Alex Tsakiris | The Consciousness Quarantine, Skeptiko, & Data From ...

Yeah, man.

 

How long until mainstream science catches on? Is it inevitable? I think that it is and that the timeline is the only thing in question. 10 years? 100 Years? As we continue to share ideas and grow, they won't be able to continue this denial forever. There will reach a breaking point.

 

Just a contrast to Alex's views on "the best NDE evidence" being EEG science; I have always considered the best NDE evidence to be the various forms of veridical reports (which I think Alex did mention actually in conjunction with the EEG science as being the best, I think, with regards to the reports people give of their resuscitation), along with the blind seeing for the first time, and the shared death experiences. It was actually the latter two pieces which won me over convincingly.

 

I don't think it is inevitable that science ever catches on. Look at the political situation in the US. Half the country believes the opposite of what the other half believes. Neither side will ever change their minds.

What is going to change in the next 100 years that hasn't changed since 1882 when the Society for Psychical Research was founded 136 years ago?

People do not adapt their beliefs to maintain consistency with facts. We think we do, but we are hallucinating. In reality we accept or reject, acknowledge or ignore, "facts" depending on whether they are consistent with our beliefs. This is as true for materialist scientists as it is for everyone. Why else would there be so many controversies in the history of science? To understand the controversies over paranormal phenomena, you have to consider the science of persuasion. None of the factors experts recognize as being important in persuasion are based on logic or reason.

Let me put it this way: You might be rational, but if you weren't you wouldn't know it. People who have a mental illness and exhibit distorted thinking don't realize it, they think they are rational or even smarter than those who do not understand what they do. Does that sound familiar?

 

I quit listening to THC because it seemed to me that Greg did not bother distinguishing between guests who had really good cases to make and those who were, in my estimation, living with a delusional disorder. While I am not qualified to diagnose mental illness I am sufficiently familiar with occult and esoteric literature to discern a person who plainly has no actual idea about the material they are quoting or referring to with great enthusiasm. Their misuse is so grave their error has to be either mental illness or an intellectual disability, and after 20 years in the disability sector I can rule the latter out with confidence.

I know I am missing out on some good guests on THC, but I have made a personal stand on giving a platform to people who have nothing of merit to talk about and who should not be exposed to ridicule. I don't think there is any good service performed, and I really wish Greg was more discriminating. I can't believe that real conspiracies are so scarce the show has to be padded out with fake ones.

Yes I am being a judging crank here. I recommended THC to a friend who, innocent of any depth knowledge in matters occult, was impressed and persuaded by the guy I knew had no actual grasp of the stuff he was talking about. My friend is not a fool. He assumed that Greg's guest was bona fide because Greg seemed to vouch for him and validate him. That's an abuse of implicit trust in my book, and I don't like it and will not support it.

 

I think the big change since 1882 has been the ability to share and spread information. (I know I think you meant “what has changed with regards to the scientific attitude”, but 50 years ago a person couldn’t learn the first thing about NDEs if they were to look. Not even a single book. I do think progress has been made, largely as a result of this ability to share stories worldwide instantaneously, through quantum physics, and through folks like Tom Campbell. We are still firmly entrenched in materialism, don’t get me wrong. But I think the seeds are being planted. And I think further research and communication will lead to more growth. More and more people are coming forward with stories, and it seems (though I could be wrong) that more scientists are coming over from, or arguing against materialism.

Certainly I May be wrong.
But At any rate, let’s hope I’m right.

 

2:59: Scott Adams: "We humans ignore facts but we think we don't. The great illusion of life is that we're rational beings making rational decisions most of the time. But when you become a hypnotist, the first thing you learn is that that's backwards and that mostly we're deciding based on our team, our feelings, our emotions, irrational reasons, we make our decision and then we rationalize it no matter how tortured that rationalization is."

 

Change is extraordinarily difficult and near impossible for many. But change does occur. The compilation and sharing of this info in question, along with testimonials, and new discoveries about reality will continue to increase exponentially. So long as we are free to discuss and explore these things.

 

That's okay. Seth, the channeled ghost, agrees with me lol.

 

The internet allows faster communication and it allows anyone to express their views. But in the past people read books and magazines and information about spirituality and spiritual subjects was available to most people who were interested. And the internet is just as good at spreading materialist beliefs as it is at spreading spiritual beliefs, and the internet is better at spreading false information than it is at spreading truth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...farther-faster-deeper-than-truth-study-finds/

Fake news spreads ‘farther, faster, deeper’ than truth, study finds
...
A new study in Science quantifies the spread of Twitter rumors.
...
False news moved through Twitter “farther, faster, deeper and more broadly” than the truth, said Sinan Aral, a professor of information technology at MIT who studies social media networks.​

 

Here is an archive of old Spiritualist and Occult periodicals:

http://www.iapsop.com/archive/materials/index.html

http://www.iapsop.com/archive/materials/banner_of_life/banner_of_life_v5_n209_oct_3_1914.pdf

 

"The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW
Why Won’t They Listen?
‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt
By WILLIAM SALETAN MARCH 23, 2012
...
Jonathan Haidt, [is] a social psychologist at the University of Virginia
...
Like other psychologists who have ventured into political coaching, such as George Lakoff and Drew Westen, Haidt argues that people are fundamentally intuitive, not rational. If you want to persuade others, you have to appeal to their sentiments.
...
Haidt seems to delight in mischief. Drawing on ethnography, evolutionary theory and experimental psychology, he sets out to trash the modern faith in reason. In Haidt’s retelling, all the fools, foils and villains of intellectual history are recast as heroes. David Hume, the Scottish philosopher who notoriously said reason was fit only to be “the slave of the passions,” was largely correct. E. O. Wilson, the ecologist who was branded a fascist for stressing the biological origins of human behavior, has been vindicated by the study of moral emotions. Even Glaucon, the cynic in Plato’s “Republic” who told Socrates that people would behave ethically only if they thought they were being watched, was “the guy who got it right.”
...
The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others.
​

 

And the internet is bad for mental health - which cannot be good for spiritual development or discerning truth.

Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?JEAN M. TWENGE SEPTEMBER 2017
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/

Is Social Media Contributing to Rising Teen Suicide Rate?by Elizabeth Chuck, Oct 22, 2017.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/social-media-contributing-rising-teen-suicide-rate-n812426

 

That was an enjoyable listen. You know, I'm not convinced that the materialist consensus is anything other than the tyranny of the status quo in action....

That being said, I have noticed that the litmus test of whether or not something is deemed acceptable to said status-quo is directly related to how much an idea decreases life's meaningfulness. So, for example, you can waffle on about something as bizarrely unlikely as the technological simulation hypothesis and still retain credibility. Whereas Rupert Sheldrake can politely raise his hand and suggest that people may be able to tell when they're being stared at and suddenly the establishment is getting a scientific death-squad together.

Strange.

And let's be honest, you can't really get less likely than the flesh automaton idea. In fact, it's so unlikely that materialist Galen Strawson says he's a little frightened by some of his fellow travellers willingness to buy into an idea that runs so incredibly against lived experience.

Strange again.

 

I think the better answer might be to join the conversation on THC and voice your opinion about which guests you think are full of crap/suffering from a delusional disorder. Otherwise, you are depriving those, like your friend, who might not know enough about a particular area to be able to easily make that determination. Be part of the solution to your complaint about THC. You are definitely missing out on some good guests.

Personally, I love Greg and think he's one of the remaining hosts dealing with conspiracy/alternative history issues who hasn't been completely taken in by the bizarre pivot to the "Trump is a savior/legitimate outsider because everyone seems to hate him" POV, which I find just so absurd. Greg also himself admits he's "a conspiratainment podcast" and that some of his guests are likely disinformation agents or just totally full of crap. Yet I always feel that Greg is a legitimate seeker of truth. He's incredibly kind and generous to all of his guests, open-minded, and generally asks the same questions I would like to ask. And I always find his end of show summaries spot-on.

Loved the Plus segment of this THC interview -- especially the stuff about Joe Rogan and the Wolfgang Halbig vs. Pozner litigation, which I didn't know before. I didn't look deeply into Sandy Hook, and haven't formed an opinion on it, but it seems pretty interesting (if true) that the father, Pozner, would drop his lawsuit right before his deposition. However, the problem I have with these mass shooting events being called "hoaxes" is that I see no reason why the deep state would flinch at killing real people -- they do it all the time. It seems far more plausible to me that these events are orchestrated to achieve an agenda, but that real people die. What better way to isolate those who question any official narrative than to make it appear that people who question the official version of events are so nuts that they even cruelly deny the death of real people -- and especially children? Anyone who has lost anyone in any of these events or knows someone who did will immediately become outraged by allegations of "hoax," which will have the effect of rallying even more people around the official narrative(s). Brilliant strategy really.

 

What did they say about Halbig in the +Plus part of the interview?

 

In this interview Greg said acquiring a continuous stream of top-quality guests is a very difficult part of podcasting, and that he felt bad about being occasionally forced to "pad" in order to produce scheduled content.

He did indicate he would endeavor to be more critical and confrontational like Alex is.

The problem with that is the Podcaster soon develops a reputation for "unkindness", which amplifies the problem of finding guests. If you podcast to earn your daily bread and buy health insurance, that's a BIG problem.

 

Just that Pozner, at the 11th hour, dropped the lawsuit -- right before he was scheduled to be deposed. If you aren't a Plus member, you can still see a short discussion of it in the THC comments for that show.