44 Shares

please-share-skeptiko3

Self-described materialist-atheist, Tom Jump debates near-death experience science.

photo by: Skeptiko

  stop humming that song

that’s Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg from the movie, The Other Guys

could you not smile like that… now you’re asking me to mask my emotions because of how it makes you feel and that I will not…

stop being so overtly happy about doing shit work you moron

hey guys reminder the police union picnics coming up this weekend my wife’s making her famous deviled eggs again my waistline is furious — it’s a bad time Bob 

I have an interview coming up in a minute with Tom Jump, a self-described materialist atheist who contacted me, and took me up on my “anytime-anywhere” offer regarding debating in NDE science skeptics. And even though the interview wasn’t nearly as tense as that interaction between Farrell and Walberg, it did get me thinking about how hard it can be to tolerate other people. I mean, I’ve been going at this for a long time and I’ve interviewed plenty of skeptics so I know the process can be very frustrating. As you’ll hear in this interview, the funny thing about skeptics is they don’t seem to care about the things they say they care about, like science and logic and reason. I’ve dug into the near-death experience science quite thoroughly so I don’t have to pull any punches in this introduction and I can point out how incredibly weak Tom’s home-cooked theory is, but I got to tell you, it’s really no weaker than a lot of the skeptics I’ve had on the show who’ve published academic papers, of course that begs the question what’s really going on but since that’s a level two question and this is a level one discussion I don’t think we’re going to get there. So, while TJump’s grasp of near-death experience science may not be that solid, are his blind spots any worse than what we regularly run into with Fundy Christians, and radically sounding Muslims, not to mention pedo Pope supporters and wacky Zionists. where can we turn? oh and don’t let me forget we have to remain spherically neutral or we might upset the Flat Earth crowd. there’s Lib-tard-trans craziness and legitimately scary alt-right maniacs right there alongside people who can’t stand me talking about UFOs even though they’re on the front page of the New York Times. So, in that mix do I really need to be upset that TJump doesn’t know Pim van Lommel’s and has never heard of Sam Parnia or any of the other near-death experience researchers? Heck no, in fact, I give him credit for stepping into the arena and trying to defend the indefensible.

Subscribe:

Subscribe to Skeptiko with iTunes
email-subscribe
Subscribe to Skeptiko with YouTube

Click here for forum discussion

Click here for TJump’s YouTube channel 

Read Excerpts

skeptiko-Join-the-Discussion-3

0:05 – 0:10 so Alex thanks for coming on you’ve done

0:08 – 0:12 a number of interviews on near-death

0:10 – 0:15 experiences on both sides of the issue

0:12 – 0:18 like with Michael Shermer Steven novella

0:15 – 0:19 Susan Blackmore and then what’s is Tim

0:18 – 0:22 Vaughn

0:19 – 0:25 what is it me pin van LOM old doctrine

0:22 – 0:26 book yes I’ve seen quite a number of

0:25 – 0:28 unities they’re very interesting and you

0:26 – 0:30 sent me a couple of links to research or

0:28 – 0:31 to the research they’ve done and I find

0:30 – 0:33 it very interesting I don’t find any

0:31 – 0:35 problems with it like some of the

0:33 – 0:37 skeptics have tried to argue against the

0:35 – 0:38 research but I don’t I’m not gonna take

0:37 – 0:40 that approach I think the research is

0:38 – 0:42 totally fine I totally agree near-death

0:40 – 0:45 experiences are a real thing but my

0:42 – 0:48 position is that it’s not evidence of a

0:45 – 0:49 non-physical mind because the brain just

0:48 – 0:51 does weird things when it’s in an

0:49 – 0:53 impaired state so could you tell me a

0:51 – 0:56 little bit about why you see this is

0:53 – 1:01 evidence of a non-physical mind okay

0:56 – 1:03 first off hats off to you you’ve already

1:01 – 1:06 proven me wrong to a certain extent and

1:03 – 1:10 won the debate by showing up man I

1:06 – 1:14 always say you know skeptics never

1:10 – 1:16 debate and you’ve not only initiated the

1:14 – 1:19 debate if you will if we can call this a

1:16 – 1:21 debate but you know you engaged with the

1:19 – 1:23 material and I said hey I don’t want to

1:21 – 1:25 just have kind of a stupid-ass you know

1:23 – 1:26 kind of debate you’re like no man tell

1:25 – 1:28 me what you had it and then what you

1:26 – 1:30 said right there was you know really

1:28 – 1:33 cool I think that you’ve engaged with it

1:30 – 1:36 so yeah I’m super excited to join you

1:33 – 1:38 and talk about that and I think that the

1:36 – 1:41 point that you just made is a really

1:38 – 1:43 kind of important one but I almost feel

1:41 – 1:46 like we’re even with that which is a

1:43 – 1:50 great tee up to it we’re kind of jumping

1:46 – 1:53 into the middle of this because I think

1:50 – 1:56 to really understand the debate if you

1:53 – 1:59 will or the controversy why people are

1:56 – 2:01 so upset about this we have to

1:59 – 2:04 understand what’s at stake what’s at

2:01 – 2:08 stake for science if you will if

2:04 – 2:12 consciousness does survive bodily death

2:08 – 2:14 as it appears to do in the near-death

2:12 – 2:16 experience so

2:14 – 2:19 what do you think about that you know

2:16 – 2:20 kind of approach what do you what do you

2:19 – 2:22 mean exactly when you say what’s at

2:20 – 2:24 stake for science cuz I have no problem

2:22 – 2:25 if there’s if there’s a life after death

2:24 – 2:27 that’s awesome if there’s a supernatural

2:25 – 2:28 that’s awesome if we can prove there’s

2:27 – 2:30 magic I would love all of that and I

2:28 – 2:31 don’t see any conflict with science I

2:30 – 2:33 don’t think there’s anything at risk for

2:31 – 2:34 science to admit that because if you can

2:33 – 2:36 show it science would love it it would

2:34 – 2:37 adopt it immediately so I don’t know

2:36 – 2:39 what you mean when you say there’s

2:37 – 2:41 what’s at risk and science by accepting

2:39 – 2:43 this scene that’s awesome that you said

2:41 – 2:46 that although I’ve heard that from

2:43 – 2:48 skeptics for the longest time and when I

2:46 – 2:49 say skeptics you know the skeptic thing

2:48 – 2:52 is kind of tired we’re really talking

2:49 – 2:54 about materialism and I like in the

2:52 – 2:57 intro email that you originally sent me

2:54 – 2:59 you said from a materialist atheist and

2:57 – 3:02 I’m hoping that we can talk about both

2:59 – 3:04 of those materialists and atheists

3:02 – 3:06 because another thing hats off to you

3:04 – 3:08 again I watched a couple of your videos

3:06 – 3:10 and I like the way you’re careful about

3:08 – 3:13 defining things like defining atheist

3:10 – 3:16 and I’m sure we can go into defining

3:13 – 3:18 materialist too but not to skate past

3:16 – 3:21 the point cuz the point you just made

3:18 – 3:25 there I think is really really important

3:21 – 3:30 I think that there is a lot more at

3:25 – 3:32 stake for science if consciousness

3:30 – 3:36 survives death first we have to we have

3:32 – 3:40 to break down what is your understanding

3:36 – 3:43 as a materialist of the definition of

3:40 – 3:45 consciousness from a neuroscience

3:43 – 3:46 standpoint and and so I’ll just leave it

3:45 – 3:48 at that

3:46 – 3:50 so I would define conscience is just an

3:48 – 3:52 emergent property of the brain kind of

3:50 – 3:53 like how stars don’t actually exist

3:52 – 3:55 they’re just a whole bunch of hydrogen

3:53 – 3:57 atoms that have come together and have

3:55 – 3:59 been fused by gravity to have these new

3:57 – 4:00 effects that weren’t present with the

3:59 – 4:02 individual hydrogen atoms like so I see

4:00 – 4:03 consciousness is that same kind of a

4:02 – 4:04 thing where there’s neurons in the

4:03 – 4:06 brains and they’re doing this new

4:04 – 4:08 process that wasn’t present with just

4:06 – 4:10 the pure neurons because they’ve come

4:08 – 4:12 together and under new natural forces

4:10 – 4:15 that cause it to have new interactions

4:12 – 4:19 awesome so the emergent property of

4:15 – 4:21 consciousness I’m gonna go out there on

4:19 – 4:25 a limb and say right off the bat that

4:21 – 4:27 that’s very a very shaky position I

4:25 – 4:30 think there’s really only

4:27 – 4:32 two intellectually honest positions

4:30 – 4:34 regarding consciousness but I would roll

4:32 – 4:36 that back even further and I hate to

4:34 – 4:38 keep digressing but I think this is the

4:36 – 4:40 problem with these debates a lot of

4:38 – 4:44 times and I really like the way you’re

4:40 – 4:46 open to kind of approaching it here but

4:44 – 4:47 before I digress too far consciousness

4:46 – 4:51 was emergent and you said that there’s

4:47 – 4:55 right company with that and there’s more

4:51 – 4:57 thank you so you know it the one of the

4:55 – 4:59 the Four Horsemen if you will of atheism

4:57 – 5:02 is a guy named Daniel Dennett right

4:59 – 5:04 Bryan you know Dan Dennett he’s a famous

5:02 – 5:06 philosopher at Tufts University and he’s

5:04 – 5:08 known for having the position for the

5:06 – 5:10 longest time and it was the position it

5:08 – 5:13 is really essentially the position of

5:10 – 5:15 science as we know it that consciousness

5:13 – 5:18 is an illusion it’s a trick it’s not

5:15 – 5:21 real that you’re there’s this physical

5:18 – 5:23 property to your brain these neurons

5:21 – 5:27 firing chemicals all that stuff and it

5:23 – 5:29 creates consciousness now what you’re

5:27 – 5:30 saying is really something a little bit

5:29 – 5:32 different which is the middle ground

5:30 – 5:34 that people have gone to because a lot

5:32 – 5:37 of people attacked Dennett and said

5:34 – 5:39 that’s kind of an absurd idea that

5:37 – 5:42 consciousness is an illusion that our

5:39 – 5:47 entire experience of who we are isn’t

5:42 – 5:50 real that’s a theory that doesn’t isn’t

5:47 – 5:53 supported by anyone’s experience so it’s

5:50 – 5:55 just kind of a standalone idea out there

5:53 – 5:58 and then you had these other people on

5:55 – 6:02 the other side who and this traces all

5:58 – 6:07 the way back to the great mystical

6:02 – 6:09 physicist so Niels Bohr Heisenberg the

6:07 – 6:12 Schrodinger and the cat and even

6:09 – 6:14 Einstein at the end of his life were

6:12 – 6:18 saying hey there’s something going on

6:14 – 6:20 here with this thing that we call

6:18 – 6:23 consciousness that seems to be coming

6:20 – 6:26 into play and we have to deal with it

6:23 – 6:28 and the most extreme part of that

6:26 – 6:30 position is the idea of idealism which

6:28 – 6:34 is a fancy term but it just means that

6:30 – 6:37 somehow or another consciousness is at

6:34 – 6:40 the core of everything that we see and

6:37 – 6:41 experience so what you’re saying with

6:40 – 6:44 this emerge

6:41 – 6:48 property is this kind of murky middle

6:44 – 6:51 ground that people in the mainstream

6:48 – 6:53 science community have and it’s really

6:51 – 6:57 part of the mainstream science community

6:53 – 6:60 have kind of kind of dropped on to try

6:57 – 7:03 and fix the problem of Daniel Dennett

6:60 – 7:05 consciousness is an illusion which is a

7:03 – 7:10 goofy idea and you can even hear Sam

7:05 – 7:12 Harris and David Chalmers you know Sam

7:10 – 7:15 Harris well-known atheist and Javid

7:12 – 7:18 Chalmers one of the best-known

7:15 – 7:20 consciousness researchers I always play

7:18 – 7:21 this clip where they’re going Dennett

7:20 – 7:24 doesn’t really believe that does he

7:21 – 7:26 because it’s kind of a goofy idea so

7:24 – 7:28 it’s really a passe idea that

7:26 – 7:30 consciousness is an illusion and what

7:28 – 7:33 people have adopted is this

7:30 – 7:35 consciousness is an emergent property of

7:33 – 7:38 the brain so I’d ask anyone who wants to

7:35 – 7:41 take that position from a scientific

7:38 – 7:44 standpoint I’d say ok then tell me about

7:41 – 7:47 consciousness when does it begin when

7:44 – 7:50 does it end what’s necessary and

7:47 – 7:52 sufficient to cause consciousness where

7:50 – 7:55 does consciousness exist we think were

7:52 – 7:58 conscious our dog’s conscious most

7:55 – 8:01 people say yeah is our rocks conscious

7:58 – 8:03 most people say no the fact is we don’t

8:01 – 8:07 know we don’t have an answer to any of

8:03 – 8:10 those questions so unlike a lot of

8:07 – 8:13 scientific debates that we would have

8:10 – 8:17 where we would both be piling up data

8:13 – 8:20 and trying to figure out whose data is

8:17 – 8:23 better in this case what we have is just

8:20 – 8:26 I think this is everyone would agree

8:23 – 8:28 just two theories about what is the

8:26 – 8:30 nature of this consciousness because to

8:28 – 8:33 say consciousness is an emergent

8:30 – 8:36 property of the brain doesn’t really

8:33 – 8:39 mean anything it’s just a theory

8:36 – 8:41 if there’s nothing to support that just

8:39 – 8:43 like if I was going to say and and so in

8:41 – 8:46 a minute we’ll talk about consciousness

8:43 – 8:48 surviving death and why that’s a way to

8:46 – 8:51 kind of in a roundabout way approach

8:48 – 8:54 this question of is consciousness and

8:51 – 8:57 emergent property of the brain but let

8:54 – 8:58 me back up do you get what everything

8:57 – 9:00 I’m saying or do you have a problem with

8:58 – 9:02 any of that well a couple things first

9:00 – 9:04 your note on Dan did it I don’t take Dan

9:02 – 9:06 in its approach I see what Dan did it

9:04 – 9:07 does is when he refutes consciousness is

9:06 – 9:09 kind of like what he does when he

9:07 – 9:12 accepts freewill he’s changing the

9:09 – 9:14 definition a bit so trying to understand

9:12 – 9:15 what he really believes is a tough

9:14 – 9:18 process because we aren’t actually the

9:15 – 9:20 boss for right right so so I definitely

9:18 – 9:21 don’t take Dan Dennett approach and I

9:20 – 9:23 think most people agree consciousness

9:21 – 9:25 exists as something we just don’t know

9:23 – 9:26 what it is and you’re right that same

9:25 – 9:28 consciousness is an emergent property is

9:26 – 9:31 essentially just saying consciousness is

9:28 – 9:32 some unknown natural phenomena it’s just

9:31 – 9:33 like saying that consciousness is a

9:32 – 9:36 supernatural phenomena we don’t know

9:33 – 9:38 what it is we have no idea so so we are

9:36 – 9:40 in agreement there that those are on par

9:38 – 9:43 to say that consciousness is a natural

9:40 – 9:45 phenomena is on par with it was saying

9:43 – 9:47 the consciousness is a supernatural and

9:45 – 9:49 I don’t like the term supernatural but

9:47 – 9:53 you used it so we’ll just say it there

9:49 – 9:56 is there is no grounding that that we

9:53 – 9:58 can say consciousness is a physical

9:56 – 10:00 property consciousness is fits into

9:58 – 10:01 materialism for all these reasons that I

10:00 – 10:03 said because I can press you and say

10:01 – 10:05 when does it begin when does it end

10:03 – 10:06 what’s necessary and sufficient and you

10:05 – 10:08 would say hey these are normally things

10:06 – 10:10 I can tell you in science I can tell you

10:08 – 10:11 all those things and then I can say

10:10 – 10:13 something’s real and with regard to

10:11 – 10:15 consciousness you can’t say any of those

10:13 – 10:18 things so you have to say hey my best

10:15 – 10:21 guess is that consciousness is this

10:18 – 10:22 natural property of the brain right

10:21 – 10:24 right so we can’t explain consciousness

10:22 – 10:26 at all we don’t we don’t know what it is

10:24 – 10:28 so pretty trying to say to define to

10:26 – 10:29 answer those questions we don’t have

10:28 – 10:30 answers to those but I would say that

10:29 – 10:33 the naturalist explanation is a little

10:30 – 10:35 better than the superyacht you would say

10:33 – 10:40 that and I wouldn’t say that but here’s

10:35 – 10:42 the so just to clarify because we have

10:40 – 10:43 induction we know that the naturalistic

10:42 – 10:45 things have worked in the past we have

10:43 – 10:46 lots of reason to believe there are

10:45 – 10:48 these naturalistic things that exist in

10:46 – 10:50 the world and they can produce stuff

10:48 – 10:51 worse we don’t have as far as the

10:50 – 10:53 naturalist worldview you don’t have any

10:51 – 10:54 evidence of the supernatural actually

10:53 – 10:56 being there so it’s kind of like just

10:54 – 10:57 making up a new category and then saying

10:56 – 10:58 well it’s conscious could be this new

10:57 – 11:01 category of thing that we have no

10:58 – 11:03 evidence for so that would not have any

11:01 – 11:05 basis and I don’t agree with any of that

11:03 – 11:07 I agree the first part of what you said

11:05 – 11:10 and and everything beyond that is

11:07 – 11:12 some form of kind of fudging with things

11:10 – 11:14 so I like where we were we’re in

11:12 – 11:17 agreement that to say that consciousness

11:14 – 11:20 is a non-physical finite we can’t say

11:17 – 11:22 that to say that their consciousness

11:20 – 11:24 isn’t so we’re in agreement with that

11:22 – 11:25 all the rest of that stuff we’d get

11:24 – 11:27 sidetracked and all this kind of

11:25 – 11:30 bullshit arguments that people have

11:27 – 11:33 about you know all these definitions of

11:30 – 11:35 what you know it’s a red herring and

11:33 – 11:36 although say all those things I want to

11:35 – 11:40 get into that shit here’s where I would

11:36 – 11:43 propel the conversation is back to your

11:40 – 11:46 first question about near-death

11:43 – 11:48 experience because Tom I can tell you

11:46 – 11:50 and I told you in the email that I sent

11:48 – 11:53 you I don’t have any real interest in

11:50 – 11:55 near-death experience I started this

11:53 – 11:57 thing just trying to answer big-picture

11:55 – 11:59 questions and the biggest picture

11:57 – 12:01 question Who am I and that’s both a

11:59 – 12:03 philosophical question but it’s also the

12:01 – 12:06 fundamental scientific question and it’s

12:03 – 12:08 also those happens to be the fundamental

12:06 – 12:11 spiritual questions that’s a good big

12:08 – 12:14 fucking question and here’s the thing

12:11 – 12:17 about who are we as it relates to

12:14 – 12:18 consciousness you can go try and answer

12:17 – 12:21 that question like I did and you can go

12:18 – 12:23 look at parapsychology you can go look

12:21 – 12:25 in neuroscience and neuroplasticity and

12:23 – 12:29 you can go look at all these ways to

12:25 – 12:32 potentially falsify this emergent

12:29 – 12:35 property of the brain thing but the

12:32 – 12:38 cleanest and easiest way to do it I

12:35 – 12:40 found or I think in my opinion is to

12:38 – 12:44 look at this near-death experience

12:40 – 12:49 science because if consciousness exists

12:44 – 12:51 beyond bodily death then all bets are

12:49 – 12:53 off and you gotta kind of come over to

12:51 – 12:56 my camp so that can be kind of that’s

12:53 – 12:58 the reason I got interested in it is

12:56 – 13:01 number one here’s some real science at

12:58 – 13:04 this point over 200 peer-reviewed

13:01 – 13:06 published papers on near-death

13:04 – 13:09 experience science there’s some real

13:06 – 13:11 data we can glom onto and at the end of

13:09 – 13:14 the day if it is what it seems to be

13:11 – 13:16 then we have a know a whole new ballgame

13:14 – 13:18 with regard to this question that we

13:16 – 13:21 both think is a fundamental question

13:18 – 13:23 about the nature of consciousness

13:21 – 13:25 what do you think about that are you on

13:23 – 13:27 board with that yeah if we can show that

13:25 – 13:29 you can have consciousness independent

13:27 – 13:31 of the brain that’s good evidence that

13:29 – 13:33 consciousness can exist in a non

13:31 – 13:35 material kind of a way from my

13:33 – 13:36 experience I’m happy to grant all of the

13:35 – 13:37 research that I’ve looked at it seems

13:36 – 13:39 like pretty decent research as far as I

13:37 – 13:40 can tell but the only thing I would

13:39 – 13:42 disagree with would be the conclusion

13:40 – 13:43 like this doesn’t indicate that there’s

13:42 – 13:46 anything outside of the brain like all

13:43 – 13:50 this can be expressed brain stuff right

13:46 – 13:53 right so hey we’ve we’ve crossed the

13:50 – 13:56 biggest mountain I think to to be able

13:53 – 13:58 to define things in those ways and to

13:56 – 14:02 understand that that is the interest

13:58 – 14:03 that is really underlying the interest

14:02 – 14:06 in near-death experience and that’s why

14:03 – 14:08 near-death experience science creates so

14:06 – 14:10 much havoc you know and we’ll talk about

14:08 – 14:13 that maybe or maybe not but it’s why

14:10 – 14:16 people who study near-death experience

14:13 – 14:18 take a lot of heat it’s why people like

14:16 – 14:21 Evan Alexander who come out and even

14:18 – 14:24 though he’s a Harvard brain surgeon you

14:21 – 14:26 know he’s more or less attacked and the

14:24 – 14:29 reason behind that is there is a lot at

14:26 – 14:32 stake with this near-death experience

14:29 – 14:34 science but t jump you’re not you you

14:32 – 14:35 don’t care about a that you you were

14:34 – 14:38 cool with that you just said show me

14:35 – 14:38 prove me that it’s real and I respect

14:38 – 14:40 that

14:38 – 14:42 yeah just one caveat there I’d say the

14:40 – 14:44 reasons and they’re being attacked isn’t

14:42 – 14:45 isn’t exactly how you’re describing it

14:44 – 14:47 the reason I think they’re being

14:45 – 14:50 attacked is because the ideology of

14:47 – 14:51 idealism and dualism have been shown to

14:50 – 14:53 be essentially empty like they’re just

14:51 – 14:55 labels that we put on things they don’t

14:53 – 14:56 really have any value and so if you’re

14:55 – 14:59 trying to impose these to try and

14:56 – 14:60 explain things until we actually have

14:59 – 15:03 some kind of mechanistic way to interact

14:60 – 15:04 with this other ontology of stuff it’s

15:03 – 15:07 kind of just an empty label like if I

15:04 – 15:09 said unknown natural phenomenon kind of

15:07 – 15:10 a thing like we can just label it but

15:09 – 15:12 then we can do nothing with it and so

15:10 – 15:13 using that as an explanation isn’t an

15:12 – 15:15 explanation and that’s why they’re

15:13 – 15:16 attacked for trying to use these as

15:15 – 15:19 explanations of the near-death

15:16 – 15:21 experience fair enough that’s not the

15:19 – 15:23 way that I see it obviously but we’re

15:21 – 15:25 gonna avoid those kind of silly

15:23 – 15:27 arguments because what you said is

15:25 – 15:29 perfect could be perfectly valid there’s

15:27 – 15:32 no way I can say it’s one way or another

15:29 – 15:35 so I’ll just leave that stand and so now

15:32 – 15:38 let’s talk about near-death

15:35 – 15:40 experience science and one of the things

15:38 – 15:42 that I think we’re going to get into

15:40 – 15:43 right off the bat and you’ve kind of

15:42 – 15:46 teed it up already

15:43 – 15:48 is this idea of death you know and one

15:46 – 15:51 of the things you’ll hear and then from

15:48 – 15:52 critics of near-death experience science

15:51 – 15:54 is to say well they’re not really dead I

15:52 – 15:56 know they’re not really dead because

15:54 – 15:58 they came back and they’re they weren’t

15:56 – 16:01 really dead what do you have any

15:58 – 16:03 standing position on that I would not

16:01 – 16:06 approach it in that way exactly I don’t

16:03 – 16:08 think okay because because that’s a

16:06 – 16:10 common that’s a common argument and if

16:08 – 16:12 you’re not the the research on that or

16:10 – 16:16 the science on that is really the other

16:12 – 16:18 way around is the misnomer is that it’s

16:16 – 16:21 not near-death experience its death

16:18 – 16:24 experience and where we would go to

16:21 – 16:27 confirm that is with scientists doctors

16:24 – 16:30 in this case who deal with death and one

16:27 – 16:32 of the top ones in the world is a guy

16:30 – 16:34 named dr. Sam Parr Nia and he’s at New

16:32 – 16:36 York Stony Brook he was at Cornell

16:34 – 16:38 before that when he published a lot of

16:36 – 16:40 this research on near-death experience

16:38 – 16:43 science and he’s one of the top

16:40 – 16:47 resuscitation doctors researchers in the

16:43 – 16:50 world so he’s looking at what brain

16:47 – 16:53 death means when do we die when can

16:50 – 16:56 those cells be restored and get to

16:53 – 16:60 working again and what he’ll tell you is

16:56 – 17:01 that number one these people are dead I

16:60 – 17:03 can’t we can’t say all of it because

17:01 – 17:06 there’s a first of all there’s a broad

17:03 – 17:10 category of people that fall into this

17:06 – 17:12 category of near-death but the ones that

17:10 – 17:13 we usually talk about are people that

17:12 – 17:15 have had a cardiac arrest that is

17:13 – 17:19 they’ve had a heart attack their heart

17:15 – 17:23 is stopped and they’re three to five

17:19 – 17:26 seven sometimes even longer minutes pass

17:23 – 17:29 that heart stopping because that’s at a

17:26 – 17:32 point when Sam pornea would say these

17:29 – 17:35 people are dead by every way that we

17:32 – 17:38 talk about death medically and measure

17:35 – 17:40 it so these people are truly dead so the

17:38 – 17:43 next question that kind of the back door

17:40 – 17:45 for people is okay they’re dead but what

17:43 – 17:48 do we know about their brain their brain

17:45 – 17:48 really isn’t dead I heard about this

17:48 – 17:51 research

17:48 – 17:53 shit University of Michigan where these

17:51 – 17:56 rats had a little spike in their brain

17:53 – 17:59 you know 15 minutes after they died

17:56 – 18:02 again that’s bullshit and the reason

17:59 – 18:07 it’s bullshit is because what we know

18:02 – 18:10 from 70 plus years of solid neuroscience

18:07 – 18:13 is we know what it takes for a brain to

18:10 – 18:16 create complex consciousness like the

18:13 – 18:18 kind of consciousness it it’s required

18:16 – 18:20 to have this kind of conversation let

18:18 – 18:23 alone the kind of consciousness that

18:20 – 18:26 would be required to have the most

18:23 – 18:30 extraordinary experience of your life it

18:26 – 18:33 would require an enormous amount of

18:30 – 18:37 brain activity and an enormous amount of

18:33 – 18:41 stuff that would light up any a EEG and

18:37 – 18:44 we don’t see that what neuroscience

18:41 – 18:48 tells us is that within 10 to 15 seconds

18:44 – 18:51 after that heart stops there is no

18:48 – 18:55 electrical activity in the brain and

18:51 – 18:59 therefore we cannot assume unless you’re

18:55 – 19:01 gonna do unless you know unless you want

18:59 – 19:03 to kind of overthrow neuroscience as we

19:01 – 19:07 know it and say oh no there’s this other

19:03 – 19:09 kind of brain activity that doesn’t show

19:07 – 19:12 up in any way but it’s somehow creates

19:09 – 19:15 so that’s just kind of a silliness that

19:12 – 19:16 I don’t think we have to get into well

19:15 – 19:19 actually I’d kind of like to pick up on

19:16 – 19:20 that silliness a little bit so ok I

19:19 – 19:22 agree with you that there’s no

19:20 – 19:24 measurable brain activity based on our

19:22 – 19:26 current understandings and methods but

19:24 – 19:27 to quote Thomas Edison he said we only

19:26 – 19:29 know a millionth of a percent of

19:27 – 19:31 anything so saying that we can’t measure

19:29 – 19:32 it with our current activity therefore

19:31 – 19:34 there is no brain activity is like

19:32 – 19:35 saying well we’ve discovered a hammer

19:34 – 19:37 and a screwdriver it can’t be done with

19:35 – 19:38 a hammer and a screwdriver therefore it

19:37 – 19:40 can’t be done with any tools and it must

19:38 – 19:44 be magic so it’s not the calm that does

19:40 – 19:45 look I’m sorry go ahead so there is

19:44 – 19:47 still brain activity so the way I

19:45 – 19:49 defined brain activity is is this cell

19:47 – 19:50 still working is it is it alive is it

19:49 – 19:52 still processing energy to still have

19:50 – 19:53 ATP and is it still sending signals if

19:52 – 19:55 that is that if that is happening if

19:53 – 19:56 there’s a single cell on the brain doing

19:55 – 19:58 that that’s a brain activity by my

19:56 – 20:01 definition and we can’t measure that we

19:58 – 20:02 keep with our fMRI x’ measure like a

20:01 – 20:04 minimum

20:02 – 20:05 of like tens to hundreds of thousands of

20:04 – 20:07 clusters of cells and if those are

20:05 – 20:10 firing at a significant rate so we can’t

20:07 – 20:11 measure that kind of level there’s 100

20:10 – 20:13 billion neurons in the brain 100

20:11 – 20:16 trillion connections we cannot measure

20:13 – 20:18 that detail to know when all of the

20:16 – 20:19 cells in the brain are dead so there can

20:18 – 20:21 still be brain activity if we define it

20:19 – 20:24 as just the cells working and not all

20:21 – 20:26 dead in that would not qualify as the

20:24 – 20:30 kind of brain activity that we can

20:26 – 20:32 measure in an EEG or whatever right but

20:30 – 20:35 see here is kind of where you’re jumping

20:32 – 20:37 off of science so if we’re gonna stick

20:35 – 20:39 to the science then like I said when

20:37 – 20:42 you’re talking about brain death brain

20:39 – 20:45 activity you’re gonna start with Sam

20:42 – 20:47 pornea who’s just a recognized world

20:45 – 20:50 expert in resuscitation not just

20:47 – 20:53 near-death experience and you’d ask him

20:50 – 20:56 and then you go ask people like the guy

20:53 – 21:00 I interviewed who’s an expert on EEG and

20:56 – 21:02 you’d go ask him you know is it possible

21:00 – 21:05 what you’re saying is true is it

21:02 – 21:07 possible that we’re having all this that

21:05 – 21:10 there is this consciousness that isn’t

21:07 – 21:12 being measured by our current thing let

21:10 – 21:14 me clarify so I agree there isn’t

21:12 – 21:16 conscious you do need that EEG level to

21:14 – 21:19 have consciousness I agree with you on

21:16 – 21:22 that part what but then it’s game over

21:19 – 21:24 right unless we get into the time thing

21:22 – 21:28 no so here’s here’s my explanation of

21:24 – 21:30 NDEs when you are awake conscious

21:28 – 21:32 experience 99% of everything you

21:30 – 21:33 experience is your subconscious this is

21:32 – 21:35 not your conscious mind that you’re

21:33 – 21:36 experiencing you don’t experience colors

21:35 – 21:38 colors are an imposition

21:36 – 21:40 on two things that your subconscious

21:38 – 21:42 mind puts there all you’re very motional

21:40 – 21:44 associations your distance tracking all

21:42 – 21:46 that stuff is your subconscious mind so

21:44 – 21:48 if we lose consciousness that doesn’t

21:46 – 21:50 mean we lose sub consciousness so we can

21:48 – 21:51 we can still have we can lose the

21:50 – 21:53 conscious mind activity but still have

21:51 – 21:55 our subconscious working as it does

21:53 – 21:56 still causing all of our like bodily

21:55 – 21:58 functions and neurons to fire an

21:56 – 21:59 electrical signals throughout our body

21:58 – 22:00 without consciousness

21:59 – 22:03 you don’t need consciousness for any of

22:00 – 22:04 that so the subconscious mind can still

22:03 – 22:07 be processing all of our sensations

22:04 – 22:10 taste touch sight smell and putting that

22:07 – 22:12 into it’s like the model of reality that

22:10 – 22:15 our conscious mind experiences but

22:12 – 22:16 without consciousness it’s it’s we just

22:15 – 22:18 don’t experience it so

22:16 – 22:19 still being put to the brain but we

22:18 – 22:21 don’t have this conscious experience of

22:19 – 22:23 it and it’s being saved to our memory as

22:21 – 22:24 if it was conscious experience it’s like

22:23 – 22:26 if you imagine you’re just walking away

22:24 – 22:28 walking around every day normally and

22:26 – 22:31 you suddenly lose conscious experience

22:28 – 22:32 without any prior warning then your

22:31 – 22:34 subconscious still going to be doing

22:32 – 22:35 what it normally does and they’re still

22:34 – 22:37 going to be saving all that information

22:35 – 22:39 as conscious memory so my explanation is

22:37 – 22:40 is that when people go through these

22:39 – 22:42 near-death experiences it’s their

22:40 – 22:45 subconscious putting all this stuff in

22:42 – 22:46 as conscious experience into memory so

22:45 – 22:47 they’re not actually experiencing it

22:46 – 22:49 they just remember it as having

22:47 – 22:51 experienced it does that make sense

22:49 – 22:54 it makes sense it just isn’t supported

22:51 – 22:58 by by science I mean any neuroscientist

22:54 – 23:01 will tell you that that’s not how our

22:58 – 23:03 measurement of brain activity works

23:01 – 23:07 you’re you’re kind of you would have to

23:03 – 23:09 be defining some kind of new kind of

23:07 – 23:11 brain activity like you were saying

23:09 – 23:14 before that has yet been undiscovered

23:11 – 23:16 and as you know that’s just really uh if

23:14 – 23:19 we’re gonna speculate that far then I

23:16 – 23:20 can suggest all sorts of angels and

23:19 – 23:23 demons and other things that have to

23:20 – 23:25 come into play you know but if we’re

23:23 – 23:29 gonna play in this little playground

23:25 – 23:30 called established science and in this

23:29 – 23:32 case it would be established

23:30 – 23:34 neuroscience then I think we have to

23:32 – 23:37 play within those parameters and those

23:34 – 23:40 parameters wouldn’t allow what you’re

23:37 – 23:42 saying no one would would would support

23:40 – 23:44 that idea and a lot of people have tried

23:42 – 23:47 right because this near-death experience

23:44 – 23:48 science and we can talk about this but I

23:47 – 23:51 don’t want to get us sidetracked

23:48 – 23:53 although I totally but my people have

23:51 – 23:57 tried to plenty of people have tried to

23:53 – 24:01 explain what’s going on that explanation

23:57 – 24:02 isn’t really on that on the table right

24:01 – 24:04 I agree with you but I’m saying neither

24:02 – 24:06 is yours the brain not being a physical

24:04 – 24:08 thing also isn’t supported by science

24:06 – 24:09 and also isn’t on the table so right now

24:08 – 24:12 we’re on equal footing except mine

24:09 – 24:16 hasn’t it was because here’s the here’s

24:12 – 24:17 the problem is that you’re you’re

24:16 – 24:20 standing and you’re defending a

24:17 – 24:23 particular position it is the

24:20 – 24:25 neuroscience position it’s like you said

24:23 – 24:28 at the beginning consciousness is an

24:25 – 24:30 emergent property of the brain my

24:28 – 24:34 position is a false for

24:30 – 24:39 pation of your position and it says if I

24:34 – 24:41 can show consciousness at a time when we

24:39 – 24:44 can more or less agree that the brain is

24:41 – 24:47 so severely compromised that it

24:44 – 24:50 shouldn’t be able to create conscious

24:47 – 24:53 experiences memories let alone the most

24:50 – 24:57 significant experiences of someone’s

24:53 – 25:01 life then I have falsified your position

24:57 – 25:03 because it can no longer stand up that

25:01 – 25:06 we didn’t have that brain that you said

25:03 – 25:09 it was emerging from and we still had

25:06 – 25:11 consciousness so I will have falsified

25:09 – 25:13 your position no you’ve only falsified

25:11 – 25:15 that our current science can’t explain

25:13 – 25:17 consciousness at that level so it’s like

25:15 – 25:18 it goes back to my analogy if all we’ve

25:17 – 25:20 discovered is a screwdriver and a hammer

25:18 – 25:21 and it can’t be done with a screwdriver

25:20 – 25:23 and a hammer well then and therefore

25:21 – 25:27 must be magic and can’t be done with any

25:23 – 25:29 tools that’s what you’re saying remember

25:27 – 25:30 your position is to falsify my position

25:29 – 25:31 in my position as conscience is an

25:30 – 25:34 emergent property of natural processes

25:31 – 25:36 which means you can’t just falsify the

25:34 – 25:39 no natural processes you have to falsify

25:36 – 25:40 all natural processes including the ones

25:39 – 25:41 we don’t know so all I have to do is

25:40 – 25:43 shall we here’s a potential natural

25:41 – 25:45 process that can explain it if you can’t

25:43 – 25:48 falsify that then you haven’t falsified

25:45 – 25:51 naturalism that’s not how the like I

25:48 – 25:54 said that’s kind of not how it works in

25:51 – 25:57 terms of science right you’re what

25:54 – 26:01 you’re suggesting would require a whole

25:57 – 26:03 new kind of neuroscience that is

26:01 – 26:07 completely beyond what we currently

26:03 – 26:09 understand so we can have that that’s

26:07 – 26:11 called like a promissory note you know

26:09 – 26:13 and you can have that promissory note

26:11 – 26:16 well I can have all sorts of promissory

26:13 – 26:18 notes like I said about angels and

26:16 – 26:21 demons and about all the rest of that

26:18 – 26:23 stuff but that’s that’s kind of bullshit

26:21 – 26:26 II you know what I mean you gotta stick

26:23 – 26:29 to you gotta stick to what’s known you

26:26 – 26:32 can’t say oh it’s out there we just

26:29 – 26:34 haven’t discovered it yet talk to like I

26:32 – 26:36 said talk to the experts and they’ll

26:34 – 26:38 tell you no there’s no you in the way to

26:36 – 26:40 ask the question is really interesting

26:38 – 26:44 because I’ve done it in the interviews

26:40 – 26:46 take it outside of near-death experience

26:44 – 26:48 this gets into your atheism shit with

26:46 – 26:49 like apologetics with Christians you

26:48 – 26:52 know like you can get Christians to

26:49 – 26:54 agree to a lot of fucking stuff that

26:52 – 26:56 that is stupid you know

26:54 – 26:57 and but then when you put it back in the

26:56 – 26:59 context of what they want to believe

26:57 – 27:02 they go oh no no no here’s how it fits

26:59 – 27:06 in backwards well the same thing here go

27:02 – 27:07 talk to like I did an expert on aegs and

27:06 – 27:10 don’t say shit about near-death

27:07 – 27:13 experience just say hey is there any

27:10 – 27:16 chance that a brain could be like this

27:13 – 27:18 and show this kind of neural this kind

27:16 – 27:20 of electrical activity and yet there’s

27:18 – 27:23 consciousness going on and what they’ll

27:20 – 27:26 tell you is no way we have not only 50

27:23 – 27:28 70 years of hundreds and hundreds and

27:26 – 27:31 hundreds of established research on

27:28 – 27:33 humans as well as on animals we know

27:31 – 27:36 that shit backwards and forwards there’s

27:33 – 27:37 nothing there so when you go talk to

27:36 – 27:39 them independently you get straight

27:37 – 27:42 answer so then you can’t do the

27:39 – 27:44 apologetics thing go oh yeah but even

27:42 – 27:46 though he’s been studying it for twenty

27:44 – 27:48 years and even though there’s thousands

27:46 – 27:49 of papers there’s something those guys

27:48 – 27:52 have missed it’ll explain this

27:49 – 27:54 near-death experience after all well I

27:52 – 27:55 think you’ve kind of misunderstood how

27:54 – 27:58 science works you’re confusing

27:55 – 28:02 epistemology and ontology so go back to

27:58 – 28:03 Thomas Edison he said we only know one

28:02 – 28:05 millionth of 1% of anything and that

28:03 – 28:07 applies to neurology we don’t have it

28:05 – 28:09 there is a lot of stuff we don’t know

28:07 – 28:12 what he says otherwise is wrong

28:09 – 28:14 immediately wrong good there’s neurology

28:12 – 28:15 and biology are the two most complicated

28:14 – 28:18 fields in science and the ones we know

28:15 – 28:20 the least about if you think we know

28:18 – 28:22 understand this that you’re just deluded

28:20 – 28:25 we don’t at all you know I was

28:22 – 28:27 interviewing this guy one time and we’re

28:25 – 28:30 talking about ancient aliens and stuff

28:27 – 28:33 like that and the guy was a Christian so

28:30 – 28:36 he is really debunking the the alien

28:33 – 28:38 thing and I was really open to his data

28:36 – 28:42 in but then I kind of had to push him on

28:38 – 28:45 the Christian thing you know and he goes

28:42 – 28:48 you know and he was a little by biblical

28:45 – 28:52 literalist and he goes you know they

28:48 – 28:55 found nails and I know what do you mean

28:52 – 28:57 he goes well archaeologically they found

28:55 – 28:58 that they smelt of the metal there they

28:57 – 29:01 had

28:58 – 29:04 the nails his point was hey Noah really

29:01 – 29:07 could have built that Ark cuz he had

29:04 – 29:09 because there were nails and I was that

29:07 – 29:11 always stuck with me cuz it’s like it’s

29:09 – 29:13 not about the fucking nails dude it’s

29:11 – 29:17 about the story doesn’t make any sense

29:13 – 29:19 you can’t get hundreds of species of

29:17 – 29:22 bees on a fucking yeah just the whole

29:19 – 29:23 thing is just fucking wacky and that’s

29:22 – 29:26 what you’re offering up here

29:23 – 29:28 it’s just wacky to say well yeah of

29:26 – 29:31 course that’s how neuroscience works but

29:28 – 29:33 you know what Thomas Edison said there’s

29:31 – 29:35 one percent and there’s something else

29:33 – 29:37 out there and Alex it’ll be discovered

29:35 – 29:39 in the future we’ll find that even when

29:37 – 29:43 brains show no activity there really is

29:39 – 29:44 some SuperDuper background consciousness

29:43 – 29:46 that’s no one ever known about until now

29:44 – 29:48 and it’ll be discovered in the future

29:46 – 29:50 fuckin’-a Tom if that’s what you think

29:48 – 29:51 man maybe you know there’s no reason to

29:50 – 29:55 debate that

29:51 – 29:57 I can’t debate your belief your faith

29:55 – 30:01 that somehow there’s something out there

29:57 – 30:03 that will rescue you from the hard facts

30:01 – 30:05 of what we know right now I can’t debate

30:03 – 30:07 that I’m not sure you’re understanding

30:05 – 30:11 how science works here so there’s lots

30:07 – 30:14 of things no science word let’s let’s go

30:11 – 30:16 with like an example of the quantum

30:14 – 30:18 physics quantum physics we discovered

30:16 – 30:19 this particle duality where the double

30:18 – 30:22 slit experiment we couldn’t explain it

30:19 – 30:24 and nothing in the current physics could

30:22 – 30:26 explain it nothing so then do we just

30:24 – 30:27 say well ah well it must not be physics

30:26 – 30:29 and just we’ll just attribute it to

30:27 – 30:31 supernatural well no we just keep doing

30:29 – 30:33 physics and eventually we do discover it

30:31 – 30:35 that’s kind of how science works there’s

30:33 – 30:37 lots of things we can’t explain but

30:35 – 30:39 there’s always more to discover so I’m

30:37 – 30:41 not sure how your analogy compares here

30:39 – 30:42 because mine is just this is how science

30:41 – 30:44 works we don’t there’s lots of things we

30:42 – 30:46 don’t know we then learn more and

30:44 – 30:48 there’s always more we can learn like

30:46 – 30:50 everything in science is tentative like

30:48 – 30:52 as Thomas Edison said we only know a

30:50 – 30:54 millionth of a percent of anything we

30:52 – 30:56 have not completed any study in any

30:54 – 30:58 field ever we’re not even close so the

30:56 – 30:60 fact that we couldn’t just discover more

30:58 – 31:02 is like the fact that this is strange to

30:60 – 31:05 you is very odd I don’t quite understand

31:02 – 31:09 why you think that’s comparable to the

31:05 – 31:11 the nails in the cross wasn’t the nails

31:09 – 31:15 in the cross it was nails and

31:11 – 31:15 ARC nails and my apology

31:15 – 31:22 this is where you know we these debates

31:18 – 31:23 just go downhill cuz you well I think

31:22 – 31:24 that’s just the weakness of your

31:23 – 31:25 position you just I think you’ve

31:24 – 31:27 misunderstood how science works

31:25 – 31:29 completely and which is why so many

31:27 – 31:30 people criticize your position like this

31:29 – 31:32 is just a fact of science we know

31:30 – 31:34 nothing essentially of the universe we

31:32 – 31:36 know nothing you know zero of everything

31:34 – 31:40 so let me make sure I understand your

31:36 – 31:44 position your position is yes near-death

31:40 – 31:47 experiences happen they happen after a

31:44 – 31:50 time which the brain appears to be

31:47 – 31:52 severely compromised and in the way that

31:50 – 31:56 we normally associate with a brain that

31:52 – 31:59 produces consciousness but there is some

31:56 – 32:01 other processes going on that we can’t

31:59 – 32:04 currently measure that would account for

32:01 – 32:07 the near-death experience is that a fair

32:04 – 32:09 summary summary of your position yeah I

32:07 – 32:12 can actually go into more detail to like

32:09 – 32:14 we know we can’t measure that level of

32:12 – 32:15 detail because we know these things only

32:14 – 32:17 measure at a certain level which is a

32:15 – 32:19 range of tens to hundreds of thousands

32:17 – 32:20 of neurons okay hold on before you go

32:19 – 32:22 into all that because you’re not an

32:20 – 32:26 expert in any of that what about the

32:22 – 32:29 experts in neuroscience who say well Tom

32:26 – 32:32 we’ve already tried to measure that we

32:29 – 32:34 don’t believe that there is any activity

32:32 – 32:37 at this point there is any explanation

32:34 – 32:40 for what you’re talking about when

32:37 – 32:41 brains are in these compromised states

32:40 – 32:46 and they’re not producing any electrical

32:41 – 32:48 activity Tom we’ve studied this every

32:46 – 32:50 which way for seventy years there’s no

32:48 – 32:53 evidence of those kind of brain States

32:50 – 32:55 ever producing consciousness what would

32:53 – 32:56 you say to those neuroscientists well

32:55 – 32:58 I’d say you’re misrepresenting them

32:56 – 32:59 because anyone I talked to I’m gonna ask

32:58 – 33:01 can you measure at this level they’re

32:59 – 33:02 gonna say no our technology only goes to

33:01 – 33:04 this level we can’t measure at this

33:02 – 33:06 level yet when they come back and say

33:04 – 33:09 but Tom we’ve measured it at this level

33:06 – 33:10 and we don’t see anything right now I’m

33:09 – 33:12 gonna say can you measure to this level

33:10 – 33:13 they’re gonna say no the maximum

33:12 – 33:15 resolution we have is this level we

33:13 – 33:17 can’t measure it we do not have the

33:15 – 33:20 physical capabilities with fMRI zouri e

33:17 – 33:22 G’s to measure at this level yet can you

33:20 – 33:24 believe that at some point down the

33:22 – 33:25 future we’ll get to that level and then

33:24 – 33:26 match

33:25 – 33:28 Klee the problem will be solved and

33:26 – 33:30 we’ll say oh there it is that’s what

33:28 – 33:32 happened well my argument is that you’re

33:30 – 33:35 trying to falsify this position that at

33:32 – 33:36 any level that there can be a physical

33:35 – 33:38 explanation of consciousness no I’m

33:36 – 33:40 saying you can’t make that claim you

33:38 – 33:42 can’t justify that claim you can only

33:40 – 33:43 claim that to this this level of

33:42 – 33:45 magnitude we don’t have a physical

33:43 – 33:46 explanation of consciousness 100% agree

33:45 – 33:48 with you but you can’t claim at this

33:46 – 33:51 level there isn’t one hey maybe you know

33:48 – 33:53 maybe Noah built that fucking arc man I

33:51 – 33:55 I don’t know if he built the ark it just

33:53 – 33:58 doesn’t seem very likely to me but hey

33:55 – 33:59 maybe well they seem equal to the ark

33:58 – 34:02 example I mean because this is just

33:59 – 34:04 science you’re just but you don’t have

34:02 – 34:06 any science dude you’re just time you’re

34:04 – 34:09 just saying at some point there will be

34:06 – 34:11 some discovery that will rescue my

34:09 – 34:13 position you’re not basing it on

34:11 – 34:16 anything that’s been published so far

34:13 – 34:17 the closest thing you have is that are

34:16 – 34:19 you familiar with the study from the

34:17 – 34:23 University of Michigan with the brain

34:19 – 34:27 burst after 15 minutes of no brain

34:23 – 34:28 activity and the rats I know I’m not let

34:27 – 34:30 me give it to you really really simply

34:28 – 34:34 because this isn’t this is like the

34:30 – 34:37 closest thing that we have to science to

34:34 – 34:38 support your position well actually I

34:37 – 34:41 just saw one about where they tried to

34:38 – 34:44 revitalize a pig pigs brains after it

34:41 – 34:45 was killed and they tried to reignite

34:44 – 34:47 the brain activity they got some of it

34:45 – 34:50 to work that was pretty cool listen to

34:47 – 34:52 this one because it is the closest one I

34:50 – 34:54 know that would fit into your wacky

34:52 – 34:55 theory and that’s that these guys at the

34:54 – 34:59 University of Michigan

34:55 – 35:02 they studied rats and they looked at the

34:59 – 35:05 EEG of these rats and the rats died and

35:02 – 35:08 then there was a period of time and it

35:05 – 35:11 was in the minutes range like five ten I

35:08 – 35:13 want to say 15 minutes and there was no

35:11 – 35:16 activity and then at the very end there

35:13 – 35:17 was this bursts of activity and they

35:16 – 35:19 didn’t say it had anything to do with

35:17 – 35:21 near-death experience but a bunch of

35:19 – 35:23 people jumped on the cause and said

35:21 – 35:26 because people like you are looking for

35:23 – 35:28 some way to kind of blast out the

35:26 – 35:29 near-death experience science and they

35:28 – 35:32 said hey that’s it that’s near-death

35:29 – 35:34 experience that’s what it must be see we

35:32 – 35:36 thought what you’re saying we thought

35:34 – 35:39 these brains were dead and yet here they

35:36 – 35:44 are we’re having this burst of

35:39 – 35:46 at the end that’s the closest thing you

35:44 – 35:48 have to science again that’s a wacky

35:46 – 35:50 idea and isn’t supported by the

35:48 – 35:52 near-death experience science if you

35:50 – 35:54 really look at it if you really talk to

35:52 – 35:56 the experts but it’s closer to what

35:54 – 35:58 you’re talking about then to just say

35:56 – 36:00 well there’s something else out there

35:58 – 36:02 that we haven’t discovered yet that’ll

36:00 – 36:04 solve the problem alright let me clarify

36:02 – 36:06 I think I’m making a different argument

36:04 – 36:09 here so your position is trying to

36:06 – 36:10 falsify the naturalist position right

36:09 – 36:13 that’s correct

36:10 – 36:14 well what we said was that we both

36:13 – 36:16 agreed that if you take the position

36:14 – 36:20 that consciousness is an emergent

36:16 – 36:22 property of the brain one area of

36:20 – 36:24 science to look at where we could kind

36:22 – 36:27 of get a handle on whether that’s true

36:24 – 36:30 or not is near-death experience because

36:27 – 36:32 near-death experience claims to be about

36:30 – 36:35 people who are having consciousness

36:32 – 36:37 experiences at a time when the brain is

36:35 – 36:40 so severely compromised that modern day

36:37 – 36:43 neuroscience would say it’s impossible

36:40 – 36:45 for it to have conscious experiences so

36:43 – 36:45 right there you just made a critical

36:45 – 36:48 mistake

36:45 – 36:51 modern science can’t ever say anything

36:48 – 36:53 is impossible I didn’t you know I didn’t

36:51 – 36:56 actually say impossible

36:53 – 36:59 I said modern science would say it’s

36:56 – 37:00 it’s not within maybe I did say

36:59 – 37:03 impossible I’m sorry but it’s saying

37:00 – 37:05 that modern science neuroscience would

37:03 – 37:07 say there’s no brain activity when

37:05 – 37:09 there’s no electrical activity in the

37:07 – 37:12 brain that’s what modern neuroscience

37:09 – 37:14 would say categorically so you can go in

37:12 – 37:16 and the categorically is the same thing

37:14 – 37:19 as impossible all science is tentative

37:16 – 37:22 and provisional okay okay it can say is

37:19 – 37:24 yeah we can’t measure this that’s it you

37:22 – 37:25 can’t say it doesn’t exist it says we

37:24 – 37:27 can’t we can’t say there is no

37:25 – 37:29 supernatural we can just say we can’t

37:27 – 37:31 measure any supernatural right

37:29 – 37:33 yeah there’s no argument there it’s so

37:31 – 37:36 so here’s my argument you can’t claim

37:33 – 37:38 that it’s not a natural explanation

37:36 – 37:38 because it could be one we just haven’t

37:38 – 37:41 discovered yet

37:38 – 37:43 so you can’t then conclude that because

37:41 – 37:45 we can’t measure it there is not a

37:43 – 37:46 natural explanation now that there may

37:45 – 37:48 or may not be I’m not going to make a

37:46 – 37:50 claim on that I’m just saying that you

37:48 – 37:52 do not have the justification to

37:50 – 37:53 conclude it is not a natural explanation

37:52 – 37:55 there

37:53 – 37:56 for it’s supernatural just like you

37:55 – 37:58 can’t claim that Noah didn’t built that

37:56 – 38:00 build that Ark because there are

37:58 – 38:02 evidence of nails you cannot prove that

38:00 – 38:04 he didn’t build that Ark you can’t prove

38:02 – 38:05 that right I can’t prove he didn’t build

38:04 – 38:07 the Ark I can just say it’s incredibly

38:05 – 38:11 unlikely but there’s no I’m thinking

38:07 – 38:15 that it’s incredibly unlikely that after

38:11 – 38:18 70 years of neuroscience in EEG science

38:15 – 38:22 and thousands of peer-reviewed papers in

38:18 – 38:24 both humans and animals that it’s highly

38:22 – 38:26 unlikely that they just oh gosh darn

38:24 – 38:29 they missed something and there’s this

38:26 – 38:31 whole other area of consciousness that

38:29 – 38:32 if they just had a little bit better

38:31 – 38:36 measurement of it they would have it

38:32 – 38:38 we’re highly unlikely that’s like a

38:36 – 38:39 guaranteed a hundred percent that we

38:38 – 38:41 there’s lots of stuff about the brain we

38:39 – 38:42 don’t know I mean would you disagree

38:41 – 38:45 with that statement that there’s lots of

38:42 – 38:47 stuff about the brain we don’t know

38:45 – 38:50 all’s we can do is argue

38:47 – 38:52 inside of the parameters of what’s known

38:50 – 38:54 and what science this I don’t even like

38:52 – 38:56 engaging in this because this is you

38:54 – 38:58 know what you’ve done a fantastic job

38:56 – 39:00 with this thus far I just don’t like

38:58 – 39:03 getting into all the skeptical bullshit

39:00 – 39:05 of you know falsification this is all

39:03 – 39:07 just nonsense you just look at the

39:05 – 39:09 science you talk to the best experts if

39:07 – 39:11 you have a better expert I sent you all

39:09 – 39:13 those papers I you know I agree with all

39:11 – 39:14 that I agree with all the science oh you

39:13 – 39:17 don’t agree with all of it because if

39:14 – 39:19 you agreed with all of it this is a

39:17 – 39:22 really interesting point that I’ll make

39:19 – 39:24 unless I’m interrupting you and yet I do

39:22 – 39:24 want I do want to pick up on that too go

39:24 – 39:27 ahead

39:24 – 39:29 so the way we would normally in my

39:27 – 39:32 opinion the way we would normally handle

39:29 – 39:35 this is we would go to the researchers

39:32 – 39:37 who’ve really studied it and we’d look

39:35 – 39:39 at those researchers like dr. PIM van

39:37 – 39:44 Lommel that you mentioned dr. Jeff long

39:39 – 39:46 dr. Sam par Nia dr. pennant dr. Welch he

39:44 – 39:48 didn’t really research near-death

39:46 – 39:50 experience he just had one and then he

39:48 – 39:51 researched a little bit afterwards but

39:50 – 39:54 all these other people what’s

39:51 – 39:56 interesting about them tom is they just

39:54 – 39:58 were curious they were doctors you

39:56 – 40:00 talked to Jeff long is the great guy

39:58 – 40:02 I’ve talked to many times he’s just

40:00 – 40:05 doing his thing he’s a radiation

40:02 – 40:06 oncologist but when he was you know

40:05 – 40:09 during his residency

40:06 – 40:11 he stumbled across these people that

40:09 – 40:14 seemed to come back from the dead and

40:11 – 40:15 report these things he’s like it’s like

40:14 – 40:17 looking around like a did everyone else

40:15 – 40:19 see this what’s going on and he couldn’t

40:17 – 40:21 believe that everyone else is like hey

40:19 – 40:24 man don’t go there you know just got to

40:21 – 40:26 do your thing well he did his thing but

40:24 – 40:29 he also went there the same with Pen van

40:26 – 40:32 LOM oh he’s a world recognized

40:29 – 40:34 cardiologist in the Netherlands and he

40:32 – 40:37 just stumbles across this and he says

40:34 – 40:39 I’m not gonna let this go so these guys

40:37 – 40:41 don’t have an agenda they’re not on the

40:39 – 40:43 board of the Christian Church of

40:41 – 40:46 whatever trying to advance something

40:43 – 40:48 they’re just curious doctors wondering

40:46 – 40:52 what their patients are experienced so

40:48 – 40:55 normally what we do is just rely heavily

40:52 – 40:57 on their conclusions and the most

40:55 – 40:59 hard-ass one of them was Sam Varney I

40:57 – 41:01 interviewed him on this show several

40:59 – 41:04 times I interviewed him few years ago

41:01 – 41:05 and I said what’s your conclusion about

41:04 – 41:08 all this and he goes if I had to

41:05 – 41:10 conclude at this point I’d say that this

41:08 – 41:13 is a trick of the mind and I really held

41:10 – 41:14 his feet to the fire I really was held

41:13 – 41:17 this week to fire the trick of the mind

41:14 – 41:19 didn’t I and he said and he goes well I

41:17 – 41:21 don’t know that uh but he kind of held

41:19 – 41:23 to that position and then few years

41:21 – 41:25 later he did more research and he said

41:23 – 41:28 you know I was undecided before now I’m

41:25 – 41:30 decided I’m with everyone else it

41:28 – 41:33 appears by every way that we understand

41:30 – 41:36 it kochak consciousness seems to survive

41:33 – 41:38 bodily death so that’s what every

41:36 – 41:40 near-death experiencer down the line

41:38 – 41:43 looking at it in every possible way

41:40 – 41:45 looking at blood samples if there’s any

41:43 – 41:47 blood change if they’re looking at

41:45 – 41:48 chemicals in the brain looking at brain

41:47 – 41:51 activity looking at the whole shebang

41:48 – 41:54 they all come to the same conclusion

41:51 – 41:57 consciousness survives bodily death so

41:54 – 41:59 Tom you can jump in there and say maybe

41:57 – 42:02 they missed something but I think it

41:59 – 42:05 behooves you to kind of bring something

42:02 – 42:06 to the table with evidence a little more

42:05 – 42:09 and more point I know I’m you let me go

42:06 – 42:10 on for a long time Shermer Michael

42:09 – 42:12 Shermer who is

42:10 – 42:16 like I said in my multiple interviews

42:12 – 42:17 with me is my favorite frenemy I like

42:16 – 42:20 the guy I always have a good time when I

42:17 – 42:24 talk to him it’s fun but his position is

42:20 – 42:26 it’s worse than wacky what he’s done is

42:24 – 42:27 misrepresented and this is clear to

42:26 – 42:29 anyone

42:27 – 42:31 he’s misrepresented the position of the

42:29 – 42:33 near-death experience researchers so

42:31 – 42:35 he’s taking pin Van LOM oh and said oh

42:33 – 42:38 no pin line mama said the opposite and

42:35 – 42:40 it pissed off pin violence so much that

42:38 – 42:43 he hadn’t tried a parent had to write a

42:40 – 42:45 response ago dammit Shermer you inside

42:43 – 42:48 the memory you wrote that I said this no

42:45 – 42:50 I said the opposite so that is the

42:48 – 42:52 current state so if you’re going to

42:50 – 42:56 counter that I just think it behooves

42:52 – 42:59 you to bring some science to the table

42:56 – 43:01 not just your opinion about Edison and

42:59 – 43:03 it might be discovered down I mean that

43:01 – 43:05 these guys have looked at it dude it’s

43:03 – 43:08 not like this hasn’t been explored right

43:05 – 43:11 right so I don’t I’m not gonna try and

43:08 – 43:14 defend Michael Shermer like no so here’s

43:11 – 43:16 the position science the I agree with

43:14 – 43:17 all I don’t I’m not gonna argue that any

43:16 – 43:18 of those people are biased or that

43:17 – 43:19 they’re trying to manipulate the

43:18 – 43:21 research or that any of their research

43:19 – 43:23 is wrong I’m happy to grant all of their

43:21 – 43:24 research the part I’m rejecting is their

43:23 – 43:26 conclusion which is why there’s

43:24 – 43:27 criticized so heavily because everyone

43:26 – 43:29 is rejecting their conclusion and the

43:27 – 43:32 reason is because their conclusion goes

43:29 – 43:33 beyond the evidence their conclusion

43:32 – 43:36 like as you admitted earlier is

43:33 – 43:38 unsupported like like they’re on equal

43:36 – 43:40 terms The Naturalist explanation and the

43:38 – 43:42 supernatural explanation neither have

43:40 – 43:44 science to support them so get all of

43:42 – 43:45 the science indicates right now is that

43:44 – 43:48 at a certain level we can measure brain

43:45 – 43:49 activity at that level we cannot measure

43:48 – 43:52 brain activity occurring in these states

43:49 – 43:53 and there are still stuff happening now

43:52 – 43:55 that doesn’t indicate it’s natural it

43:53 – 43:57 doesn’t indicate it’s supernatural that

43:55 – 43:58 just means we don’t know what’s going on

43:57 – 44:00 full-stop

43:58 – 44:02 that’s where the science ends and going

44:00 – 44:03 beyond that and either direction is

44:02 – 44:05 unsupported whether you want to say it’s

44:03 – 44:07 a supernatural thing or a satchel thing

44:05 – 44:10 either one is unsupported and so my

44:07 – 44:12 position is that their conclusions are

44:10 – 44:13 equally unsupported as me saying well

44:12 – 44:15 it’s just a natural process like this

44:13 – 44:17 thing I described earlier we don’t know

44:15 – 44:19 and so coming to that conclusion is

44:17 – 44:25 unsupported which is why they’re

44:19 – 44:27 criticized yeah I mean III don’t know I

44:25 – 44:31 think it’s been a fair you know fair

44:27 – 44:33 discussion at this point you know I’m at

44:31 – 44:34 the frustration point with with that I

44:33 – 44:38 get with skeptics and your

44:34 – 44:39 way above way way on the top of the heap

44:38 – 44:41 in terms of the skeptics I’ve talked to

44:39 – 44:45 so I commend you for everything you’re

44:41 – 44:49 doing the part I did is you know to jump

44:45 – 44:52 off then and say you know kind of like

44:49 – 44:54 they missed it it’s like man go talk to

44:52 – 44:58 these guys these guys are super sharp

44:54 – 44:60 they don’t miss the obvious shit like

44:58 – 45:02 that they don’t they don’t miss stuff

44:60 – 45:05 they’ve looked for it every which way

45:02 – 45:08 but you’re entitled to to your opinion

45:05 – 45:10 and you’re certainly you’ve dug into the

45:08 – 45:13 data I commend you for that and you know

45:10 – 45:14 you’re we just have a difference at that

45:13 – 45:17 point that is kind of we can’t really

45:14 – 45:19 resolve I think we we’re blocking their

45:17 – 45:20 set up an interview where I can ask them

45:19 – 45:22 these questions because I’m pretty sure

45:20 – 45:24 I can get them to admit the same thing

45:22 – 45:28 I’d be happy to talk with any of them oh

45:24 – 45:30 yeah I don’t even have to set it I’m

45:28 – 45:33 happy to what you tell me who you want

45:30 – 45:35 to I’m happy to help you whoever will be

45:33 – 45:37 the best in this you tell me you you

45:35 – 45:38 tell me you tell me whoever you want to

45:37 – 45:40 talk to you and go through I have all

45:38 – 45:42 all my shows are on there pick who you

45:40 – 45:45 know pick a show that you say BAM you

45:42 – 45:47 think that guy is you know is somebody

45:45 – 45:49 I’d like to talk to and I’ll do it you

45:47 – 45:50 got to be kind of careful how you

45:49 – 45:53 approach him because there a lot of them

45:50 – 45:56 are pretty reluctant to talk to skeptics

45:53 – 45:59 because of this thing it’s like right

45:56 – 46:02 you can’t go talk to Penn van lhamo who

45:59 – 46:04 is a world-class cardiologist who’s

46:02 – 46:07 published all this shit and say yeah

46:04 – 46:10 dude but your conclusion is wack you

46:07 – 46:14 know it’s not I mean that just it just

46:10 – 46:16 doesn’t fly it’s not how it it’s not how

46:14 – 46:19 it works he didn’t miss anything

46:16 – 46:21 he’s been to all the conference’s his

46:19 – 46:23 conclusion the only thing you can say is

46:21 – 46:26 like Shermer did Shermer took on

46:23 – 46:28 pendulum oh and he just misrepresented

46:26 – 46:29 what he said the same thing with

46:28 – 46:31 patricia churchland you can go listen to

46:29 – 46:32 my interview with her you know Shurmur

46:31 – 46:35 was the first one to do it

46:32 – 46:37 Shermer took pinv animals thing and he

46:35 – 46:40 said what you said he said yeah but his

46:37 – 46:43 conclusion is it’s really simple what

46:40 – 46:45 Michael Shermer said is here’s pinv an

46:43 – 46:47 llamas near-death experience research

46:45 – 46:48 and if you really look at it the way

46:47 – 46:52 that I’m looking at

46:48 – 46:54 it supports my position that it’s a

46:52 – 46:56 physical process it’s materialism that

46:54 – 46:58 would be mature I wouldn’t do that

46:56 – 46:59 so my hold on that’s what Shermer did

46:58 – 47:01 right

46:59 – 47:04 that’s what patricia churchland did

47:01 – 47:05 that’s what the research I forget her

47:04 – 47:08 name right now who’s publishing another

47:05 – 47:12 peer-reviewed thing a peer-reviewed

47:08 – 47:14 paper did they all took Penn van LOM oh

47:12 – 47:17 and they copied it and they copied and

47:14 – 47:19 copied it and I went and interviewed all

47:17 – 47:22 of them and they’re all full of shit and

47:19 – 47:24 Patricia Churchland was a babbling idiot

47:22 – 47:27 because I said you know I was nice but I

47:24 – 47:30 said here is what you said and here’s

47:27 – 47:33 what PIM van Lommel said so it just

47:30 – 47:36 doesn’t really uh it doesn’t make sense

47:33 – 47:37 for you to sit there and say you know I

47:36 – 47:42 want to talk to Penn van Lama and tell

47:37 – 47:44 him his conclusion from the data isn’t

47:42 – 47:46 correct because I’m gonna point out some

47:44 – 47:47 kind of you know one can possibly know

47:46 – 47:49 everything come think I mean that’s

47:47 – 47:51 gonna be an embarrassing situation free

47:49 – 47:53 for you and he wouldn’t agree to it but

47:51 – 47:55 you can send him an email he gets those

47:53 – 47:56 emails all the time and he’ll respond or

47:55 – 47:59 send it to me and I’ll send it to him

47:56 – 48:00 and ask him to respond but you get the

47:59 – 48:03 point I mean that’s a flat earth kind of

48:00 – 48:08 thing I mean you can’t go to get two

48:03 – 48:09 people in you know a geologist and talk

48:08 – 48:12 about Flat Earth I mean they’re just

48:09 – 48:14 like dude I’m not wasting my time about

48:12 – 48:16 it you know so for you to go and say you

48:14 – 48:18 missed something there’s something else

48:16 – 48:19 out there we just haven’t discovered it

48:18 – 48:22 yet they’re not gonna take that

48:19 – 48:23 seriously well that’s really interesting

48:22 – 48:25 because of the problem of under

48:23 – 48:27 determination which is in science means

48:25 – 48:28 that you always do that that’s just a

48:27 – 48:29 fact you always miss something there’s

48:28 – 48:31 nothing nowhere you know who you should

48:29 – 48:34 talk you know who you should talk to

48:31 – 48:36 then Tom you should talk to people and

48:34 – 48:38 like I said here would be my suggestion

48:36 – 48:41 is talk to people not the near-death

48:38 – 48:44 experience science people talk to the

48:41 – 48:46 neuroscience people and take take

48:44 – 48:48 NDE the near-death experience out of it

48:46 – 48:52 right off you like the guy I talked to

48:48 – 48:54 in the EEG thing and say hey is it

48:52 – 48:56 possible that you know I know you’ve

48:54 – 48:58 studied EEG I know that is it possible

48:56 – 48:59 that there’s something else out there

48:58 – 49:02 because that’s your position that we

48:59 – 49:03 haven’t discovered or that

49:02 – 49:05 before I was asking for you to like

49:03 – 49:06 could you set something up for exactly

49:05 – 49:09 that I want to talk about you giving up

49:06 – 49:11 your experience you know it’s been here

49:09 – 49:11 it’s been years since I talked to that

49:11 – 49:13 guy

49:11 – 49:15 you can try and talk to him again he’s

49:13 – 49:17 easy to find on my website if you don’t

49:15 – 49:19 find him but email me I’ll email you who

49:17 – 49:21 he is but you can find a dozen other

49:19 – 49:23 people and then you know how it is you

49:21 – 49:24 do these shows you just have to track

49:23 – 49:26 them down and see if they’ll talk to you

49:24 – 49:28 but if you take it take the NDE

49:26 – 49:30 out of it and just ask it and say you

49:28 – 49:34 don’t say that say is it possible that

49:30 – 49:35 there’s some or either that then you

49:34 – 49:37 know do it and don’t do it within

49:35 – 49:39 near-death experience just do it with

49:37 – 49:41 the neuroscience guys young guys I’ve

49:39 – 49:43 done that I’ve gotten the answers I know

49:41 – 49:45 that we there’s a ton about the brain we

49:43 – 49:47 don’t know and every single one of them

49:45 – 49:48 I’ve talked to has admitted this 100% of

49:47 – 49:50 the time this is why I’m asking for you

49:48 – 49:52 so what have you practice have you

49:50 – 49:53 talked to I go to the University of

49:52 – 49:55 Minnesota and talk to neurologists and

49:53 – 49:57 biologists all the time I work with one

49:55 – 49:59 who’s doing research on rat brains and

49:57 – 50:01 certain kinds of things I do this all

49:59 – 50:03 the time so tell me who would you be

50:01 – 50:07 convinced by if I could talk to and they

50:03 – 50:09 won’t I’ll be happy then get your get

50:07 – 50:12 your neuroscience guy from Minnesota you

50:09 – 50:14 know I’ll talk buddy this is who would

50:12 – 50:17 you be convinced by tell me you want me

50:14 – 50:19 to talk it’s your position I’m like I’m

50:17 – 50:21 telling you man no I know you don’t talk

50:19 – 50:24 to him we’ll talk to them together a

50:21 – 50:26 time to get someone to say to get

50:24 – 50:27 someone to say is it possible that

50:26 – 50:31 there’s something that we don’t know

50:27 – 50:34 about the brain I mean shit yes anyone’s

50:31 – 50:36 gonna say that rights rights but why you

50:34 – 50:37 so why are you so happy about that but

50:36 – 50:39 what I’m saying that that’s just not a

50:37 – 50:42 logical way to do it that’s like the

50:39 – 50:44 Flat Earth guys going is it possible is

50:42 – 50:46 it possible that they that these

50:44 – 50:47 everyone has missed something and like

50:46 – 50:50 you said when we had this thing about

50:47 – 50:52 the Noah’s Ark thing and you said it’s

50:50 – 50:54 that’s possible just highly unlikely

50:52 – 50:57 well that’s what they’re gonna tell you

50:54 – 50:60 about the idea that there’s something

50:57 – 51:02 that everyone for 70 years is missed and

50:60 – 51:05 that even when these brains are flat

51:02 – 51:06 there’s still all this consciousness

51:05 – 51:09 that’s going on they’re gonna go tom

51:06 – 51:11 maybe dude because we can’t say

51:09 – 51:13 everything isn’t we can’t say anything’s

51:11 – 51:15 impossible but that is highly highly

51:13 – 51:17 highly unlikely from every

51:15 – 51:18 thing that we’ve seen so far so that’s

51:17 – 51:22 the point we’re going over the same

51:18 – 51:23 thing again again I’m happy to talk I’m

51:22 – 51:25 not gonna prove you wrong on that just

51:23 – 51:26 give me an opportunity tell me who you

51:25 – 51:30 want me to talk to and I will prove you

51:26 – 51:33 wrong in five minutes on this we will I

51:30 – 51:35 will agree to jointly talk with anyone

51:33 – 51:37 that you want to tell anyone that you

51:35 – 51:38 bring on I’m not going to go trace that

51:37 – 51:42 down for the reasons that I just told

51:38 – 51:43 you it’s kind of an absurd idea you know

51:42 – 51:45 to get someone to admit that we don’t

51:43 – 51:47 know everything about the brain hey we

51:45 – 51:49 don’t know everything about the brain my

51:47 – 51:50 point is I don’t know everything about

51:49 – 51:52 the brain then why are you jumping to

51:50 – 51:55 the conclusion it’s not the brain I’m

51:52 – 51:56 saying the same this is a part that we

51:55 – 51:59 just got to end this I’m telling you I

51:56 – 52:01 talked to a guy you can find my my

51:59 – 52:04 website world renowned expert in eg and

52:01 – 52:06 he says is there any chance that there’s

52:04 – 52:09 anything going on that isn’t being

52:06 – 52:11 measured by eg he says no it’s it’s just

52:09 – 52:14 would be highly highly unlikely because

52:11 – 52:16 we have all this research that we’ve

52:14 – 52:18 done for 70 years with thousands of

52:16 – 52:20 papers that animals and humans it’s just

52:18 – 52:22 highly unlikely that there’s something

52:20 – 52:24 that is out there that hasn’t happened

52:22 – 52:26 yet so might it happen in the future

52:24 – 52:27 like all that’s sure but that’s not

52:26 – 52:29 where these people are at it would just

52:27 – 52:33 be an incredibly embarrassing

52:29 – 52:36 conversation to say yeah I know that but

52:33 – 52:38 is it possible is it possible that

52:36 – 52:42 there’s something more he’s like dude I

52:38 – 52:45 study eg science all the time there’s

52:42 – 52:47 never anything in the literature like

52:45 – 52:50 what you’re saying is it possible is it

52:47 – 52:52 possible that it’s out there yeah maybe

52:50 – 52:54 it’s possible but it’s just that’s not

52:52 – 52:56 where these guys if they haven’t found

52:54 – 52:57 it they haven’t seen it well you’re

52:56 – 52:59 contradicting yourself I mean I can

52:57 – 53:02 prove this in five seconds yes there are

52:59 – 53:04 things in the brain we can’t okay okay

53:02 – 53:07 all right all right genes only measure

53:04 – 53:09 to a certain degree yeah I don’t as

53:07 – 53:11 you’re smaller so I can prove that the

53:09 – 53:14 fact in science you’re just wrong I hear

53:11 – 53:18 you’re you are right about all those

53:14 – 53:20 things it’s we don’t know everything so

53:18 – 53:21 right and that’s just my conclusion we

53:20 – 53:23 don’t know everything we have a right

53:21 – 53:24 kind of information it doesn’t indicate

53:23 – 53:26 your conclusion just like it doesn’t

53:24 – 53:27 indicate a different other conclusion

53:26 – 53:28 that doesn’t have any evidence

53:27 – 53:29 they’re both unsupported we can’t jump

53:28 – 53:31 beyond the Evan

53:29 – 53:34 to a conclusion that isn’t supported by

53:31 – 53:36 the evidence t jump can’t jump beyond

53:34 – 53:39 the evidence that’s a good that’d be a

53:36 – 53:41 good tagline alright I do appreciate

53:39 – 53:44 your approach and I appreciate the

53:41 – 53:45 debate it was good yeah thanks for

53:44 – 53:45 coming on I really appreciate you take

53:45 – 53:48 the time to have a conversation

53:45 – 53:51 absolutely I mean everything I say I

53:48 – 53:53 respect your your ability to dig into

53:51 – 53:55 the data and we don’t have to agree

53:53 – 53:58 these conversations are important so

53:55 – 53:60 sorry cuz if you could just give me a

53:58 – 54:01 name I’ll reach out PIM van Lommel and

53:60 – 54:02 do the other people because I’d like to

54:01 – 54:04 have this conversation if they’re

54:02 – 54:06 willing and I’ve had conversations with

54:04 – 54:09 young earth creationist and other people

54:06 – 54:10 so I I I think they I’m polite enough

54:09 – 54:12 that they may be willing to have the

54:10 – 54:14 conversation so I’d love to have to try

54:12 – 54:16 and it reach out to them and see if

54:14 – 54:18 they’d be willing to I will support you

54:16 – 54:20 in that in terms of you send an email

54:18 – 54:21 tell me who you want to talk to I’ll try

54:20 – 54:23 and hook you up but you can’t do what I

54:21 – 54:25 just said that is an embarrassing

54:23 – 54:27 situation and I wouldn’t set that up I

54:25 – 54:30 wouldn’t set up a situation where you’re

54:27 – 54:32 gonna get someone to say but would you

54:30 – 54:34 agree that we don’t know everything

54:32 – 54:36 would you agree that there might be

54:34 – 54:39 something in the future that will best

54:36 – 54:41 prove that that’s that’s flat earth shit

54:39 – 54:43 it’s just it’s just flat earth shit man

54:41 – 54:45 I’m not going to create that kind of

54:43 – 54:47 situation it’s not professional it’s not

54:45 – 54:49 scientific you could say that about

54:47 – 54:51 anything and I don’t want to go there so

54:49 – 54:53 if you have specifics I’m happy to

54:51 – 54:55 connect you otherwise if you want to

54:53 – 54:57 connect with somebody on your own I’m

54:55 – 54:59 happy to be part of that but those are

54:57 – 55:01 the only parameters I put on that well I

54:59 – 55:04 mean yeah I that’s I mean you just keep

55:01 – 55:06 what you call no no it’s just the way it

55:04 – 55:08 is you can do it do it on your own

55:06 – 55:09 there’s nothing to do I not agree I’m

55:08 – 55:11 told you’re right you’re right on that I

55:09 – 55:13 plan to do it on my own but the part I’m

55:11 – 55:14 disagreeing with is when you say that’s

55:13 – 55:15 unscientific what you’re saying is

55:14 – 55:20 unscientific

55:15 – 55:22 it’s literacy go talk to the flat earth

55:20 – 55:24 people they’re all over science right go

55:22 – 55:26 talk to the flat earth people they will

55:24 – 55:29 talk to you about science all day long

55:26 – 55:31 so right yeah that’s you’re you’re in

55:29 – 55:33 European flag earth territory with this

55:31 – 55:34 I we’ve talked about it a million times

55:33 – 55:37 man

55:34 – 55:38 weird it’s great terrify that one point

55:37 – 55:40 is what you keep saying is Flat Earth II

55:38 – 55:42 is the definition of science you’re

55:40 – 55:43 saying definition of science is

55:42 – 55:45 flattering because what I’m

55:43 – 55:47 voting here is just philosophy of

55:45 – 55:49 science 101 problems alright alright we

55:47 – 55:52 don’t know everything we’re in agreement

55:49 – 55:54 there’s many more much more to be

55:52 – 55:56 discovered again thanks again for coming

55:54 – 55:59 on I really enjoyed our conversation I

55:56 – 56:00 didn’t cheat on so thanks for watching

55:59 – 56:03 this video if it wasn’t really a video

56:00 – 56:05 but just an audio stored as a video I

56:03 – 56:07 apologize but there’s more videos out

56:05 – 56:09 there as well but please check out the

56:07 – 56:10 skeptic Co website you can see it here

56:09 – 56:13 we cover a lot of different stuff you

56:10 – 56:16 might be interested in relating to

56:13 – 56:19 controversial science and spirituality a

56:16 – 56:21 lot of shows up there over 350 of them

56:19 – 56:25 are so all free all available for

56:21 – 56:34 downloads so do check it out

56:25 – 56:34 [Music]

56:38 – 56:45 stop humming that song I can hum if I

56:42 – 56:47 want to I know you can that’s Will

56:45 – 56:50 Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg from the movie

56:47 – 56:52 the other guys could you not smile like

56:50 – 56:54 that now you’re asking me to mask my

56:52 – 56:55 emotions because of how it makes you

56:54 – 56:57 feel and that I will not do

56:55 – 56:60 stop being so overtly happy about doing

56:57 – 57:02 shit work you moron hey guys

56:60 – 57:05 reminder the police union picnics coming

57:02 – 57:08 up this weekend my wife’s making her

57:05 – 57:11 famous deviled eggs again my waistline

57:08 – 57:13 is furious it’s a bad time Bob all right

57:11 – 57:16 I have an interview coming up in a

57:13 – 57:19 minute with Tom jump a self-described

57:16 – 57:22 materialist atheist who contacted me and

57:19 – 57:27 took me up on my Anytime Anywhere offer

57:22 – 57:28 regarding debating in de science it even

57:27 – 57:30 though the interview wasn’t nearly as

57:28 – 57:34 tense as that interaction between

57:30 – 57:37 Farrell and Walberg it did get me

57:34 – 57:41 thinking about how hard it can be to

57:37 – 57:43 tolerate other people I mean I’ve been

57:41 – 57:47 going at this for a long time and I’ve

57:43 – 57:50 interviewed plenty of skeptics and the

57:47 – 57:52 process can be very frustrating as

57:50 – 57:55 you’ll hear in this interview and as

57:52 – 57:57 I’ve said so many times the funny thing

57:55 – 57:60 about skeptics is they don’t seem to

57:57 – 58:03 care about the things they say they care

57:60 – 58:05 about like science and logic and reason

58:03 – 58:07 as you know I’ve dug into the near-death

58:05 – 58:09 experience science quite thoroughly so I

58:07 – 58:12 don’t have to pull any punches in this

58:09 – 58:15 introduction and I can point out how

58:12 – 58:19 incredibly weak Tom’s home-cook theory

58:15 – 58:21 is but I got to tell you it’s really no

58:19 – 58:24 weaker than a lot of the skeptics I’ve

58:21 – 58:27 had on the show who’ve published

58:24 – 58:29 academic papers or at least like Michael

58:27 – 58:32 Shermer regularly write in the

58:29 – 58:35 Scientific American of course that begs

58:32 – 58:37 the question what’s really going on but

58:35 – 58:41 since that’s a level two question and

58:37 – 58:43 this is a level one discussion I don’t

58:41 – 58:45 think we’re going to get there

58:43 – 58:47 and while tea jumps grass

58:45 – 58:50 but near-death experience science may

58:47 – 58:52 not be that solid are his blind spots

58:50 – 58:55 any worse than what we regularly run

58:52 – 58:58 into I mean between Fundy Christians and

58:55 – 59:01 radically sounding Muslims not to

58:58 – 59:04 mention pedo Pope and wacky Zionists

59:01 – 59:07 where we to turn oh and don’t let me

59:04 – 59:09 forget we have to remain spherically

59:07 – 59:10 neutral or we might upset the Flat Earth

59:09 – 59:13 crowd

59:10 – 59:15 there’s Lib tard trans craziness and

59:13 – 59:19 legitimately scary

59:15 – 59:22 all right maniacs right there alongside

59:19 – 59:25 people who can’t stand me talking about

59:22 – 59:28 UFOs even though they’re on the front

59:25 – 59:31 page of the New York Times so in that

59:28 – 59:33 mix do I really need to be upset that t

59:31 – 59:36 jump doesn’t nope in van llamas name and

59:33 – 59:38 has never heard of Sam Varney or any of

59:36 – 59:41 the other near-death experience

59:38 – 59:43 researchers heck no in fact I give him

59:41 – 59:47 credit for stepping into the arena and

59:43 – 59:52 trying to defend the indefensible here’s

59:47 – 59:52 me being interviewed by Tom jump

59:59 – 60:03 thanks again to Tom jump for joining me

60:01 – 60:05 today on skeptic Oh even though he

60:03 – 60:07 didn’t really join me but I joined him

60:05 – 60:09 but he but he gave me the permission to

60:07 – 60:12 rebroadcast us I think he’s happy that I

60:09 – 60:15 did so here goes the one question that I

60:12 – 60:18 guess I tee up from this interview is

60:15 – 60:23 I’d like you to really drill down and

60:18 – 60:26 specify for me and specify so if I see

60:23 – 60:29 I’d like you to really drill down and

60:26 – 60:33 see if you can summarize the argument

60:29 – 60:37 that tom is making about near-death

60:33 – 60:43 experience and why or why not you might

60:37 – 60:45 be in favor of that hypothesis and while

60:43 – 60:47 you’re thinking about that and talking

60:45 – 60:50 about that I’d encourage you to go

60:47 – 60:56 online and look at the YouTube comments

60:50 – 60:60 from Tom’s posting of this video it’s

60:56 – 61:04 very disheartening to see it’s quite

60:60 – 61:08 disheartening to see the the logic being

61:04 – 61:13 applied by a group of seemingly

61:08 – 61:17 intelligent people who who as we’ve seen

61:13 – 61:21 so many times are unable to follow the

61:17 – 61:21 data wherever it leads

61:27 – 61:33 okay okay thanks for hanging with me I

61:31 – 61:36 hope you enjoyed this episode I have

61:33 – 61:38 some more regular sceptic Oh me

61:36 – 61:40 interviewing people episodes coming up

61:38 – 61:42 in the very near future I think there’s

61:40 – 61:45 some good ones coming up please stay

61:42 – 61:49 with me for all of that and until next

61:45 – 61:49 time take care and bye for now

 

  • More From Skeptiko

    • Claire Broad, Psychic Mediumship and Science |427|

      Claire Broad, Psychic Mediumship and Science |427|

      Claire Broad believes she’s learned what the dead are trying to teach us. photo by: Skeptiko Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:06] Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers and their critics. I’m your host Alex …
    • David Mathisen, Do Ancient Star Myths Tell the Same Story? |426|

      David Mathisen, Do Ancient Star Myths Tell the Same Story? |426|

      David Mathisen has compelling evidence of a worldwide system of ancient knowledge in the stars. photo by: Skeptiko Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:06] Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science with leading researchers, thinkers and of course their critics. One thing …
    • Sean Webb, Understanding Consciousness Can Lead to Happiness |425|

      Sean Webb, Understanding Consciousness Can Lead to Happiness |425|

      Sean Webb believes he’s cracked the happiness code with neuroscience and consciousness research. photo by: Skeptiko Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:06] Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers and their critics. As you all know …
    • Debra Diamond Brings Wall Street Smarts to NDEs, and Mediumship |424|

      Debra Diamond Brings Wall Street Smarts to NDEs, and Mediumship |424|

      Debra Diamond was an elite Wall Street analyst before discovering her ability to talk with the dead and dying. photo by: Skeptiko Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:00] Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers and …
    • Mary Rodwell’s 3,000 Cases Suggest Ongoing Genetic Manipulation |423|

      Mary Rodwell’s 3,000 Cases Suggest Ongoing Genetic Manipulation |423|

      Mary Rodwell is a trained therapist who’s 3,000+ cases suggest an ongoing genetic manipulation experiment. photo by: Skeptiko Alex Tsakiris: [00:00:00] Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers and their critics. I’m your …
    • Dr. Gregory Shushan, Making the Case For Cross-Cultural NDEs |422|

      Dr. Gregory Shushan, Making the Case For Cross-Cultural NDEs |422|

        Dr. Gregory Shushan’s research into near-death experience across cultures rankles skeptics and believers.   photo by: Skeptiko Alex Tsakiris: Welcome to Skeptiko where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers and their critics. Now, most of …
    • Courtney Brown, The Future of Scientific Remote Viewing |421|

      Courtney Brown, The Future of Scientific Remote Viewing |421|

        Courtney Brown talks about where remote viewing has been and where it’s headed.   photo by: Skeptiko Alex Tsakiris: … we are in the middle of disclosure. I mean the New York Times is coming out and saying, “Oh, …
    • Mark Gober, Dispelling Upside Down Thinking in Favor of Extended Consciousness |420|

      Mark Gober, Dispelling Upside Down Thinking in Favor of Extended Consciousness |420|

        Mark Gober went from investment banking to writing a book that dives deep into consciousness anomalies.   photo by: Skeptiko   Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome Mark Gober to Skeptiko. Mark is a successful Silicon Valley venture capitalist and strategist turned author. …
    • Dr. Robert Davis, What Peak Experiences Reveal About Consciousness |419|

      Dr. Robert Davis, What Peak Experiences Reveal About Consciousness |419|

      Dr. Robert Davis’ research into peak experiences reveals multiple paths to extended consciousness realms. photo by: Skeptiko Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome Dr Robert Davis to Skeptiko. Bob is an internationally recognized expert in the field of sensory neuroscience. I was just browsing his curriculum vitae before we …
  •  

    44 Shares