Ancient Progress

Speaker A: 00:00:00

Hello, and welcome to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast produced by me, Fraser McGruer for Aleph Insights. In this series of podcasts, we take a look at interesting topics and discuss what we think they tell us about analysis and decision making. I'm here with Jordan Fermanis, Nick Hare and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. And this week, we're discussing the Aztecs. I love the Aztecs,

Speaker B: 00:00:27

go for it. Right. Actually, I think just before we kick off, it might be worth saying that I think you're meant to call them the Mexica. So apologies if the term Aztec is unfashionable now, but I'm going to roll with it because I think we all know what we're talking about. I was listening to, there's a great podcast called The Fall of Civilizations. And I was listening to that. Fascinating about this. It's a different civilization each time, each episode. They only release one about every three or four months, which tells you it's good. Now, Fraser, let's say you and I decide that we're going to write a story together. And together, we write the first sentence. I can just see arguments already, but keep going. Yeah. Together, we agree on the first sentence. And then we actually just take that first sentence and we go off and we write our own stories until we've got a whole short story. 20 pages. Right. Lo and behold, when we compare them, word for word, virtually the same story. What are the chances of that? Even though we separated off the first sentence. Yeah, we got the first sentence down and then off we went to do the rest of the story. I'd submit that the chances are low we

Speaker C: 00:01:38

would write the exact same story. Well, word for word, but the odd word. Yeah. What on earth has

Speaker B: 00:01:44

this got to do with the Aztecs? Okay. So the thing that I found really surprising was his description of how of not just how but how like the extent to which the Aztecs were actually really advanced, but but also like the kinds of advancements they had. When I remind you that the really the last contact of the you know, the American people with Afro Eurasia was something around 15 to 20,000 years ago, right? That let me tell you where humanity was 15 to 20,000 years ago, right? Probably had control of fire, tools and weapons made of stone, bone and wood. We had language, but probably not writing as such. We had clothing and shelter. And there's certainly evidence of art and other forms of symbolic expression, hunting and fishing. Right. But we're on turn one of Sid Meier's civilization here, right? Yeah, this is the first sentence in our story. Yeah, we haven't got, we really just got going, right? Now, Aztecs, they, artificial islands, the calendar, agriculture, including mixed, mixed planting, 60%. Sorry, start again. I just want to list some of these. Say these again. So they had this, this technique of building artificial artificial islands. Yeah. They had created the calendar, agriculture, something like 60% of the cultivated crops in the world today are crops that were cultivated by, you know, Mesoamericans and other neighbouring civilisations, including sweet corn, beans, tomatoes, peppers, and the ever popular chilies. Where would we be without those? They had hydraulics, aqueducts, they had invented paper, they had, they were using currency, cocoa beans, jade, feathers, and quills. They had invented writing in the form of glyphs, like hieroglyphs, basically. And they had political structures and hierarchies and things like priests. Now, that's, I think, bloody amazing. And this was about the same time as the Spanish turn up. You would say the Spanish were obviously more advanced, because, you know, there are a few things the Aztecs hadn't created, such as iron and steel or even wheels. They didn't have wheels, didn't have the alphabet, or obviously the printing press or the compass. And they didn't have ocean going navigation. But, you know, they had so many of the same things. And they had created all of that themselves at virtually the same time as everyone else. And when you look at the other civilisations, so people say in general, there are sort of more or less six places where civilisation kind of emerged. But if you take like the Mesopotamia and the Sumerians, well, they had contact with the Egyptians. And then the early Egyptian civilisation emerged a couple of maybe a thousand years later. The Indus Valley civilisation, again, contact with the Mesopotamians. Likewise, in China, they would have had knowledge of and contact with those other civilisations. So all of that kind of emerged together, you could say. For example, Egyptians may have got writing from the Sumerians, and so on. But the Aztecs did it all themselves. And not just that, but the same stuff. So here's the mystery. Why? How is it that we can separate and 10,000 years later, they've invented all the same stuff, more or less, at about the same time? I find that incredibly weird. And it stresses me out. People aren't talking about it enough.

Speaker A: 00:05:28

Yes, nice, nicely framed. So but I mean, what do we want to ask here? Do we want to ask, is this kind of inevitable? Is this sort of separate development and these markers? Is that just inevitable? Or is that what we're asking?

Speaker B: 00:05:46

Yeah, I think so. Is it? Is it? Well, or is it somehow that that was caused by something, some place we were at 10,000, 20,000 years ago, that somehow contained the seeds of that? Or what? What is it in human nature that has led us effectively? This is almost like we run the same experiment twice with the same results.

Speaker A: 00:06:07

Because the answer must be yes. It feels like, or is it? Jordan?

Speaker D: 00:06:11

I can lay out a few possible explanations. I think it's a complicated thing. I don't think there's one thing. But one of the ones that strikes me is this universal human needs, where certain discoveries or inventions tap into solutions that are very fundamental human problems. So writing, agriculture, using cognitive abilities, logic, mathematics, these are things that all humans need and require. So the fact that they're springing up in different places around the world, shouldn't maybe surprise us too much. Another potential theory is to do with geography. So there's this theory called convergent cultural evolution, where societies evolve in analogous environments or niches, and then tend to converge on similar cultural technological adaptations. Another is limited possibilities. Perhaps there are only so many basic ways to solve a given problem, or accomplish a certain task. So multiple societies may stumble across, may stumble onto the same solutions, by exploring the range of possibilities as well. Like pyramids. Because when you go up, it's easier to get narrower. Right? Yeah. Another one I found was parallel development. So similar environments, cultures, knowledge bases and needs in different societies can stimulate the emergence of analogous ideas or inventions in parallel. So breakthroughs depend on the preconditions. And once these are in place, multiple discovery may happen independently.

Speaker B: 00:07:59

Yeah, I guess you can't you can't invent calculus until you've got maths. And you can't do that till you've got writing. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it.

Speaker A: 00:08:07

I mean, all of these sound and also they don't necessarily conflict with one another.

Speaker D: 00:08:10

They don't. No, that's what I think. I think they're probably, yeah, they're kind of companion theories in a way. And I guess aspects of them all could be going on at the same time.

Speaker A: 00:08:24

Yeah. I mean, yeah, I agree. So all of that sounds fine. What do you think to all of those? I mean,

Speaker D: 00:08:32

The one that there's, I think, universal human needs, I think, is a really, that somehow strikes me as being more true than the others. It's just that like, there's, we're all essentially trying to accomplish very similar things. And we need very similar inventions, no matter where we are. I mean, geography is a factor. But I think there are fundamental human problems that we all need to get to grips with. Absolutely. So I think it's sort of, it's kind of clear that writing and agriculture and these sorts of things are needed wherever we spring up.

Speaker A: 00:09:08

Exactly. And there's, I mean, it's not entirely disconnected, but there's, I think, is it called co-convergent evolution? That happens in nature all the time. And of course, we are part of nature anyway. But Chris?

Speaker C: 00:09:20

Yeah, so I'm going to take a bit more of a radical view, I suppose. Ancient aliens. Yeah, ancient aliens, Atlanteans. No, not radical in that sense, but more fundamentally about the question itself. So I think there's a degree of selection bias going on here, right? So if you look at what civilisation is, right, well, it comes from the Latin word civitas, right, or city. And so it's societies made up of cities, right? So and when we characterise what civilisations are, they themselves have characteristics, right? So we talk, you know, people talk about the fundamentals of civilisations as agriculture and, you know, systems of law and trade and all those kinds of things, right? And lo and behold, you know, you look at civilisations and you go, oh, my God, all these civilisations have got cities, right? So these already predefined things. Right, so there's an element. I agree, there's something very interesting about the fact that these things come to exist. But when we're asking the question of why do civilisations share things in common, it's partly because we've defined civilisations as these things that, you know, so it's a bit like saying, oh, my God, all these insects have got six legs. Because, you know, that's like insects have evolved. And there are some fundamental aspects of, you know, what that is useful for and so on. But yeah, so I think there's this.

Speaker B: 00:10:51

It feels a bit more like we've discovered two species that have evolved from completely different species and yet all have the same six legs. Like that's kind of what we're looking at here.

Speaker C: 00:11:04

Well, in a way, except that like, I mean, without being too literal, but we are the same species. And by 15,000 years ago, a lot was sort of hardwired in, like you say, things like language and the ability to reason. And so while there's the creativity of how you apply that, there are probably some, going back to Jordan's basic needs sort of principle. You know, you've you've got to eat. And if you're eating in a sedentary place, you've got to have something to eat. And that necessitates agriculture. But yeah, I just I just think what we what we possibly miss by asking this question of why do civilisations share these all these things in common is all the other things that you wouldn't characterise as civilisations in terms of, you know, sort of other. And there are, you know, parallel streams of society's human existence, which didn't end in civilisation and was going around its, you know, its business reasonably successfully. But the question is, you know, I suppose civilisation ultimately is expansive and it's very successful at doing that. And so from a from an ideas point of view, it's it's dominated, you know, evolutionarily.

Speaker A: 00:12:28

OK. That's also persuasive. And yeah, I like that way of looking at it. OK, 12 minutes in. We're done. We're done.

Speaker B: 00:12:37

Well, because I well, but the thing is that that depends on it depends on the idea that those well, let's put it this way. Why did it not? Why did it all happen at the same time? I mean, that's that's the thing I get. I get that, you know, assuming that humans weren't weren't genetically any different. Why would why would it have happened almost at the same time in two totally different places? That's because I understand what you would expect. Let's put it this way. What? OK, fine. We we we keep looking until we find another civilisation that looks like looks like, let's say, you know, what we consider to be a civilisation. And then we go, oh, look, there's one. Lo and behold, it's a civilisation. I think that's what Chris is saying. We're not we we're being surprised by that thing. But actually, for example, to run with Chris's argument, if for whatever reason we were nomadic hunter gatherers and we came across some nomadic hunter gatherers like in the Amazon or something, we would probably be surprised by the similarities. There are probably lots of things that they do that we might consider to be quite specific local cultural artefacts that turn out actually to go with Jordan's argument to be, if you like, universal solutions. You know, it might be, oh, you're really surprised by the fact that they also have the same sorts of bead necklaces or something, you know, and Chris, I think Chris is saying we're using this yardstick of civilisations. But actually, we could be looking at other forms of existence. And we might find that that's a similar thing. I think, though, that there is a sense of progress. And I know it's a bit old fashioned. So I mean, literally, in the sense of progress, in the sense that Jordan was talking about of there being just like a tech tree. Have you ever played Civilisation, the computer game? One thing that used to bother me, I think, is I would sort of feel like, well, last time I played this, every time you play this, first you invent pottery, then you invent the wheel, then you invent maths, then you invent the steam engine. And there's a feeling of, well, this is just a description of the things we invented. It might come out in a totally different order. But I think this Aztec situation, the Aztec question challenges that. It almost says, actually, no, there is an order in which you need to invent this stuff. And not just that, but also potentially some sort of minimum amount of time it takes. So you can't just go straight from fire to the steam engine in 100 years. There's some physical process. But, you know, and this, the Aztec situation suggests that there is almost like a cultural clock running that will get you there, that will progress you ultimately, inevitably towards agriculture and laws.

Speaker A: 00:15:42

So what's your point? And do you feel that is the case? Or what are we talking about? What are we discussing here? Do we disagree on anything?

Speaker C: 00:15:49

I don't think so. I think this idea of progress is quite interesting in a sense, you know, that, you know, in order to smelt metal, you have to have fire, you know, and you have to have bellows and things like that. And, you know, that there is a natural progression of technologies. I mean, interesting. There's quite an interesting case study with the wheel. We talked about the wheel and South American societies not having, you know, famously the Inca were without wheels, except until they found in the late 19th century that they had wheels on toys that they had. Interesting. And so they had the concept of the wheel. It's just the wheel wasn't terribly useful in that setting. And there's an interesting book by a guy called Richard Boullier called The Wheel. And in it, he posits that the wheel's not a terribly good idea. Right. Until you've got roads. So it was only, you know, John McAdam and his invention of, you know, how to pave roads that makes the wheel useful. Well, I think the Romans had use of wheels. True, true. But they also had the ability to make roads. So, you know, but that's the idea of progress and order of technology. So I think that's a, you know, a sort of interesting idea. I think there's also that, you know, we've got no mechanism for comparing the similarity between different societies. So we do it kind of anecdotally where we go, oh, my God, pyramids. But we don't go, oh, my God, not these things. You know, they don't have. So nobody, to my knowledge, nobody has audited all the major civilizations and gone, actually, there's a 3% overlap or there's a 75% overlap. You know, so we look for coincidence all the time. Right. It's like, oh, I met this guy and he had the same birthday as me, but he had different coloured hair and his feet were a different size. And, you know, so I think, you know, I do think there's something to this, that there's a natural progress and there are common, fundamentally human features in civilizations. But I also think maybe we overplay it. I don't know.

Speaker A: 00:18:25

Absolutely. Absolutely. I want to move this on, Jordan. Also, by the way, another famously, you know, in the new world, in the Aztecs, they hadn't invented the horse yet either. But anyway.

Speaker B: 00:18:34

Their top scientists have been working for years.

Speaker A: 00:18:36

Yeah. They only came up with a llama. Which reminds me of that joke. It was a camel, which is a horse designed by a committee. So you could say something similar about a llama. So maybe the way to look at it is this. I mean, I don't know. I just don't feel we've quite got there yet. We concentrate too much on the similarity. Maybe one angle is, hey, isn't it more interesting to look at the differences? I don't know. But anyway, Jordan, take us somewhere.

Speaker D: 00:19:01

I think what Chris and Nick were talking about is this, which I find interesting, is this necessary preconditions idea that, like, if you're looking at the reasons for why innovations or progress is taking place in kind of similar ways, is that you can look at the development of precursor knowledge. And resources and infrastructure, cultural practices. Because, for example, the emergence of metallurgy requires the mining and smelting of copper and iron ore and that sort of thing. So it's like a progress, I guess, is a building thing.

Speaker A: 00:19:41

And inevitability sort of increases as you go along in a way.

Speaker D: 00:19:45

I think, yeah. But to do it, you need the right preconditions to then allow those innovations to diffuse into society.

Speaker C: 00:19:55

And you need the continuation of knowledge, right? So you need some mechanism within that society of passing the knowledge on. But what I think is interesting, which reminded me of something Nick was saying earlier about, you know, is there a natural order? We may never know now because we have a global society. So it's not that there are no pockets.

Speaker B: 00:20:18

Except for the Andaman Islands.

Speaker C: 00:20:19

Well, quite exactly. Well, keep an eye on them to see when they come up with wheels. Yeah. But it's the, you know, obviously to develop these great leaps, you need lots of people gathered all sharing ideas. And so, yeah, I suppose, you know, have we reached the end of this experiment of disparate societies because they're all connected? But that presupposes that civilisation moves in one direction, right? And obviously civilisations fall. Will global civilisation fall? Well, you know, there have been many novels written about that.

Speaker B: 00:21:00

But also, if it didn't, then that would be the first civilisation which hadn't. I think there is an interesting parallel with the discussion around the Fermi paradox, which just to remind us. What's that? Well, it's so you start with the Drake equation, which says, OK, let's find out how common it would be to get life somewhere, right?

Speaker A: 00:21:24

Yeah.

Speaker B: 00:21:24

You say how many planets are there, which got this temperature and how many stars are there? And then out of those, you know, blah, blah, blah. And but one of the key, one of the key sort of unknowns is about the time frame in which civilisation will, sorry, like life will emerge and intelligent life will emerge. And at that point, when it becomes spacefaring, how long it's spacefaring for. So it might be, well, actually, spacefaring civilisations are very common, but they but they only last for, let's say, a million years. And I don't know if you're much of a astrologer, but the universe is much older than a million years. And when you, you know, it might be that they're coming on over there. They're around. They maybe popped in to visit Earth a million years ago. Not much to look at early, you know, hominids and stuff, but then they've gone. And maybe, you know, we are the same. But see, if we'd have applied that argument to or let's say the Aztecs might have applied that argument, they might have said, well, you know, how often are you going to get a civilisation like ours? And how long does it last? Maybe it lasts for a thousand years. But, you know, we've been on this continent for 20,000 years and we haven't encountered any others. Right. So maybe they just last for a really short amount of time and they pop in and out of existence and we'll never see another civilisation like ours. And then hey, presto, Cortez rocks up in his with his Spanish galleons. Right. Because it turns out, actually, they're all on the same timing mechanism. Now, I don't know if there are any astronomers who would agree, but it could be that actually there are timing mechanisms somehow in the in the universe itself, which means that we're now actually about the right time for life to be kind of emerging in lots of different places all at once. Anyway, I just I just thought I'd put that out there.

Speaker A: 00:23:22

Yeah. There are lots of fascinating, intriguing questions there.

Speaker C: 00:23:24

I think the other the other sort of parallel, because, you know, there's lots written about the there's lots written about the, you know, what alien civilisation might might look like and people trying to imagine it's, you know, it's alien-ness and how it could be, you know, vastly different. And we find that that difficult. But I think the other the other interesting parallel will be AI and and how AI develops a notion of what civilisation might be. I think that could be an interesting, you know, will it determine that there are better ways to set up a society of AIs in some way?

Speaker B: 00:24:15

Because you think of the things like, you know, AlphaGo, the Go playing AI, which.

Speaker A: 00:24:24

I think that was our first ever podcast episode. It was. Yeah.

Speaker B: 00:24:26

But but it but it invented it didn't just rediscover, you know, human Go style. It invented a kind of new style where it was doing surprising things. Yeah. So it could be that, you know, when when AI start solving problems, instead of sort of almost walking through human history and discovering the same solutions that we've we've found, but better, they might be able to take us on some great leap to somewhere else. But I think the aliens one is quite interesting, because actually just thinking about the Aztecs and the, you know, the Indo-Europe or Eurasian civilisations. Maybe aliens will. There is some pathway you need to take to get to being a spacefarer, and they're going to be on the same pathway. And and so actually, maybe they will be like us. Maybe they'll be like the Klingons. They'll just have wrinkly foreheads or something. Because, yeah, it always like have you heard of the Arecibo message?

Speaker A: 00:25:30

No.

Speaker B: 00:25:31

Well, it's that it's that it's basically a kind of coded binary signal that we sent to some star where we think there might be alien. And they won't get it for, you know, hundreds, hundreds of years. But if they get it, it has a bunch of, you know, like symbols and some maths in it and that kind of stuff. Same with the Voyager 2 plaque, you know, which has a picture, has some has some things where they tried to write, you know, some basically talk about hydrogen atoms with little diagrams and stuff. And you're inclined to think, well, aliens, this is going to mean anything to them. They don't know what a 1 or a 0 is. But maybe there are reasons to think they might, for the same reason that we might have convinced ourselves that, well, no, we're not going to find these people have been cut off for 15,000 years. If they've got a civilisation, it's going to be totally different to what we can imagine. But it wasn't.

Speaker A: 00:26:22

And that's the point of the binary stuff and the universal stuff, right?

Speaker B: 00:26:24

It's yeah, yeah, yeah. So this gives, I think this gives support, gives us hope, if you like, that we might be able to communicate with aliens and.

Speaker A: 00:26:32

Might be listening to this.

Speaker B: 00:26:34

Might be able to use the same toilets.

Speaker A: 00:26:35

Yes, might. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker B: 00:26:38

Hello, alien listeners.

Speaker A: 00:26:42

Jordan, finish us off, Jordan.

Speaker D: 00:26:44

Yeah, I think that on the AI question, I think because AIs are trained on human knowledge, that it's kind of, I think they'll still be thinking about things and innovating in like the human tradition because they're, that's their training data set. But I think the alien, I think because all of these multiple discovery theories and explanations we've been talking about rely on, there's something kind of fundamental about them as there's a humanness to them all. I think that it's, and I guess there's a lot that's shared there in terms of knowledge and innovation. But I think it's very possible that from an extraterrestrial point of view, that they're using, because they will not have any access to that knowledge or any of that history. I think that they'll come up with entirely different systems.

Speaker A: 00:27:39

Okay, nice. Yeah, I got into that more than I thought I would. That was nice. Got a question. I was going to ask one, but actually I'm going to ask a different one. Go on. Which is, what's the best, your favourite moment of contact that you've seen or read about, that you've seen depicted either, you know, in film, literature, radio, whatever. Or even personally, perhaps on a train. No. Oh. But there's been two civilisations. Yeah, between cultures. And it could be depicting a real event, or, you know, something actually happened, or it could just be entirely made up. You know, what do we think? I think that's quite a nice one.

Speaker B: 00:28:22

Yeah, it could be, we could throw aliens in.

Speaker A: 00:28:24

Yeah, no, definitely, definitely. Because I was going to say, hey, what's your favourite ancient civilisation? That's a bit, you know, but I think this one's better.

Speaker B: 00:28:30

I can have a go. Stanislav Lem. Chris might know this more than me. I think he's Polish. He's a sci-fi. I thought he was Russian. Yeah, could be. Sci-fi writer. And he wrote this book called Fiasco, which is about a human, effectively, where we're kind of the aliens. We're going to a planet where we think there's alien life to check it out. And they get there, and it's all really incomprehensible. The orbit is filled with these mysterious, broken down, or apparently broken down machines. And, you know, eventually, when they actually get to the surface, they have no idea what the life is. Like there's these mysterious objects everywhere, but they don't actually realise that, you know, which bits of the aliens and stuff. It's all kind of, I suppose, going back to Chris's idea, or this question of how alien or aliens going to be. The idea of the alien being not just scary or, you know, hostile, but just completely incomprehensible. It's really, it's quite a fun one.

Speaker A: 00:29:47

Yeah, yeah. Nice. Either one of you two.

Speaker D: 00:29:53

Yeah, the thing that springs to mind is there's this, well, coming from Australia. There was some contact between Indigenous peoples and the British.

Speaker A: 00:30:03

All went fine.

Speaker D: 00:30:04

All went fine. But there's a shield, I think, that depicts, from an Aboriginal perspective, the arrival of the British in ships and stuff. And I've always thought like, it'd be so, I can't remember how it's depicted, but it's a ship. But it doesn't obviously look like a, it's people drawing a ship that obviously had no comprehension of what a ship did, really. So it's just like a monstrous looking floating thing. But I've always thought, yeah, imagine just having a civilisation ongoing for thousands of years and then coming across this brand new one and into contact with it. And you have no kind of understanding of how it works or its customs or its technology. It'd just be a sane thing.

Speaker A: 00:30:45

It's tantalising to think about, because the example you've given just does bring it home. That moment happened. And that is rather tingling, something about that, I find.

Speaker B: 00:30:57

But also, when you think of the depiction of things like an Independence Day when the aliens rock up, you know, that is probably a very good depiction of what it must have been like. Yeah. And not just that, but also, well, this is the beginning of the destruction of your civilisation, your way of life that you've had for tens of thousands of years. Yeah. It's, yeah. So in fact, you know, you could say in some respects, Independence Day was sort of based on a true story. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker A: 00:31:24

Chris?

Speaker C: 00:31:26

Well, yeah, I think for me, I'm going to pick an example from AI, because although they are trained on humans, I think there's something or rather they're trained on human data. You look at, you know, language, large language models. But they do have their own ways of viewing things. And I think as this goes forward, it will become more and more alien to us. And so, yeah, for me, it's the following monologue, which I'm sure some of you will spot. But I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched sea beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die. Film? Keep it light. Blade Runner, of course. Yes, of course. But what I think is what I think is fascinating about that is one Rutger Hauer wrote it himself the night before, more or less, you know, was sort of he said, oh, I've got this. I've had this idea. And off he went. And they edited it slightly. But it was but but it just gets across this alienness of experience, you know, at the end of Roy Batty's life. So so yeah, I find that quite moving. Yeah, it's called it's called the tears in rain monologue.

Speaker B: 00:32:59

OK, and that was the end of something understood. And now the shipping forecast.

Speaker A: 00:33:03

Well, rather from the sublime to the ridiculous thing. So so my my my favourite one is a far side cartoon, which I've just brought up in front of me. Gary Larson, I think it was where you've got a flying saucer that's landed with a ramp going down and two aliens who look like fire hydrants. And then a dog, a rather satisfied dog looking near them. And he says, take me to your leader, I said. And then the most hideous thing happened. They've got drips of something coming off them. If I remember correctly, Gary Larson wrote that when he initially that was published, it was rejected at first before published because of the drips coming off the fire. It was not right. And so he had to redo it without the reference. Dog urine. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So that's my sort of. So yeah, like I say, from the sublime to the bit less sublime. OK, well, we'll stop there. That's lots of fun. Thank you, as always, for listening to the Cognitive Engineering Podcast. I'm Fraser McGruer. We've been here with Jordan Fermanis, Nick Hare and Chris Wragg of Aleph Insights. Until next time. Goodbye.