Anthony Peake, Ferryman? |565|

Anthony Peake is a bestselling author and consciousness researcher.


Listen Now:



[one_third]Subscribe to Skeptiko with iTunes[/one_third] [one_third]email-subscribe[/one_third] [one_third_last]Subscribe to Skeptiko with YouTube[/one_third_last]  skeptiko-Join-the-Discussion-3

Click here for forum Discussion

Click here for Anthony Peake’s Website

Tucker’s response to Sudduth


[00:00:00] Alex Tsakiris: On, this episode of Skeptiko… A show about arguing.

Clip: And then you guys quiz each other. Mr. Winer, is that really the best use of our time? Seems like the value of having you here is I think my value as a teacher is to teach you how to learn. I think you’re telling us we should teach ourselves. I don’t think you’re gonna learn. If I tell you how to think.

I think if you tell us what you think, then we’ll learn that. I thought you should break into groups, but you fail to learn that. So your theory is invalid

Alex Tsakiris: Even ,arguing with people you like.


[00:00:31] Anthony Peake: Used the term cranky? You said he was cranky.

[00:00:34] Alex Tsakiris: In my,

[00:00:35] Anthony Peake: and you have experience work yet. You’re consider him cranky.

[00:00:38] Alex Tsakiris: Yeah. Well, probably I’d say high probability of

[00:00:41] Anthony Peake: cranky really, but you need to read it and you need

[00:00:43] Alex Tsakiris: toand.

I do. I do. I do. I do need to read it, but

[00:00:46] Anthony Peake: I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t call somebody cranky. If I’d not read their

[00:00:48] Alex Tsakiris: work.


That first clip was from Joel McHale and community. And the second one was from today’s guest, Anthony peek. , who I genuinely like and respect, even though I think he stretches the metaphor a little bit too far. He always brings a lot of good research to the table. And I certainly like that. Stick around for the interview.

[00:01:12] Alex Tsakiris: ===

Welcome to skeptical where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers and their critics. I’m host Alex scarce. And today we welcome Anthony peak back to skeptical. Tony has a new book. A new book is an old, an old book that has a new book, but it’s, it’s just interesting.

I’m I’m looking forward to diving into this with him. The book is cheating, the ferryman, the revolutionary science of life after death, the sequel to the best selling is their life after death. So, uh, that’s the new book. I, I gotta figure out how you got so much in that title on Amazon.

They let you do that. That’s great, man. Good for you, Tony. Welcome back. Thanks for being here.

[00:01:56] Anthony Peake: Yeah. Always enjoy Alex, our discussions. I always find them the most stimulating I do basically because you do your research and you really do know your stuff. And what I always admire about you. That you don’t tow the line.

If somebody says something you don’t agree with, you’ll tell them. And I think that’s profoundly important, you know? But funnily enough, in terms of the, the actual title in there, it’s extraordinary, isn’t it? This is, I don’t do this. Isn’t my publishers. I, I didn’t even know they’d done this. So clearly it’s quite a mouthful, isn’t it really?

[00:02:23] Alex Tsakiris: It’s good. It’s good. It, it, it kind of brings, it brings us around because that’s what the book does is it brings us around to the idea that here’s a guy who’s had this theory he’s been working on this theory for relatively long time has synthesized a lot of different sources has let me pull up on the screen for anyone who’s watching written a bunch of other books, and those are just some of them on the website, Anthony

Uh, you can also find them. Amazon, you know, the last time you were on skeptic, it was 4 47, really enjoyed the chat. And it was kind of centered around this book, the hidden universe and investigation into non-human intelligences. Really another great book. You know, I, I mentioned this the last time we spoke.

And I wanna mention it again, because what you do is really quite unique and what you’ve been able to kind of muster and just kind of plow your way through is this non ordained kind of researcher of consciousness, which I think is part of this thing. Like they have PE like I gotta say this, cuz I, I, you know, this is gonna be a true Socratic skeptical kind of thing.

I don’t agree with, uh, all. All your theories, but I really admire, and I think if it was a, a more just world, uh, academically, intellectually, we would think about you in a much different way. You, you would have multiple PhDs. You’d be kind of much more sought after in terms of the way you’re synthesizing this information, but that’s never going to happen because from jump street, you are counter very counter fundamentally to the whole consciousness, biological robot, meaningless universe.

And you know, you’re a Liverpool guy and you’re just kind of a street guy. You’re not afraid to say, Hey, that’s just obviously bullshit. So we can kind of dismiss with that. And now let’s explore this. Let’s explore that. And you know, the fact that you’ve been able to gain any traction at all. Is is amazing.

Let alone write these really fantastically, interesting books that are packed with solid research, solid, you know, peer-reviewed stuff that’s coming onto the scene and you are then synthesizing into your theory. So that’s what you do. And I’m so glad you’re out there doing it.

[00:04:59] Anthony Peake: Thanks Alex. I mean, one of the things that, that I find is that, and I’ve used this argument many, many times.

I mean, I have been offered, uh, places to do a do PhDs on the back of my research. And indeed over the years I’ve been offered the opportunity to do PhDs in various different subjects. I mean, initially when I started off, I was planning to do a PhD in Italian Renaissance, salt and particularly the paintings of a guy called PIRO de Francesca, which de developed my interest in esoterism because I was interested in the esoteric aspects of a lot of the Renaissance painters and the symbolism within the paintings.

And of course at that period, you had people like Picom Mela, you had various other philosophers and everything else as well in, in Florence and various other cities. Then I had the opportunity to do a PhD in business management. After I did my postgraduate course at London school of economic. But I’d Al I’ve always argued that it’s not possible to do a PhD in the areas I’m interested in because it’s too diverse.

It’s too wide in order to, to write the kind of stuff I write about. You’d need to have a PhD in neurology astrophysics, quantum physics neurochemistry. So what I do is I try to synthesize all these things and bring them together in, in a way that people can understand and appreciate, cuz I think there’s too much going on here that we know that quantum physics is telling us university is a far, far stranger place than anything we can possibly understand.

And in this case I particular, I, I, I quote somebody like, I dunno, Richard Fe. One of the world’s leading quantum physicists. And he said to his students, and he said, you know, when you first doing, when you first do your courses on quantum physics, don’t try to understand it. Don’t go down the rabbit hole because their lies insanity.

We don’t know what is going on, but we know it works. And this is the thing. Of course, quantum physics is the most accurate form of science we’ve ever had in history. You know, it’s accurate to, I think somebody said one hers length in terms of statistics, one hers length across the Atlantic in terms of distance.

That’s how accurate it is, but nobody understands fully what it means now. I think the only way you can ever appreciate fully what quantum mechanics really means is to start applying the cosmology to it, applying the, the, the philosophy behind it. And in the book, this is what I try to do. I have whole sections on the data.

I have sections on Kashmere Shaivism I have sections on the great philosophers in histo, historical times who argued that, that the relationship between consciousness and external reality is, is, is not what it seems. You know, there’s a term that people use it’s called naive realism. The idea that there is a one-to-one relationship between what my brain tells me is out there and what is physically out there, you know, there’s all these things, you know, it, it it’s, you know, and when you, when you, when you first come across the discovery, that everything that seems to be physical, Is 99.9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 empty space.

And the only things that are physically solid are point particles, such as electrons and Quas, both of which are point particles, which means they have no extension in space. So where does reality disappear to? I came across a quotation recently that I really loved when uh, I think it was Rutherford discovered that the, the nucleus of the atom at Manchester university, when he discovered that the vast part of the atom was empty space.

The next morning, when he woke up, he was terrified to step out of bed in case he fell through the floor. Now this shows exactly how strange reality is, and that’s all I write about, you know, I, I don’t do I believe my hypothesis? I don’t know. I don’t know whether I believe it. All I know is that the science points me in that direction.

[00:08:55] Alex Tsakiris: So, uh, great. That’s kind of a good segue into the theory because since this book is kind of a, I don’t know what you’d call it a, a reboot recap of this body work. Tell us about the basics. Tell us about the ferryman, who is the ferryman and tell us about the Damon. Who’s the Damon and, you know, just thumbnail sketch.

I think that’s important. And I think, and you know, even before you get there you kind of sketched out some of your background, take us back even further, if you will. Just how did you even develop as a person into, you know,

[00:09:33] Anthony Peake: thinking the weird creature I am

[00:09:35] Alex Tsakiris: now? well, no, into the amazing creature, into the bold creature who says.

I’m gonna take a year off of my profession. I’m gonna risk not having any money being broke. Cause I ought to write a book, you know what I mean? And then write it. And I

[00:09:52] Anthony Peake: didn’t even know what I was gonna write it about. That was the extraordinary thing. I mean, I, I, you know, I, I have a very understanding wife and she said, look, you really want to write this book.

Okay. You know, write the book, take a year out, just take it out. And the first day when I was sitting in front of the, the screen, you know, there’s writers say this, the blank screen or the white page crisis, and you go, right. I’ve now got to start, you know, and I’m, I’m a terrible procrastinator. I find all things to do with the thing I’m supposed to be doing.

You know, I’ll listen to music, I’ll do all kinds of things. But what happened was, it was quite curious in that I, I was sitting in front of the screen and I, as I was doing so I started the, the, the end end of my fingers started to go dead and my lip started to tingle and I realized I was having a migraine aura.

Now I’ve experienced all my life. What’s technically called classic. which is you don’t necessarily get a headache, but what you do get is you get the aura state, this kind of weird disembodied, weird halluc transitory state that you end up in. And, you know, you’re gonna have a full blown migraine soon, afterwards.

And mind starts in that way, where I get tingling in my fingers. And then my eyesight starts to go, I start going blind. I get white out. It’s called a scotoma. And it moves across from the center of my vision right across, since literally I cannot see. And this started, but what was on uncanny was that at the ti at the time, I also had the most incredible sensation of dejavu that I was that ha had at some time in my past.

Sat in front of that computer screen in my home in Horsham, in west Sussex, down in the, here in the UK. And when I came out of the, a state, I realized what I wanted to write about. I wanted to understand exactly what dejavu was, and that was the abiding driving force. Now just a little bit of a background story.

I’m from a very working class background. I’m a regular guy, but I, I was gifted I suppose, with peculiar memory. I’ve always had this peculiar, virtually ETE memory, uh, where virtually sometimes, you know, I can, I can remember something and I don’t even have to go through the recall facility. It just comes into my mind or I’ll be able to read it.

I mean, I’ve read the encyclopedia Brittanica from end to end. And sometimes I will think of something and a concept and I’ll see the page in front of me from the encyclopedia, but can account when I can read down it, I can look at it, which means I’ve never been beaten in trivial pursuit ever. nobody has ever beaten me in trivial pursuit really

[00:12:22] Alex Tsakiris: well.

It’s you on, on your team? Everybody wants you on their team. I,

[00:12:26] Anthony Peake: I used to actually earn a living on quizzes. When I was a period of unemployed, I used to be in quiz teams and I used to drag the quiz machines in the pubs and things because it’s just the peculiar thing I can do, but it meant that over the years, and I’ve always been interested in unusual phenomen.

Ever since I first read John keel way back in the late 1960s, and I then read a British part work called man myth and magic when I was about 10 or 11. And this made me decide that I, when, when, and if I got to university and at that stage, it wasn’t looking that promising because I’d failed my 11 plus I was at the secondary modern school, but I managed to get to the local grammar school when I was 15.

And I flew at the grammar school because it was, it was, it was my kind of environment. I was very sporty. So they liked sporty kids. I was an athlete, so they loved that. But on top of that, I had this way with words and I, I, I could write and everything else as well. And I did phenomenally well, and I did very well at my a levels.

And from four years of being a no mark kid at a, a, a really rough school. I was, I was at, I got a place at one of Britain’s top universities, the university of Warwick and also to read sociology and history which again was stretching myself because I was doing two degrees in parallel. And I chose sociology in history because the sociology I was interested in because it gave me the opportunity to study religion.

It gave me the opportunity to study cults and religious cults and belief systems. So I was able to dive into the sociology of what it means when people are Jehovah’s witnesses. And when people suffer from cognitive dissonance, when. Jesus doesn’t come when they expect him to this kind of thing. So I very much focused in on that.

And in terms of my history, I, again, focused in on the history of esoteric belief systems. And I was particularly interested in the crazy, strange religious movements that came out of the 30 years war in, in the 17th century in Germany. And there was some very peculiar religious groups coming up then, cuz of course it was the breakout from the rule of Catholicism and everybody was reading the Bible and interpreting it in their own way.

And of course it was then in the vernacular and the Vulgate, so people could read the Bible and they came up with their own interpretations. So this fascinated me, but of course there was no real opportunities. And when I got my degree and I wanted to do post. The only really opportunity for me to do postgraduate was in business.

So I went to the London school of economics to do a postgraduate course in, in, in industrial relations and, and labeler, which I then did. And, and then I started a career within human resources, management and compensation and benefits, specializing in compensation and benefits. But all the time I was continually reading all the time.

I was reading books on the subject and you can see from the books behind me, people turn around to me and say, you haven’t read all those books. I actually have, you know, and it meant that when I had the opportunity to write a book it was already in there, but I didn’t know my Damon and we’ll come into the Damon in a minute.

My Damon had led me from my various earliest age. My own higher self had led me to read the right things in order for when I sat in that room in 1999 in Horsham. I was ready to go. And what happened was it was like, you know, young, there’s the youngian concept of the library angel. I found this was happening.

I was finding that books I needed were just coming into my, my, my worldview. It’s I’d go into a library and a book would be there. I mean, I’ll give you a really weird story about this. My wife was talking about getting really hacked off with me about the way in which I felt I was being guided to write this book.

And we were staying with my brother-in-law in Shena and we went into this bookshop and the bookshop books were piled hives, the secondhand bookshop, and penny turns around to me and she goes, you know, the way you think you are being guided. And I said, yes. And she said, okay, what kind of book do you need now?

Cuz this is a chaos of a bookshop. What kind of book do you need? Let’s see if it really works. So I said, funnily enough, I need a biography on William Blake and she’s standing there and she goes, oh, for Christ’s sake. And it was right in front, her in the bookcase and she picked it out and she threw it across the room.

In frustration and stormed out. And that was exactly the book I needed and there were quotations in there I needed.

[00:16:42] Alex Tsakiris: I know you can add to this in a million different ways , the phenomenon that you experienced is kind of retold dozens and dozens of time throughout history, both with, uh, reading and literature, but in science, you know, I needed the formula.

I needed the whatever,


[00:17:02] Anthony Peake: know, right. Well, it was like, like Kele Kele, you know, needed to, to understand the structure of benze. And he was sitting in front of a bra log. Fire has a hypnogogic image and sees a, a snake eating its own tail. And he realized that the ring, it was a ring S. And benzene was a ring structure.

Max plunk when max plunk, uh, in 1900 max plunk stood up in December, 1900 and changed science forever, uh, at a meeting in, in Berlin when he pointed out that energy came in small units or packages or Q from the Latin. And he said that that actual work he did was an act of desperation. It was a piece of inspiration that he just threw the idea out like a crazy idea.

And it was right. Not only that, but he come up with this number called the plant constant, which is now found it, the universe everywhere in the universe, the plant constant is there. And yet it was an arbitrary thing. He just grabbed out the air. So it seems that there’s a relationship between us and the universe.

In other words, when we think about the idea that everything is, we are there’s distance between things we know from quantum physics, that everything is entangled. There’s a quantum physics things called entanglement, where if you put two quantum, you put two quantum particles like electrons or photons into the same quantum state, then you send them apart.

If you do one thing to one, the other one reacts instantaneously. Now the world’s most the, the world should have stopped in 1981. When a guy called Allain ASPE at the, the Institute of optics in Paris, did an experiment which proved non locality. He proved something that a guy called uh, John Bell had come across, come across in 1964, an Northern Irish guy that was working at CERN.

And this proved something called, uh, the E Einstein Polski Rosen paradox, which was written in the mid 1930s by Einstein and a few associates. And it proved breaking it down, that there is no distance between things that we think that there’s distance. But there isn’t, everything is a single, single unity.

Now, if sub Pacific particles, when they’re put in close proximity to each other, become entangled extrapolate from that, the idea that at the first point of the big bang with the, the, the singularity of the big bang, every single subatomic particle that is now in the universe was entangled in a point particle 13.8, 13.7, 7

[00:19:43] Alex Tsakiris: billion years ago.

Right. But, but Tony, we’ve gotta be a little careful cuz that’s where people kind of lose the idea, but. It, it it’s kind of a bridge too far in some ways in terms of filling it in, because what I would really bring it back to.

And again, in compliments to you and what you do it in the do in the book is you kinda show where the theory is meeting reality. Like the example you gave with bell. The other one that, that I had guy just the other day and quantum Doug, Doug, me, Dr. Doug Minsky. Super smart about quantum mechanics and AI and stuff like that.

And we were chatting about, you know, there’s a, uh, a quantum modem now, right. And the Chinese have actually done this and they’ve demonstrated it. And that always grabs people. Attention is when it’s, oh, they’ve engineered it. So they’ve taken quantum entanglement and they’ve said, but if you just take the idea that you’re saying, and like, I love when you said, you know, the world should have stopped, you know, there’s so many times that, that there’s so many points in the research that you talk about.

When you say the world should have stopped, the world should have stopped. When max plank said consciousness is fundamental. I’m I’m, you know, the world should have stopped finding anyways, The point about the entanglement modem that I just wanna bring it up so people can make this as a touchstone. If you can entangle things and you can manipulate one thing and then have the other thing change, think of what that means for a modem.

Cuz that’s what communication is about. Mm-hmm now they’re just doing it with the keys, the security keys, but it’s really the same thing to do with the data. It’s just the precursor, but it, we will maybe talk about that in a minute, but the fact that we’ve taken that and now engineered that yeah. Brings us to a different level.

And I think you’re knocking on that door a lot and saying, Hey, look at this research, you can’t just pretend this stuff is in the abstract anymore. But I, I, I want to, if we can return to something you said just a minute ago, cause it’s important. I guess when you said it, I was kind of, jingled my memory a little bit.

I’m not quite as photographically, memorable to have the photographic memory that you do, but the youngian angel of the library kind of thing. And then what you are saying in terms of your experience and the experience of many other famous, famous scientists throughout time, you always think didn’t Francis Krick, uh, have something with the, see the swirling snakes.

I mean, over and over again, that angel of the library is coming into play. But Tony tie us down here. You’re calling that you’re calling that out and you’re saying, well, okay, that’s how you’ve understood it. And here’s the demonstrated instances where that happened, but you’re attaching that to this idea of the Damon aren’t

[00:22:42] Anthony Peake: you?

Mm I am. And of course, you know, when we talk about young, young had his own Damon he called it Phil. And Philman was an entity that, that, that was with young, for most of his life. And I would argue that the Damon is our own higher self and that we all have a Damon all of us. And it depends upon whether the doors of perception as all the soy called them are open.

And to the extent they are open is the extent in which the Damon can communicate because the Damon is the part of you. That’s lived your life before, and this is profoundly important. The Damon knows how to guide you because it’s already done it. So when people turn around and say, I had a precognitive dejavu, that’s not you remembering that it’s the Damon facilitating that cause the Damon remembers it it’s as I in my book, uh, on Philip K Dick, I use the term, the earth with Philip K Dick, the man who remembered the future because I argue that.

We live this life more than once, and it’s a simulation or an explanation, which I think is a more far more accurate term because simulation gives the impression that it’s a simulation of something else. Whereas it’s not, it’s, it’s an explanation of itself. And I’m quoting here, a guy called Dr. Andrew Gallimore, who is an associate of mine who lives in a Andar in Japan, who is an Oxford educated Cybert engineer.

Very interesting guy. You must get him on your show. His book on DMT and altered states of consciousness is to die for it’s brilliant, but going back to it. So the idea is that I use the, the analogy and it’s much easier as an analogy these days because people know it. Can you imagine that you were existing in a virtual reality, three dimensional first per third, first person viewpoint computer game of your life.

And in that game, the. It is pro the program contains the outcome of every decision that you can possibly make. Okay. What you do is you switch on the game and literally, I, I use the analogy in one of my books and say, it’s as if you’ve put on a, a super duper feedback suit that tactile feeds back your movements in the game.

So, you know, rather like with with the new Oculus, you actually see a pair of hands on the screen when you’re in virtual reality, which are mimicking the movements of your own hands. It’s quite uncanny when you do this. But the idea is that you are placed in this game and the first life you live, you don’t have a Damon, you’re a singular consciousness, cuz your Damon hasn’t split off from you cuz you are the same as your Damon.

And at the end of that first life, a BI vocation takes place at the point of death, the Damon and the Adlon split off the Adlon dies. But the Damon continues and finds itself being the game player of another, a reboot of the game from the moment of birth. And it, it literally is in a position where it sees or perceives the life of its Al on screen.

Now you can imagine a scenario here that initially the Damon can’t really influence the onscreen Sprite because it’s independence because it’s to do with the way the brain structures it’s to do with the nondominant and non non-dominant hemispheres the brain. But the idea is that the, the, the onscreen Sprite say we’ll use Lara craft, which is a good example of this.

So you switch on the second game. You’ve played the game once before. So, you know, the layout of the, the tomb that she’s supposed to be wandering around, she starts running off and she goes into a. And she gets eaten by a monster. She gets killed, she’s died. So she comes back new game, the Damon it’s now the third game, but this time the Damon knows to not go in that room, cuz there’s a monster in there.

The skill that Damon has is how it communicates with its Eaton to not have the Eaton going to that room. And this is when in life we have Huns. When we have feelings, when you meet somebody and you think, oh, not too sure about this person. I believe this is what really is happening is that there’s part of you.

That’s recognizing the situation and is trying to warn you. Now, if your doors are perception are vaguely open, you’ll have precognitive dreams or you’ll have inklings or feelings. But if your doors and perception are wider open, and I argue, for instance, people who experience temporal lobe epilepsy, the Damon can communicate much more effect.

It can speak to them sometimes. And indeed there is a friend of mine, Myron dial who’s Damon manifested when he was four years old and they’ve been together for the whole of his life. He’s now in his late seventies. And his Damon is called Caron, which is interesting because it’s the ferryman, which again is fascinating.

And, and, and, and he tells me all the time about how Karen guides him, how Karen gives him visions. And there was one example. He gave me where Karen gave him a vision when he was about 25 years old. And he saw in this vision, an elderly man sitting in a studio with a, a pile of books, notebooks read notebooks, and he was surrounded by the incredible paintings and sculptures.

It was only when he was in his sixties, he’s sitting there in his room and he senses a presence behind him and he thinks, oh, my God looked. And there were the red books in front of him. And all his art was all around him. And he realized that he’d been seeing his own future. His Damon had given a glimpse of his own future.

Philip K Dick had the same things happen to him. So the idea is that the Damon guide you through multiple lives and he, it, it changes these, these what I call I suppose it’s like an evolutionary thing that you play the game over and over again, and you follow different roots. And I argue that all of this information is digitally encoded within the universe itself.

Within the zero point field within the quantum vacuum, it’s an information field and all this information is held and it’s all to do with black holes, believe it or not. And it’s all to do with the way in which information is processed within black holes. And this is why in the work, in my book, I cite the work of people like Stephen Hawking.

Because Hawking’s point of uh, of, of Hawking radiation coming out of a black hole. And the idea is that this is a huge hologram. We are existing within a huge hologram. Reality is not what it seems and it’s basis. Everything is information and information that is processed by a consciousness because we know in quantum mechanics and quantum physics from the twin experiment, there’s a direct relationship between the active observation and whether a subatomic particle is a point particle or a wave and the active observation or the act of measurement, which is the same thing creates from a wave, which of course is something that is smeared out and has no physical presence.

To a point particle, which is a point particle in three dimensional space.

[00:29:55] Alex Tsakiris: Right. But hold on, hold on, hold on. right. Because again, I’m gonna just circle back and say the same thing over and over again. I, I, I, I love where you’re going and I love the launching off point, which is hard science kind of irrefutable.

Scientific truths that we found, like what you’re talking about, the double slit experiment, which I always say is misnamed. It’s the consciousness experiment. That’s what it is. It’s like, does consciousness exist? Answer over and over and over again is yes, but we don’t wanna talk about consciousness. So let’s talk about slits and photons and the rest of that.

And that’s a good way to kind of change the dialogue, which is part of the social engineering project. You know, I, I won’t go off on that rant that I do a million times, but what I do wanna do, I, in the process of doing that, you’ve really done a great job of summing up the, the ferryman theory, if you will, and you’re hanging a bunch of things off it, which are tremendous.

And that’s why we want people to go check out the book. Cheating, the Fairman get it, read it. It’ll kind of put you right into the middle of this conversation. What, what, what I wanna launch into, and it goes hand in hand, we’ve already been doing, this is kind of like I said, the, the go skeptical, but you’re a, uh, a Greg file. So you get the full Socratic, you know, Socrates was all about.

Getting people together and kind of hashing stuff out and letting the best ideas kind of rise to the top, follow the data kind of thing. And it’s such a beautiful thing. And I, I, I just can’t believe how it’s so lost in a, in our culture. And I get it all the time. Cuz people are offended when you go, you know, you want to say, oh, what about this?

What about that? It’s like, oh, you’re challenging. My beliefs everyone’s opinion about a flat earth matters. You know, it’s like, well, no, we don’t really think that everyone’s opinion matters. Why do we even wanna play that game? So we’re not gonna play that game here. and w what I wanna do. Is kind of pose a couple of questions to you.

And a lot of them, uh, kind of came up last time, but because there’s so much to what you’re doing and you’re exploring so many areas that we can’t always nail these things to the ground. So let me pick out a couple of them and then we’ll see how far they go and we’ll see where it takes us. So right off the bat, one of the things that seems to me, maybe a bridge too far is the literal idea that you had an original life in a real universe in, in a real body, whatever that means.

, I think the rest of what you’re saying stretches the definition of that original, what that original physical reality would be. But then the second thing I’d point you to is the reincarnation science, you know, Jim Tucker, Ian Stevenson, before that, and in particular, you know, the research they did with the.

, birthmarks that correlate to violent deaths that people had in a previous life. Cause again, let me, in case people didn’t pick up on this in cheating, the ferryman, you wouldn’t have, it would be a Groundhog day situation. You’re coming back in the same, you know, you’re playing the same game over and over again.

You’re not switching to a different body. So Jim Tucker, you and Stevenson can go out and they go, oh no, this is how it looks. And you are switching to a different body. And by the way, if you VI die of violent death, then statistically, you’re more likely to bring along these birth birthmarks as a physical manifestation of what you need to resolve this time around.

How do you process that

[00:33:41] Anthony Peake: science? Well, I suppose I don’t need to because there’s no science. There is no science that supports the idea of the trans migration of souls. There is no science on that. There’s no science. I know there are, there are, there are stories and there are anecdotes and there are people turning around and saying, well, you know, we’ve got the evidence for this, but I know no science that can explain how a consciousness can leave the body.

Okay. Let me finish here. Yeah, it’s quite important. Okay. If you look at reincarnation and you look in reincarnation, as it’s, it’s described by the various religions around the world, you start to have problems. Okay. The first one is, do you reincarnate in your social group, some belief that you do some religious groups.

Do, do you reincarnate in different parts of the world? Do you reincarnate straight away? Do you reincarnate after five years after 10 years, they’re all different. Every one of them is different from the Clingett Indians in, in, in Seattle. And, and in, in the, the Northwestern states of the United States have a completely different model.

Of what reincarnation is from the Hindus. Okay. So there is no standardization here of, of reincarnation cuz there isn’t. So we can’t pretend that there is that’s the first point. The second point is more important is how does a physical body, a, a leave one body and then come into another. Does it come in randomly?

Is it chosen? Who’s doing the choosing who decides which body that person’s gonna gonna come into now I’ve read extensively the Ian Stevenson, uh, work. It’s very, very good. He’s very, very good. But things that he doesn’t point out is pecuniary advantage in India. The vast majority of cases of reincarnation are normally individuals from a lower cast who are claiming that a previous life was a higher cast.

You very rarely if ever get somebody from an upper cast claiming to be from a lower cast. And I find that significant. So that’s that point? Let’s go back then to the argument of scars. Well, a, I don’t understand the process of why, because you get scarred in one life and you leave one physical body behind and another body is recreated randomly from the DNA of somebody else.

How that scar transfers from one to the other. That makes no sense to me. I dunno what the process is there, but more importantly, if we have had multiple, multiple, multiple lives over thousands of years, we’ll be covered in scars. All of us would be covered in scars. Why aren’t we, why is that only certain individuals have scars?

And I’d say that’s because it’s coincidence or the scar has been noticed by somebody and they know that down the road, uh, uh, somebody was killed. And what was a SIM, there’s a similarity between it, but the scars aren’t the same scars. They’re scars in the same part of the body, but statistically that’s gonna happen.

Anyway, we have moles on our bodies, you know, presumably in my myriad of previous lives that I’d have had, I’d have been killed a million dozens of times in different ways. Where are my scars? Why do some people have scars and not others? Why more importantly, why do some people remember past lives than others?

Don’t what is the process? Why is it some people do and some people don’t and indeed, why is it even more important that when you do hypnotic regression to people, the vast majority of people are regressed to being or believe themselves to be Egyptian princes or, or, you know, Egypt they love being Egypt is Egypt’s the big thing, isn’t it?

So we’ve gotta look at this really more carefully. I work with recession, regression, hypnotists. I work with two or three of them, all of them, without exception. When we’ve had discussions agree with me, what is taking place here is there’s the young Yian collective unconscious, which I call the the Uber Damon, which is the collective unconscious of all humanity, humanities experiences, and under certain circumstances.

And every, a ionic consciousness can access that broader consciousness. Now we know from hypnotism that the kind of people that are hypnotized are the kind of people who want to come across. Well, we know this there’s a Hy hypnotic type, so that person is gonna try and draw up memories to keep the hypnotist happy.

So, in which case, they’re gonna draw up memories that may either be nonsense. And a lot of them are nonsense. You know, even my friends who do this, say that the vast majority is complete D. You only ever hear of the cases when they can prove them. You never hear the thousands of cases that are, are nonsense and cannot

[00:38:35] Alex Tsakiris: be proven.

Okay. But hold on, hold on. Lemme get a chance in here. Okay. Cause you, you’re kind of laying a lot on the table and I’m gonna try and respond and it’s gonna be hard for people to go back and hear the whole thing. So a couple things, I mean the, the first point that I’d make is that I think you’re being a little bit unfair to the various ways that we do science science is about observation and it is about collecting human accounts.

We accept that people experience depression. We accept that people experience grief. Our reporting on that is almost exclusively. Anecdotal. Right. Are you grieving? Okay, let’s do this. Do you feel better? Are you depressed? Do you feel better? And we have some neurological means of doing that, but for the most part, it is what we would call anecdotal until we start applying the metrics that we have in the social sciences, which at this point are pretty well established.

I mean, people can go in and do good science about how people are self-reporting about how they feel. So. That I guess is, is 0.1. I I’m with you on some of what you’re saying, you know, I just did an interview with, uh, another guy you wouldn’t like, but he’s in our, I like everybody.

[00:39:53] Anthony Peake: I have no problem. I like debating.

[00:39:56] Alex Tsakiris: I, I, I I’m, I’m being facetious cuz I think you are incredibly, incredibly open. You know, we’re having this conversation and I knew it would not be, you know, any issue to just dive into this. This is what it’s all about. I, I got a feeling, I got a feeling that you do this in your head, like 24 7. So I don’t, I don’t worry about it, but like I just interviewed, uh, again, Dr.

Greg I think

[00:40:22] Anthony Peake: is, oh Greg great friend of mine, Greg. I, I adore Greg. He’s been on my show couple times a Greg.

[00:40:28] Alex Tsakiris: So shared, shared near death experiences across culture across time. And the reason I bring him up in context to this is he’s with you on the fact that these things are not gonna align up perfectly the way that some people would like them to do, uh, light and love.

It’s always Jesus, it’s always this, but in some other important ways that are the most important that to contradict the kind of mainstream materialist paradigm. Yes. We can make some conclusions about what they are experiencing. In the afterlife and that there is an afterlife. So the first thing that I point out is once we, once we cross that bridge and say, okay, there is some data there, then we have to recognize the fact that the data doesn’t exactly align with what you’re saying.

And as a matter of fact, we do not have any accounts that directly report what you’re saying, because I think the other thing that what SU’s work does is it connects us to contemporary near death experience science done in hospital. And there we have a lot more accounts and the accounts we could, maybe in some cases, fit them back into, you know, retrofit them back into the ferryman.

But I don’t think they come that. I don’t think they come that way. NA naturally that would be my take on it. We can explore that further, but let me, cuz, cuz I, I, I kind of cut you off, but I, I don’t want you to cut me off until I get to this main point that I was gonna make about. Jim Tucker in the reincarnation science to me that’s was I guess my main pushback on what you’re saying.

Hell yes. It’s science. It is 100% science. You as that guy who read sociology, understand that the tech, that the means that they’re going about to collect and, or, and organize, uh, this from an anthropological, uh, sociological standpoint is a well worn path. Here’s how you interview people. Here’s how you control for this.

Here’s how you control for that. And as you mentioned, do you read that research? It is rock solid in terms of them following that protocol then in terms of the. The the, the scars and stuff like that. I mean, that really is pretty, pretty easy in a lot of respects to say, you know, the, it, it be that becomes more of a straight statistics kind of thing.

You know, what are the, what number of people have this kind of birthmark at this kind of age, in this kind of group. And then what are the chances that someone would experience all these other memories and would be what, what number of people are killed by a gunshot wound and you know, this and that you can run some stats and they’re not gonna be like a hundred percent accurate, but you can get pretty damn close.

And they have, I think in terms of saying these show some meaningful patterns and then the final point, and then I’ll shut up. . But I think, again, this is kind of, you are making a criticism that I think anyone would turn around and make on the ferryman in, in, and I don’t think it’s fair in either case.

And that’s to say that. Observation is in science only, , , putting forth a concrete, , causal effect for it is the only way is the only data that matters. You know what I mean? Unless you can tell me how reincarnation works and the mechanics of it and how the sole transfers and this and that, then I’m not open to listen to it.

And what I’d say is everything that you’ve built on in terms of consciousness would put us outside of that to begin with everything in science has been falsified with Mox plank. Consciousness is fundamental. There is no, there is no real reality here. Like we talked about in the last interview. And like you just talked about in a minute ago.

So I think we have to be really careful in saying, well, this is real and this isn’t real and realize we’re kind of always gonna be in this kind of liminal kind of in between kind of thing. Okay. So you are good enough to let me a lot on the table.

[00:44:39] Anthony Peake: I think the reason I take the approach, I. Is because I want to engage with the skeptics.

I want to be in a position that the skeptics cannot whip my feet from under me because skeptics very rarely engage with me. They run away, they don’t engage with me because I’m not an easy person to, to, to dis and to, uh, make look stupid and idiotic because the science I deal with is based upon absolute, as you say, its research and its science.

Now, if I start making statements that, you know, there’s that famous cartoon that really affected me many, many years ago, you know, there’s a chalkboard and the scientists and they’ve got something here and then they’ve got something there and in the middle, they’ve got a miracle happens. To get around some of the issues in science.

I don’t do the God of the gaps. I don’t do that. I try to make sure that if I present something and I, I present a hypothesis, I don’t call it a theory. It’s not a theory. It’s a hypothesis. It may not even be a hypothesis. It’s possibly speculation. But what I do is I say, well, look, this is this bit of information.

This is this bit of information from this research field in quantum mechanics, from this research field in neurology, from this research field in cosmology, if you take the facts as they stand from the research, what conclusions can you come to? And that’s what I try to do. I come from the science and I say, well, what conclusions can you draw from the fact that people, when the brain is stimulated, In certain ways by people by external forces, when, like for instance, Wil Pennfield in the 1930s, the 1970s exposed the human brain, uh, of, of, uh, of epileptics and put an electrode onto particular points of the temporal lobes.

And when he did that, he was able to evoke past life memories. These past life memories were three dimensional and vivid. He concluded towards the end of his life, that the human brain records every single experience and event from the moment of the birth to the moment of death. The question has to be why now on my own podcast, I interviewed a few months ago, a young lady by the name of Rebecca Sherick, Rebecca Sherick has superior autobiographical memory.

She remembers every single thing in her life. She also remembers her dreams. She remembers being in the womb. But I don’t accept these things at face value. So what we did was during the interview, we, I didn’t tell her I was gonna do it, and I didn’t tell my assistant I was gonna do this, but I know that Rebecca really likes the Harry Potter books.

Now, you know, there’s a number of Harry Potter volumes. Now, sir, am my assistant. Her daughter reads Harry Potter. So Sarah has all the volumes of Harry Potter. And I said to Sarah, can you pick up at random, one of the volumes of Harry Potter’s books? Can you open a page at random? And can you pick a paragraph at random and start reading it?

She started doing this, believe it or not. Sarah read three words and Rebecca repeated the whole paragraph word by word. Absolutely word. Perfect. Now the question here has to be, what is the function of this? If the brain is working along certain roots, why what’s the point? Of remembering everything in our lives.

If we can’t recall it, it’s like you’ve got the mystery. You’ve got a million dollars locked inside. A it’s locked inside a of safe with the key inside. It makes no sense unless it fulfills a purpose. I have evidence in my books of people who have towards the end of their life. They, when they’re coming down with Alzheimer’s, they start to recall their past life in detail.

They start to go back in time. They start to relive earlier parts of their lives as if their brain is functioning them to get back to reliving their life. Again. Now that’s tangible proof. That’s not. So in other words, I’m not turning around saying I believe, or I’d like to believe that we live our lives again throughout through memories.

I have the evidence for it now. There’s can I just finish? Can I just finish here on your final point, about definition of science, there’s a science of social sciences and the social scientist. I can say this, the social science we deal with statistics. We deal with norms. We deal with means we deal with, you know, what is the statistical chance of this happening in a particular way?

That’s, that’s scientific to an extent, but if you are gonna convince a physicist or you are gonna convince a biologist of your point of view, there’s no point in turning around and saying that 90% of the population claim they’ve had past lives, that’s anecdote, and they will just throw back at you. The plural of anecdote is not proof.

And that’s what I don’t do. What I do is I try to say, well, let’s fight them at their own battle. Let’s take their science and use their science and put it back at them with a model that they, they, they cannot dispute. Do I deny outta the body experiences? No, I don’t. Do I deny past lives? No, I don’t. Do I, do I deny, you know, the near death experience and the, the typologies of the near best experience?

No, I don’t. None of these things I deny because there’s too many reports of them clearly and self evidently there’s

[00:50:23] Alex Tsakiris: something, right. Well, I didn’t hold on. I didn’t say that you denied any of it. I said, and, and this is the part where I, I kind of think I do have to kind of hone in on this. I mean, don’t you think, just in the story that you just told, you get to a point where you are making that same leap that everyone else is making in terms of interpreting.

Watch the data that you have in a particular way, and you’re finding it compatible with your theory. And I’m saying, you know, I, I don’t, but it’s not like you are not doing the same thing that everyone else is doing. And I think it’s

[00:50:58] Anthony Peake: valid. Oh no, no. I, I disagree. I disagree. If somebody is saying reincarnation, they’re not using any science, they’re not

[00:51:05] Alex Tsakiris: using names to Tony, Tony.

That’s not, uh, I, I just don’t think let’s, let’s put it in this way in the court of public opinion. I don’t think most people would agree with you. If you look at Jim Tucker and you look at

[00:51:17] Anthony Peake: where’s the science, where’s the science in Jim, what science is Jim Tucker applying? Well,

[00:51:21] Alex Tsakiris: first of all, first of all,

[00:51:24] Anthony Peake: Okay, physics.

[00:51:26] Alex Tsakiris: This is where you’re. This is where I think you’re, you’re kind of, uh, not being totally fair because physics wouldn’t, , apply to your story of Rebecca and her recalling Harry Potter. Yes, it does. Yes, it

[00:51:38] Anthony Peake: does. Because it’s no, it’s

[00:51:39] Alex Tsakiris: your brain. It would be your, it would be your interpretation.

[00:51:45] Anthony Peake: Well, what is an interpret?

I’m interpreting that Rebecca remembered everything. I’m interpreting that that’s an interpret.

[00:51:53] Alex Tsakiris: Well, here’s the point then again, I think we’re, I don’t wanna get into a semantic battle, but I, I,

[00:51:59] Anthony Peake: I wanna come what interpretation you’re suggesting

[00:52:01] Alex Tsakiris: that I need, I’ll show you by. I will show you by example, during something.

So you take Jim Tucker, Jim Tucker, university of Virginia perceptual sciences picks up Ian Stevens’s work. They also do a lot of re uh, near death experience science there published in a lot of peer review journals, highly regarded university, not a slouch E scientist.

So he’s he within the academy is considered doing good science. And again, he’s not a meat puppet, uh, materialist. He’s not a skeptic. He’s not any of that. If you look at the cases that he brings forward, that BR that gain a lot of traction with people like me. Again, because he’s a careful scientist and he there’s one of

[00:52:45] Anthony Peake: his case is one of his cases.

The Le case is that Jim Tucker. Yes. Uh, you know, Leer case. Do you know the work that Michael Lee SU has written on that? Well, I,

[00:52:55] Alex Tsakiris: I

[00:52:55] Anthony Peake: don’t, uh, well, you should. Well, you should because he destroys it. I don’t think utterly destroys it.

[00:53:02] Alex Tsakiris: I don’t, I don’t think he does cuz the

[00:53:04] Anthony Peake: case you don’t. Okay. Why, how doesn’t, how does, how does Lee sort of not destroy the lending case?

Well, well, first

[00:53:13] Alex Tsakiris: of all, so here I, I am speaking when I say, like, I just told you, I don’t know his work, but I know a lot of cranky people that try and, , trash people like Jim Tucker, who seemed from my experience to be carefully doing work and following their critics to the full extent that if I had to place my bet here without knowing the, the cranky guy who kind of pushed against it, I would bet.

Why is he cranky? Why finish? Hold on, Tony. Why is he cranky? Why is he? I am happy to, I’m happy to, to follow up once I know the guys, once I go know the guy’s work. So were you who

[00:53:55] Anthony Peake: used the term cranky? You said he was cranky.

[00:53:59] Alex Tsakiris: In my,

[00:53:59] Anthony Peake: and you have experience work yet. You’re consider him cranky.

[00:54:02] Alex Tsakiris: Yeah. Well, probably I’d say high probability of

[00:54:05] Anthony Peake: cranky really, but you need to read it and you need

[00:54:08] Alex Tsakiris: toand.

I do. I do. I do. I do need to read it, but

[00:54:10] Anthony Peake: I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t call somebody cranky. If I’d not read their

[00:54:13] Alex Tsakiris: work. You’re, you’re kind of trying to make like, points of like argumentative points rather than let me, no, I’m not,

[00:54:20] Anthony Peake: no, I’m not use the term cranky over somebody who is a professor of philosophy at another university philosophy.

That’s a Leer case and it’s full of holes. Well, I, I will, I should have looked up this. I know. I’ll tell you what, you know, and he hasn’t, he’s

[00:54:39] Alex Tsakiris: believing why, why don’t you, why don’t what’s his name again?

[00:54:46] Anthony Peake: Lee Sudi Michael Lee. Sudi how do you spell that? S U D D I T H.

[00:54:54] Alex Tsakiris: Okay. Let’s get him on. Oh, let’s get him on skeptical, right?

Will you help me? Yeah, if you need to get, get

I think I just suggested that. So I don’t know. I need to is an appropriate response to that. And we can do, uh, we can do a full blown kind of thing cause, and if need be, I can talk to, uh, Jim Tucker either. That

[00:55:18] Anthony Peake: would be really interesting if you got Jim Tucker and Mike on together because they talk to each other regularly.

They know each other very, very well they’re on the

[00:55:27] Alex Tsakiris: phone. So Jim Tucker has RA has raved waved the white flag and said, uh, I I’m sorry. The, the my case is wrong. Sudi

[00:55:35] Anthony Peake: is right. Uh, from my readings of it, he’s not actually run away, but he’s not actually contested it. I need to check with Mike about that.

Mike had, Mike has written that check on that an academic paper on it. Check on that.

[00:55:49] Alex Tsakiris: I don’t think Jim Tucker has backed off of that. Would that make any difference since you seem to have some respect for Tucker, would it make any difference if

[00:55:56] Anthony Peake: you, I have respect for both of them. I have respect for both of them.

I think both of them, my concern is that when

[00:56:02] Alex Tsakiris: you never did, you never did let me finish because here’s the point I wanna make. I’m sorry, my apology. Sorry. Here’s the point I, I wanted to make is that, and I don’t think you’re, you’re being fair in this regard is that you’re countering that this isn’t evidence.

Right. And whether, you know, your guy suth has kind of shattered the evidence or not. We’re now in the same, we’re talking about the same thing. Now we’re talking about specific instances. That happened in some physical reality. Like the case that I was gonna talk about is Ryan in the Hollywood case, you know, where he was a former film star in Hollywood, in a previous life.

And they go back and they trace this. And Jim Tucker says, Hey, there’s 52 points of congruence that I found. It’s like, Whether you agree with his conclusions or whether you agree point by point with what he’s saying matches up. We now have a science, if you will, that people acknowledge is a valid way to look at the statistical probability that this kid would have knowledge of these, uh, past events.

So in that way, I, I, I think that. There is a direct parallel to what you’re doing. Both are, have, have scientific merit to some degree. And then it’s just a matter of hammering out, you know, which one’s better, whether all the facts line up, whether you know, this guy or that guy has, has crushed this or that.

But I, I, I, I, it seems to me like you kind of dismissed this out of hand when no, I don’t. It’s really the same. It’s really the same thing. Just set a different way in terms of how you would go about how you would go about quote unquote, proving it. And it’s not about this. Isn’t about physics and your thing.

Isn’t about physics Jim’s Tuckers, uh, belief that Ryan is a, has this ability to recall things from the past isn’t he doesn’t need to apply an explanation regarding the mechanics of how he does it in order to offer us a good observation about, uh, something that’s happening.

[00:58:08] Anthony Peake: Yeah. Observation is, is profoundly important in the social sciences. It’s, it’s extremely important, but you then have to go back to say, well, what is then the mechanism that’s at work? And again, I would, I would suggest that the mechanism at work here could just as easily be collective unconscious memory.

You know, as I said earlier on this young lad could be focusing in on the information field. I know that the, the new ages call it the cache field, I’d call it the zero point field whereby you can pick up information from other people. We don’t know that super side. Hmm. I mean, well,

[00:58:45] Alex Tsakiris: I, I, I tend to agree with that, but we don’t know that on some kind of physics base, we don’t have a mechanism for a description of what it would be like to have ache field, how information would flow from.

We don’t have any of that. So that’s where I’m saying you’re no, we don’t. We were in the same ballpark as everyone else

[00:59:04] Anthony Peake: in terms of no, no, no, I’m not, I’m not, that’s the difference. There’s been recent research shown to prove that for instance, information has mass. Okay. It’s also been that also the latest research in terms of cosmology in the relationship of the holographic universe is incredibly well researched science, using known science to explain how the holographic principle could work.

There’s a guy called Lee Horgan at the perimeter Institute in Canada. Who’s doing work on trying to work out the pixelation of the program. This is science. You know, there was a front page of scientific American a few years ago is reality a hologram there’s actually a science called the holographic Princip.

About. Yeah,

[00:59:52] Alex Tsakiris: but they haven’t, I’ll give you an example of science. When we talk about science, what we’re really talking about, I think, and the way that most people think about it is not scientific theory, but they’re really talking about engineering. So that’s when we talked about entanglement, okay. Show me the quantum modem.

And now you got my attention. I’m not a big fan of, uh, Dr. Gary Schwartz at the university of Arizona. And I shouldn’t say that I’m a huge fan of Dr. Gary Schwartz at the university of Arizona. I think his project with the so phone, I wish him the best of luck and I certainly hope it works out, but I, I, I don’t really, to me, it seems a little bit flawed in the way that they’re going about that, but.

It’s interesting. I don’t wanna bury, I don’t wanna bury the lead. The point is they are trying to engineer this in a way that would answer these questions. And if you will, that to me would offer some kind of proof of what they’re talking about in terms of after death communication, it would be you, you would, but you would still be in the same boat.

Tony, I don’t know you, you could, then you could then take their data and interpret it as Damon Fairman hire self whatever. And another guy could interpret it as demonic a, a Kaha record with a spirit in between. And no one would have a, a better standing in on that than the other one. It all becomes speculative at a point.

So we’re, we’re trying to merge it, but I mean, there’s always gonna be these huge gaps where we need, uh, Constructive theories that that don’t necessarily line up with each other. I mean, take Julie I’ll I’ll then I’ll shut up, but take Julie Biel, who I’ve always been a big fan of and been on this show and after death communication shit, she got a PhD in Pharmac.

She knows how to do that shit. She’s not, she’s not making mistakes in her research and she’s validating after death communication. And that after death communication does not conform with the ferryman theory. So what do you do with that? You just step over it and say that isn’t science. I don’t know.

It’s the same way we figure out, you know, whether a drug is good to use.

[01:01:57] Anthony Peake: I think one of the things you’re missing here, and it’s a very important point. Cheating. The ferryman works in a brain that hasn’t died. There might be after death though. It could be after. Within, you know, the idea isn’t this, people misunderstand this.

They think that, and it’s because my publishers use the term life after death and everything. And it’s always quite irritated me over this. It takes place in the final seconds of your life and then in microseconds of your life. Okay. So at the end of all of that, just like Connor’s in Groundhog day moves on to the next day.

I’d argue that within cheating, the ferryman, you eventually move on and you move on to whatever you move on to. Cuz in terms of time, it’s all happened in, in a constricted part of time at the end of life. Now again, using parallels. And I know that it’s, it’s not fair of me to use the parallel here, but cuz it’s a religious parallel, but you read up the Bardo.

In, in, in Tibetan, Budd is what takes place there is that it’s the kind of transitory point between moving on to your next incarnation as it were. Because for instance, I don’t understand if there’s afterlife communication with dead people. How does that square reincarnation. If everybody’s reincarnated, they’re TATed as different people.

So it doesn’t have to,

[01:03:22] Alex Tsakiris: it doesn’t have to square. Right. That’s what we’re saying. Just,

[01:03:25] Anthony Peake: well, they’re both the same. So both happen, reincarnation and people going to heaven and communicating through mediums happens.

[01:03:32] Alex Tsakiris: So look both happens. So look as we, as we head around the curve and head towards, uh, where it’s home here, I, I wanna say, like, I wanna point out one thing that you just mentioned that is like, back to the beginning of back, what I love about your work.

I was like the point you just made is something that really sent me in a whole different direction, paradigm change. I was like drop the mic. This guy is really, and it it’s. It’s great. Here’s the point that you just made is that if you accept there is, uh, non-space, non-time non locality outside of space outside of time, then you have to be open to the, that.

Everything can happen in a nanosecond, everything that, that you are talking about. And, and this is you, this is Tony peak talking about, uh, an explanation for near death experience. An explanation. I don’t quite agree with 100%, but I think it’s undeniable where you’ve taken us there in where you’ve kind of, uh, propelled this into just like your work in understanding extended consciousness realms.

So I, I, I just wanna bring it back cuz I wanna know where else you’re going and what else you’re doing. And I wanna wrap this. Dialogue up and we’ll have to have another one, but I want people to know how I balance these two things in saying, Hey, I don’t agree with this guy on everything, but this guy is so cutting edge.

He’s got so many great ideas and is synthesizing so much great research that we really, really have to listen to him and

[01:05:09] Anthony Peake: pay attention. Do you know, what? Do you know what I like about you? You’re the only person that interviews me that challenges me properly. That really makes me think, puts me on the spot.

And this is what I do with my friends. And this is what you normally do. And you’re down the pub arguing ideas. And this is what I love about your work. And this is what I love about what you do. You really know your stuff. And it’s great because great things happen when minds like you and I, and of various other people, we sit round and we debate round the subject.

We come round and we appreciate each other’s position and we discuss each other’s position. It’s profoundly important. And indeed, that’s the route where I’m gonna be going with my work. Now, I, I feel that I’ve probably completed my book cycle. Uh, I don’t think I’ve got anything really more to say. I’m thinking I’m probably writing maybe some more biographies, uh, possibly.

I’m also debating with a, uh, a friend of mine. Uh, who’s got a PhD in, in William Shakespeare of doing a book on Shakespeare in the. Maybe and also I’m working with a couple of associates where we’re working on maybe a recreation of the Philipp experiments that took place in Toronto in, uh, in 1970

[01:06:21] Alex Tsakiris: with, wow.

That would be that’s. That’s scary. Isn’t it does that. It is that a lot pushing

[01:06:26] Anthony Peake: with theorial again. And also I’m working very closely with an associate of mine. Again, somebody you need to get on your show Samantha treasurer, who’s doing some fascinating work with her new book, which will be out next year on nonstandard ghosts.

And I’m really interested in this idea of, of ghosts that are like cartoon ghosts or physical objects that you see as ghosts. And also, I’m also keen on actually taking the idea of the Damon further and trying to do some experiments really to, to, to really get into the idea of how we can develop it as well.

So a lot of exciting things going on. And we,

[01:07:01] Alex Tsakiris: we ought to do some of the, we ought to do some of these shows together.

[01:07:04] Anthony Peake: Do what a great time idea, Alex, that would be brilliant because it’s kind of point to counterpoint and it, it, it works, you know, the way the, the old Socratic dialogues, you know, it’s thesis, antithesis synthesis.

Exactly. That’s what we’re doing. That’s what we were just doing there, you know?

[01:07:25] Alex Tsakiris: Exactly. And, and I do, I think I’m, I’m hoping that, you know, if we hash it out, we can kind of model for people that it isn’t the debate as much as it is, uh, you know, sharing of information that pulls something down so that it can be replaced by something else not to just, you know, do that.

So yeah, we should see, we could even, well, we could even think of some ways to, uh, to reinforce that that is the principle of it. So we should do that. I’d love to do it. I don’t skeptical. I absolutely love that idea. We, we should absolutely do it on skeptical and you know what it makes me think of, and I wanted to touch on this before we, before I let you go.

The last time we talked, this is such cool thing. I don’t know if you’re able to do it cuz the whole pandemic thing happened, but you were gonna do the Plato’s cave thing in Greece. Did that ever, did that ever come about still working

[01:08:15] Anthony Peake: on it? We’re still planning it. I’ve I’ve just come back from Athens. I was in Athens a few weeks ago and we’re still very keen to do it.

Yeah. We, we feel we could do something extraordinary there and maybe do it as a, a, a, a film as well, you know? Cause we’re thinking of using drones and everything else as well. So yeah, we really, really wanna do that and we need to, to convince the Greek government that it’s something we want to do, but my Greek publisher and there’s now I’ve now got two books out in Greek.

He’s very keen on trying to help us out with this as well. So if anybody’s interested or, or anything else, please let us know because this, this is gonna be really cool. Really, really

[01:08:50] Alex Tsakiris: cool. I’m interested. I might come over

[01:08:52] Anthony Peake: for you, Absolut you with you’re with it, to land your fathers. You know, why not?


[01:08:57] Alex Tsakiris: why not.

[01:08:58] Anthony Peake: Absolutely. Alex, it’s always wonderful to talk to you. I really, really, really buzz when we finish showing our chats, I just really buzz and I go, oh, I should have said that. Or I should have said that. And that’s the mark of a good dynamic.

[01:09:11] Alex Tsakiris: Absolutely Tony. You’re fantastic. We will do it again.

We will, we will create the, the new anchor goals we’ll create okay.

[01:09:20] Anthony Peake: My friend, you take care care. Okay. Okay, Alex, take a, okay, bye.

[01:09:24] Alex Tsakiris: Thanks again to Anthony peek for joining me today on skeptical. By the way, if you’re wondering, and I hope you are wondering, what’s the point. If you’re not wandering. Yeah. Thought at this, just the cranky skeptic and Jim Tucker destroys him. In his response.

anyways, that’ll be something we can, if you like hash out in the forum, that’ll be a question.

Who do you think is right. Tucker versus Sudduth. And then why is Anthony Tony peak taking sides with Sudduth? There’s no way that Sudduth whatever support his ferryman theory. There’s just no way because he’s a cranky skeptic. So why is he championing the guy? It’s it’s the pro. That was going to answer my own question, but I won’t.

Come to the forum, answer it for me. Till next time. Take care. Bye for now.


  • More From Skeptiko

  • [/box]