Interview with Frank Huguenard about his new Beyond Me film and his exploration of spontaneous healing and science’s failed assumptions.
New film on science and healing.
Interview with Frank Huguenard about his film Beyond Me and the institutional dogmatism of mainstream science.
Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Frank Huguenard about extended consciousness and science’s assumptions:
Frank Huguenard: Science is based on assumptions. Some of them are wrong. So let’s replace some of those archaic assumptions with some new ones. Let’s just assume that consciousness is fundamental. How can we reframe and re-bracket all the questions we’re asking?
Alex Tsakiris: Let’s assume the universe has meaning, or let’s at least assume that it’s not meaningless. What a crazy, metaphysical assumption [to assume the universe in meaningless]. Yet these guys spew it out like it’s fact. How have we proven through observation or experimentation that the universe is meaningless? We haven’t as far as I know.
Read Excerpts From The Interview:
Frank posits our ability to transcend the intellect that allows us comprehend our true nature as spiritual beings–[6min.22sec-11min.16sec]
Alex Tsakiris: In a way it kind of goes against part of what you say that I think really resonates: [it’s] beyond reason. We can’t really get there and to pretend like we can really get to some kind of satisfying answer in a way might miss the point as well.
Frank Huguenard: Reason is intellect. And the intellect can only operate at the five senses level. That’s not to say that there isn’t some other way of knowing that’s outside of the intellect. So you can get the satisfactory answers but you have to be able to get your mind out of the way so you can experience directly as the observer of everything.
Alex Tsakiris: My problem there is, as we both know people claim to get there and then come back with all sorts of contradictory information which I’m okay with, but when we try and pack that back into something like the truth I think it defeats the purpose–the edge that I’m at and I think it’s okay to let this fly and we’ll see how it goes–and I hate to say for most people because it’s makes it sound like I’m somehow different. I’m just another most people. I think it’s that edge of let me fully come to terms with that I’m really a spiritual being, I’m not a material being. Let me fully come to terms with I’m not just here, now. I’m eternal. And put off all the intellectualization about everything else until I fully embrace that and start being a better person in this body.
Frank Huguenard: So this next thing I’m working on was going to be a film and it’s probably going to be five films. And I’m aggressively planning on releasing all five by June 1st. The whole second film is going to be a discourse on providing both at the cellular level and as well as at our whole organism level a biophysiological basis for being a spiritual being. In other words, you’re a spiritual being right? And our spirit is in this–Dr. Julia Assante and everyone else will tell you–we have these subtle energy fields that are part of our spiritual body. But the subtle body is part of the material world. This means, and this has to be a fact, this means there has to be an interface between the dense and the more subtle layers. It can’t just happen by magic. Your cell phone–if you don’t get a signal you’re not going to be able to make a call. There has to be a transceiver on the cell phone that’s an input-output device that takes the more subtle energies, transcodes them into something that the cell phone can translate into a voice. So your body, and this will be covered in the film, I’ll be outlining what part of your body’s physiology is an interface to being a spiritual creature.
Alex Tsakiris: Until that is transcended right? We have all sorts of cases where that’s transcended. Some great spiritual being says I don’t have to worry about any of that. Boom! You’re enlightened. Or says, boom! I’m now here or over there, if you believe those accounts.
Frank Huguenard: I’m over here and over there.
Alex Tsakiris: Exactly. So that’s the problem I have. When we dumb it–not really dumb it down, but when we pack it into this scientific explanation in order to dress it up and make it sound like, we’re legit here, guys. I think we run the risk of losing the whole thing. As a slight digression, I always look at parapsychology, which tried so hard to say, come on, let us in the club, guys! Then they got in the club and found out they were completely co-opted by the people who said, oh yeah you’re in the club. You know what we’re going to put you in? You’re anomalistic psychology. You’re why people believe weird things. Why do we want to play that game? Why not just sit back and say, you know what, you have a nice game. It’s done some nice things but you’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It’s not about that. Consciousness is somehow fundamental. So all the laws that you’re looking at; all the cellular biology stuff that you’re looking at is all okay but it’s got a huge asterisk at the end of it that says, only if consciousness allows it. So it’s some little game that you’re playing over there where you can measure things.
Acknowledging the complexities of esoteric topics, Frank shares his love of discovery and connecting with different people who share his interests–[12min.42sec-14min.16sec]
Alex Tsakiris: Why do people choose to, if we accept that part of the literature, why do people choose to take a life and be in a body that is a baby that dies at six months old? Why do they do that? And they come back and they tell us, and I don’t totally accept this on face value but I throw it into the mix, that’s my life purpose, that’s what I was supposed to do, that’s how I was supposed to interact with these other people. So in that sense I’m all for energy healing and all the rest of that but I’m also for what is my life purpose? I’m supposed to die of cancer tomorrow? Is that part of my plan? Both can be true but only in the sense that it’s beyond reason.
Frank Huguenard: It’s fun for me. I’ve had the most amazing eight months of my life. I’ve driven 20 thousand miles. A week from tomorrow I’m driving up to New England for the third time. I went out to California, Oregon…I’m meeting amazing people. It’s just been incredible. Having conversations like I am with you, I’m going to put something out there that’s going to be mind blowing and what people take with it, the people are going to take with it. At the end of the day all I want is to have global peace.
Alex Tsakiris: That’s not too hard. We ought to be able to do that.
Frank Huguenard: I don’t see why not.
Citing a recent debate between Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz and Michael Shermer, Alex points to their exchange as an example of radical materialist dogma–[22min.08sec-26min.43sec]
Alex Tsakiris: I interviewed Michael Shermer a couple weeks ago and I wish I had listened to this debate that he did with Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz. It must have been 10 years ago. But after I published the interview with Shermer I went back and listened. Jeffrey Schwartz, UCLA, School of Psychiatry & Psychology; OCD, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. His claim to fame is he was the lead consultant for the Leonardo DiCaprio film that he did. Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, brilliant guy goes and does this extensive research and finds that mindfulness meditation helps his patients. He goes one step further, and he’s one of the leaders in brain imaging technology, he does this brain imaging work before, then brain imaging six weeks after the mindfulness meditation work. Hey, their brains are different. How can immaterial thoughts change a physical structure? We can’t do that. That violates materialism. So these guys do this debate at Cal Tech or one of those places. Shermer would drive you nuts if you didn’t just say–the reason I like to talk to those guys and everyone else thinks why are you talking to those atheists– it’s because that’s mainstream science. And I think the more that we say, and I’m not accusing you of saying it, but I think everyone in our camp sometimes says, oh, that’s not really the mainstream view. Science is moving. No it’s not. That is the mainstream.
They’re going to hold to that for as long as they bloody well can for exactly the reason that you said. Our structures are built on materialism. Our economic structures, our social structures…all that’s built on materialism. The point is that in this interview Schwartz says, I was talking to this reporter and I explained to her that science would have you believe that the thoughts you’re having right now are not your own; you’re not making any decisions; there’s not really a free will…and he said she looked at me dumbfounded and said, no that can’t possibly be true. And I think that’s where I’m at: reminding people–this fight against this big battle against science. Science is so far to the extreme of what any reasonable person would believe. When you did that thing on materialism, I think sometimes people get lost. I always come back and say, no, science’s current position is you are a biological robot leading a meaningless life in a meaningless universe. So you can either accept that or you can accept something different that I’m going to offer up. But realize that if you reject what I’m saying then you’re implicitly buying into this other thing that a six-year-old would accept. But that’s the reality that we live in.
Frank Huguenard: And everyone’s pretty much ignorant to this. In other words, all of our pharmaceutical, our medical, and ionizing radiation versus [non-ionizing radiation]…They all assume–I think it’s so dogmatic and it’s materialism–if you’re sitting in a cave over in Afghanistan observing this structure in the context of what makes a religion; what makes a belief system; what’s a theocracy…I think we should start a class action suit to stop and prevent the NSF and the National Institute of Health from funding these people on the grounds of division between church and state. They are so religious in their dogma. And I’ve talked to people on this trip; young, bright, twenty-five-year-old biologists who just stood there and stared at me and said no, it’s [reductionism]. These people are so believing in the system, I don’t know if they’re indoctrinated or what, but this is science. And it hasn’t budged an inch. Max Planck and Niels Bohr and Schrodinger…these guys come and go. You’ve got all these biologists that come and go. They haven’t budged an inch.
Later Frank discusses a groundbreaking experiment known as CRISPR where researchers observed the E. coli bacteria replicate itself as a virus–[26min.45sec-30min.32sec]
Alex Tsakiris: Dean Radin. I saw his presentation recently. I think he’s done some amazing things with that double slit experiment. But he presents this throw away point and I hope to interview him again about this. He throws up this slide and says, in a recent survey of quantum physicists we asked them to explain the double slit experiment and he says 33 percent said this, and 25 percent said, yeah, maybe consciousness is real. So his point was maybe these ideas aren’t so far out there. But my point was to come back and say what’s that first group of 33 percent that says we should just ignore that because somehow it has to be wrong. The ultimate religious statement is–it’s the shut-up-and-calculate thing. Just ignore it because you did something wrong. Well go find out what they did wrong but how can you say, I’ll just ignore that result? And it’s been like that for 75 years so there you go.
Frank Huguenard: That was Feynman right? Don’t let your children to grow up and be theoretical physicists. He basically said just focus on the applications. One-third of our economy is now based on quantum mechanics. It’s the most successful theory ever. Do you know what CRISPRS are? Look up CRISPR. It’s an acronym without the ‘e’.
Alex Tsakiris: How do you spell it?
Frank Huguenard: C-R-I-S-P-R. Check this out. This is mind blowing. They discover some scientists in Japan looking at Genomics, and there’s some nice video presentation. MIT or Harvard has a nice video if you just do a YouTube video on CRISPR Cas9. So they’re looking at Ebola bacteria and they’re just looking at Epigenetics and they’re trying to understand what’s happening outside of the chromosome–the methylation, demethylation, turning genes on and off. And they observed there are these other sequences showing up outside. And they didn’t know anything about it. They just published it and here’s the report. So other people started looking into this. And what they realize is that the E. coli got infected with a virus and the bacteria’s 50 times larger than a virus. The DNA in the E. coli with the kind of sophistication that the NSA would be proud of hacks into genome of the virus; uses the RNA to create a duplicate strand of the virus DNA–a segment of the virus; attaches it to an enzyme and converts it to a protein that then attaches itself hand-and-glove to the right sequence of the virus and slices it in half and kills it. And so now of course all of these biotech companies [say] we’ve got a gene editor. It’s the same thing as quantum mechanics. Screw how that even happened. Without really looking at a morphogenic field, epigenetic and saying, okay, the bacteria learned over in Africa when it gets this infection over on this side of the planet we know how to attack this…yeah, it all makes sense in that model. In the materialistic model, well, we don’t need to understand this but now we can go edit genes. We’ve got a gene editor. It’s one of the most amazing things in nature. If you look at the sophistication, how does an E. coli bacteria know how to replicate the exact sequence and in the right portion of the DNA of this virus to kill the virus? It’s amazing stuff.
Photo by Frank Huguenard