if you think about it, they both had big sort of hairy faces and red uniforms, and their headquarters were in the northern snowy waste and were based upon a system of slave labour. You've never seen Santa and Stalin together, have you? And if you were good, Santa would give you reindeer meat

and the same thing happened with Stalin. Well, certainly Stalin made a little list who was naughty or nice. And if you're naughty, you've got to pull this in the back of the head! Go on, Robin, trivialise it. Go on. No, no, no. No, I do think... I don't know what you think, because, actually, I have this moment where sometimes when I hear philosophers

and scientists arguing, there is a point where sometimes it sounds like all the parents from Charlie Brown. And I want to understand, and then there's a certain point. Basically, the concepts you have, you're almost talking about two entirely different ideas. It's a semantics thing. What he said there in the middle, Julian,

I thought that was right, actually. Which is absolutely fine. I mean, I'm both a philosopher and a clinical scientist, so all my research is in brain science and so on. But it seems to me that the claim that ultimately philosophy is now losing ground and all it can do is pick up a few scraps that are thrown to them by contemptuous scientists say this is a dull problem that's one

for you it just seems to me that that is not where philosophy is at and with the noise the appropriate relationship between philosophy and science as far as I'm concerned it's very interesting to look what the brain does in relation to epilepsy and stroke which my two main areas as far as I'm concerned there's a very interesting piece of work to analyse what would amount to a good theory of consciousness and what is the relationship between this mysterious thing called the brain and consciousness. It's not at all straightforward and it's not explained by the laws of physics.

Surely there would come a point... I've completely changed my point of view now. It's good, though, isn't it, really? Because, like, you're so clever, all you people. But because I'm a comedian, society cares much more about what I think. How long for? But surely there will...

Don't you think there will come a time when physics will actually explain everything, that that time is just extremely distant and Hawking is just speaking far too soon, really, because certainly now in this world, in this universe, and for the foreseeable future, that physics cannot explain consciousness, but there will come a theoretical point when it will.

If by physics you mean, as it were, laws of mass and energy, no. It's the difference between the observed world of physics and the observer. And what physics cannot encompass is the extremely complex consciousness of the physicist. Now I know as it were the consciousness of the physicist creeps in here

and there in Einstein's theories of relativity, but the fact remains that is not a genuine point of consciousness. That is not what ordinary human consciousness is about. I'd like to ask Julian. There's a deeper question here, though, isn't there? Which is that we're talking... I'm talking about in principle now. So it's like precise weather forecasting,

like precisely predicting exactly the way the atmosphere moves all around the planet. In principle, we know how to do it, in practice it's just too complex so the system is too complex to to apply those simple laws and and understand what's happening if consciousness is just that problem then it comes within the realm of science doesn't it so the question is is there something else besides complexity well i'm saying in principle i I wouldn't be with Ray in the sense... These are open questions. It remains to be seen. I wouldn't rule out science being able to explain anything in the long run.

And the question we've got to ask here is, what does it actually mean to explain it? What would it mean to have explained consciousness? Now, I'm not a scientist, you tell me this, but I've had a scientist friend say that, although he's done physics, degree level, all that kind of stuff, and understands in a way about electricity, he still doesn't really understand why it is that electricity does what it does. This is a very technical explanation for the benefit of anyone who, like me, knows nothing about science.

And in a way that's true. What you do is, once you of got a good enough knowledge of how the regularities work what reliably um causes this to occur or that to occur that's as much as you could get from an explanation so i'm kind of in a way i'm afraid right i'm more with brian on this i think that the best we could do to explain consciousness is to have a very clear sort of understanding of all the particular physical processes that occur and how they correspond to and in a way to say yes but there's something missing from that well isn't there then something missing from any scientific explanation i'll give you an example of what i mean if we built a computer and we programmed the computer such that we essentially created artificial

intelligence and it passed the Turing test. Now, the Turing test is an idea for working out whether something is conscious or not, essentially. You ask it questions, and if after a long time you perceive it to be conscious, then you ascribe it this property. You say it's conscious, which is as good a definition as any, I suppose, although you may disagree with that. So my point is, if you could build a computer and program it such that it was suppose, although you may disagree with that. So my point is, if you could build a computer and program it such that it was conscious, then you would understand that, in principle,

consciousness were an emergent property because you have silicon chips and some algorithms and you get conscious if it works sufficiently well. The Turing test is a good one. This is the imitation game. Turing said that if you could have a computer that could fool people into... So people wouldn't know whether, as a result of answers to questions,

it was a conscious creature or it was a machine, then that machine was effectively a conscious creature thinking. Well, I can tell you there are lots of machines that have gigabytes and zigabytes of RAM now that could fool me any time, yet not one of us believes for a moment that a computer is conscious. So, in fact, the Turing test doesn't actually deliver what we expect. There are many machines that could pass the Turing test.

But you say that. You say we don't believe computers are conscious, but the number of people in this room alone who have punched a computer directly in the screen... LAUGHTER ..which probably says more about our animal instincts, but nevertheless, my computer... I turn round and I can just hear it beeping away with another sense of how it can fail me.

Can I make a confession? I have kicked a stone that stabbed my toe, but I wasn't attributing consciousness to it. But is there a problem where we're talking about science and philosophy, both of them ultimately are trying to fulfil a similar thing, aren't they? To give us a purpose and to, even if there is no afterlife, etc, to go, I have some satisfaction.

And so there is quite a lot of common ground there oh i think it's the common ground is that you know we just want to understand things don't we and if you kind of say well why should we understand it because what's the point of philosophy eh well you know because we want to understand things and yeah people can say well science is useful because it leads to all sorts of practical things like you know pens that write if you hold them upside down, and iPhones and things like that. But actually, a lot of people are interested in science not because they're bothered about the practical outcome.

They just want to know how the world works. And I think it's the same. The thing about philosophy is we try to understand things which, as I say, we don't really have any experimental way of doing it. So Brian thinks the way to investigate every problem is to find an experiment. But you know, what experiment could you do to discover what the role love

should play in the good life? What experiment could you discover which would tell you whether or not you would be better off pursuing art or science, for example? You can't do an experiment which will tell you that. I'm working one out at the moment, though. It's a kind of Truman Show-based thing, obviously.

One of the children born is unfortunately given the unlucky number, which means they will constantly be spurned throughout their existence, right? Another lives in a house made out of nails. And the third is brought up by very soft rabbits. And then we find out... Would that work as an experiment? No, you'd find out which one was happier, maybe. You'd find out which one lived longer and things like that.

You wouldn't discover, by the facts alone, which was the better life. So, for example, you've got someone like Wittgenstein who, on his deathbed, says, tell them I've had a wonderful life. He was a miserable sod. In many ways, you'd say he had a horrible life. It was very tough and difficult. But he said he had a wonderful life, not because he was happier. And this is what bothers me now,

when we're trying to use science to sort of, like, guide policy by measuring general happiness and so forth. Well, on that basis, a lot of the greatest people who've ever lived really shouldn't have bothered, because, you know, these weren't jolly enough, you know? And this is a problem, isn't it? Which is to say, you know, the thing about

Michelangelo was, you know, if he wasn't really cheerful, his life wasn't a success. That's nonsense. And so if you are going to say, well, what then does make a life worthwhile? You can't have just facts, you can't have just experiments. You have to just think about it. It seems to me that what you're saying is, again,

you're talking about the human experience. Essentially, we're back to consciousness again. So I could accept that philosophy, we talked about political philosophy as well, it does clearly have a place in defining political ideologies. You say you're talking about questions like happiness and sadness. Does it have a place anywhere else? There's a little bit of what the Romans ever done for us about your reply, Brian. It's like saying, the thing about philosophy is is apart from like ethics the good life, you know politics

How we should organize society value of our and so forth Well, who's who would you say was harder it was the fighter, physicists or philosophers? We've got the Large Hadron Collider. LAUGHTER No, bare knuckle. They've just got pencils. We've got lasers and everything. No, you can't have... This is bare knuckle fighting. You know, Wittgenstein once apparently threatened, was it, Russell, with a poker. Oh, poker, yes.

I mean, ooh, he threatened with a poker. A popper yes. I mean, ooh, he's threatened with a poker. Popper. Popper. Yes. Yes, there you go. Popper with a poker. But that was an unusual moment. Most of Wittgenstein's students used to kill themselves as well, didn't they? He was such a depressing man. But then he used to tell his students not to bother, which isn't very motivating, is it? He said, go and do something useful like engineering.

Philosophy is a waste of time. There you go. Which is interesting advice from a philosopher. My wife described it as picking arguments with dead people. I can't argue with that. Who would have ever imagined that physics and philosophy would have ended up getting in this mire? It's been very, very exciting. I don't even know now whether I live in the past, present or future.

Have you been to see your physicist? He can't even heal himself. Right, so. Now, as yet, we haven't actually engaged in the world of mathematics, physics and philosophy, and now is the time, because it's time for our regular stand-up slot. But on the graph with philosophy on the x-axis... Axis? Axis?

You do that, Link. I'm not ever going to be able to say x-axis. You just have said x-axis. I know, but not any closer than that. The point is, by the mere fact that I'm being observed has made this whole thing very difficult. Are you an elementary particle that gets nervous when watched? I don't even know which universe I'm in anymore.

Now, it's time for our regular stand-up slot, but on the graph with philosophy on the x-axis and mathematics on the y-axis, where do the two meet? When it comes to mathematics-based graph questions, we can always ask an expert helper. Welcome our resident stand-up mathematician, Matt Parker. Are we going with that? Yeah, that'll do. We're going. It's the best I've had all series, to be honest. All right. For a long time now, in the play yard of subjects, physics and biology have been beating up religion.

You know, taking his lunch tithe, wedging his holy underwear, that kind of thing. But physics has gotten bored, wandered off, and just slapped philosophy. Stephen Hawking, tired of just giving reality burns to religion, has decided philosophy is fair game. Big mistake, physics, because behind philosophy is its big cousin, mathematics. Too few people realize that mathematics is actually a subset of philosophy. Both subjects start with a series of axioms and then work out what they can logically deduce

through a thought experiment. The only difference between maths and philosophy is that maths is alarmingly useful. Everything else is exactly the same, from the beards right through to the superb social skills. That wasn't a punchline, but thanks for laughing. Because physics, as we know, deals with contingent facts. They're facts that are true but didn't have

to be true the speed of light is 300 000 kilometers a second but it didn't have to be so maths deals with necessary facts they're facts that are true and had no choice but to be so seven is a prime number and there's no other option this is why every couple hundred years physics theories get overturned, but mathematical theorems don't. Thousands of years from now, if you're going faster than the speed of light on your way to work, you're still not going to pick up a newspaper that says, seven no longer a prime number. Now eight is. And physics, frankly, if you start dissing philosophy, you're effectively colliding hadrons with your own foot. You need mathematical logic

to express your ideas. Maths wouldn't notice the absence of physics, but let's see physics deal with the trial separation from maths. You can't derive Maxwell's equations using interpretive dance. You can't refract and focus x-rays using a densely written haiku. I've got hundreds of these. You can't program a computer using hilarious pictures of cats. Okay, I'll give you the last one. But frankly, physics, you've got to realize the playground is ruled by philosophy and maths. Until, of course, we get our asses whooped by PE as it tears us a new reference frame. Thank you very much right Brian no before we start now there was a point there about if you are traveling faster

than the speed of light you will not see that seven is no longer prime number now I am intrigued to know is that because you will only be able to read newspapers which are from the past and you won't be able to read newspapers from the present due to the time you're actually travelling at, the speed you're travelling at? Would that be a problem? You will never be able to travel faster than the speed of light. Yeah, but that's following your old rules.

Only a mathematician would make that mistake. Is that because of the ether? That's because massless particles travel at the speed of light. Oh, well, let's not go there. So what you're saying is, yet again, no answers, just follow a thing. The old rules there. Hang on a second. I'm feeling sorry for physics now, actually, after that. And I want to apologise to Brian for things I've said earlier in the show.

But that was a most unwarranted attack. Because, after all, mathematics has no content without physics. It's just basically a system, notational system. And, by the way, it isn't always a question of necessary consequences. What happened to Euclid when he thought he was there for all eternity? Whoops. And to the physicist? Can I say, what a lovely moment it was,

just suddenly feeling a little bit sad for physics there. That was a classic kind of old variety act there, where we didn't like physics all the way through, and then the end went, silly old physics. I love physics. I just don't think it's the only boy on the block, basically. Oh, you've gendered physics. That's going to be a disaster. Alexei, after the discussion, I have to ask you the real question.

Are you any more enlightened about either philosophy or physics after the previous 26 minutes? About the same, I would say, really. Pretty much. Can I just say... I was pleased about that. This is the point, isn't it? We've spent a long time discussing philosophy, now we've learnt nothing.

LAUGHTER I said... Correction, correction. Brian has learnt nothing. Well, I said... Correction, correction. Brian has learned nothing. Well, so... And if anyone at home heard the crack there of an elbow, that was an arm-wrestling accent, very similar to a scene from The Fly by David Cronenberg.

So we gave the audience a series of questions. Well, no, we gave them one question, actually. And the question was, whose philosophy would you live your life by and why? Brian, what have you got there? This is quite a miserable one. It says, Doctor Who, because there is surprisingly always hope. Also Bruce Springsteen.

Why is that miserable? There's hope in Bruce Springsteen. What more could you want? It isn't miserable, is it? No, it's not miserable. Homer Simpson, because to quote the Archbishop of Canterbury, he is the most complete human being. I don't quite know how the two things mix,

but I like a mixture of the general synod and an excellent cartoon. Don't go together enough. Hannibal Bear is Adventures of Robert Runcie. Never took off and I have no idea why. SpongeBob SquarePants. He's perpetually optimistic and happy. A great friend. Never has a bad word to say about others,

even those who don't like him, and he's very hard-working for little reward. And he's very patient with stupid people and starfish. If there is one wrong thing with human society, it's the lack of patience with starfish. Brian Cox, because he rocks my world 24-7. There's a phone number at the bottom of that bit. Tom Smith says he's new to London.

And got anyone else there? Well, that's the end of another series of Infinite Monkey Cage. We'll be back in May, so until then, here is your homework to be getting on with. Show that a space-time metric with ds squared equals dx squared plus c squared dt squared is non-causal. Show that by introducing a hyperbolic geometry... That's a minus sign to you, Robin.

Causality can be restored, providing that c squared is an invariant. By introducing the energy momentum for a vector or otherwise show that E equals MC squared. That's Brian's homework. My homework is, why not find out which is the tastiest element on the periodic table? I do have to also say that do not try boron, thorium, protactinium, fluorine, chlorine or any of the halogens.

You're in. Oh, hang on a minute. In fact, to be honest, Tom Lear, I think, tells it a lot better than me. Goodbye. Goodbye. Thank you. Radio 4's evening arts programme, Front Row. To find out more, visit bbc.co.uk slash radio4. This is the first radio ad you can smell. The new Cinnabon pull-apart only at Wendy's. It's ooey, gooey and just five bucks with a small coffee all day long.

Taxes extra at participating Wendy's until May 5th. Terms and conditions apply. In our new podcast, Nature Answers, rural stories from a changing planet, we are traveling with you to Uganda and Ghana to meet the people on the front lines of climate change. We will share stories of how they are thriving using lessons learned from nature.

And good news, it is working. Learn more by listening to Nature Answers wherever you get your podcasts. you