Alex Tsakiris and Tom Jump Debate Near Death Experience Science |408|
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. [box]
Listen Now:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
[/box][box]
Subscribe:
[one_third][/one_third] [one_third][/one_third] [one_third_last][/one_third_last] [/box]
Click here for forum discussion
Click here for TJump’s YouTube channel
Read Excerpts
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
Bernardo Kastrup on AI Consciousness |643|
Consciousness, AI, and the future of science: A spirited debate If we really are on..The Spiritual Journey of Compromise and Doubt |642|
Insights from Howard Storm In the realm of near-death experiences (NDEs) and Christianity, few voices..Why Humans Suck at AI? |641|
Craig Smith from the Eye on AI Podcast Human bias and illogical thinking allows AI to..How AI is Humanizing Work |640|
Dan Tuchin uses AI to enrich the workplace. How AI is Humanizing Work Forget about..Christof Koch, Damn White Crows! |639|
Renowned neuroscientist tackled by NDE science. Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is sidestepping the consciousness elephant..AI Ethics is About Truth… Or Maybe Not |638|
Ben Byford, Machine Ethics Podcast Another week in AI and more droning on about how..Nathan Labenz from the Cognitive Revolution podcast |637|
AI Ethics may be unsustainable -=-=-= In the clamor surrounding AI ethics and safety are..AI Truth Ethics |636|
Launching a new pod Here are the first three episodes of the AI Truth Ethics..AI Journalism Truth |635|
Craig S. Smith used to write for WSJ and NYT, now he’s into AI. After..