Community Suggestion Box

#61
I would love to see a genuine bona fide mystical eastern spiritual master on the show, an expert in Vedic philosophy and/or Buddhism.

Radhanath Swami would be my first choice, He has been a Bhakti Yoga practitioner and spiritual teacher for more than 40 years.

Although there is some controversy surrounding this character, I can not think of anybody better who is alive today.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhanath_Swami
That show is called Buddha at the Gas Pump. www.batgap.com. More enlightened masters than you can shake a stick at.
 
#64
Have you ever interviewed Robert Lanza (Biocentrism)? He would be an interesting guest.
Bertha, I only just noticed this. He's been interviewed here:


--it's a fascinating discussion and I think as a result I will buy his book.

If people don't have time to listen to that interview, Lanza covers the ground in two briefer vids:

 
#65
Bertha, I only just noticed this. He's been interviewed here:


--it's a fascinating discussion and I think as a result I will buy his book.

If people don't have time to listen to that interview, Lanza covers the ground in two briefer vids:

Thanks for those links. As for the book, I am a little less than halfway through and it is truly mind boggling. He takes the scientific data we have and starts by assuming something like idealism (he hasn't actually used that word yet) instead of materialism.
 
#66
Thanks for those links. As for the book, I am a little less than halfway through and it is truly mind boggling. He takes the scientific data we have and starts by assuming something like idealism (he hasn't actually used that word yet) instead of materialism.
He never mentions idealism in the book. He just sticks to plain vanilla evidence to make his point, much like what was done in "The Quantum Enigma", where two physicists look at the QM evidence for consciousness.
 
#67
He never mentions idealism in the book. He just sticks to plain vanilla evidence to make his point, much like what was done in "The Quantum Enigma", where two physicists look at the QM evidence for consciousness.
As I said, I haven't finished it yet. He seems to be implying it in some places though (the part where he revisited the old 'If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?' question, for example.)

It is the fact that he just sticks to plain vanilla evidence that I find refreshing. He doesn't even assume the default position in mainstream science of materialism.
 
#71
I would like to non-second this suggestion for Lanza as a Skeptiko guest. I think that would be a total waste of time.
I am not sure why one has to be chosen at the expense of the other. Bernardo has been on the show already (twice if I recall correctly) and if I am understanding the goals of the show, it is to interview people with all different points of view to try and get at the truth.
 
#72
I am not sure why one has to be chosen at the expense of the other. Bernardo has been on the show already (twice if I recall correctly) and if I am understanding the goals of the show, it is to interview people with all different points of view to try and get at the truth.
It doesn't matter. Alex doesn't care about the lowly, unimportant suggestions we common listeners have to offer. He'll now probably have Bernardo on for a third time just to passively spite you, demonstrating his contempt for the everyday average worker. So go on and continue this charade if you'd like. I for one have had enough.
 
#75
It doesn't matter. Alex doesn't care about the lowly, unimportant suggestions we common listeners have to offer. He'll now probably have Bernardo on for a third time just to passively spite you, demonstrating his contempt for the everyday average worker. So go on and continue this charade if you'd like. I for one have had enough.

We are not worthy, our cries fall on deaf ears, democracy has died and only the voice of the oligarchs rings eternal.
 
#79
What needs fixing? What needs improving? Who absolutely must be invited to appear on Skeptiko? Let us hear from you :)
Personally, I think the top two elements that make up an awesome podcast are fascinating memorable anecdotes of psi or paranormal and exposition of one's philosophy. I like to hear what people have experienced and how people integrate the experiences and the data into their own workable paradigms. And for the newcomer who isn't aware of the parapsychology research, I suppose it would be good to link the anecdotes to specific research that possibly supports the validity of the anecdote, but I don't see that as being the main focus. For example, Dean Radin's synchronicity anecdote and his speculations on how it might work is just as powerful and memorable to me as his research:

I know this show began partly out of your own personal exploration of the data to see where it leads. I feel like it has led you and all of us to the fringe of knowledge. We will not overturn the paradigm by standing on the fringe and urging those inside the establishment to join us. But we can continue travelling along the fringe beating down the weeds and widening the path making connections between all of the fringe subjects. So IMO, you should reduce the number of shows where skeptics and the validity of the data is debated and move on to trying to figure out what the data means by getting as many different perspectives as possible from those who have already integrated the data into their paradigms.

I'm currently reading "The Trickster and the Paranormal" by George Hansen, and I think he'd be a great guest. His book is providing lots of new insights for me. I'd like to explore further the relationship between structure and anti-structure, boundaries and spaces, the marginal, the liminal, etc. and the nature of the trickster and the trickster's relationship to religion, mythology, good and evil, structure/anti-structure, and the paranormal. http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...kster-and-the-paranormal-a-breakthrough.2313/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1076&v=vM38ilurOqk
 
Last edited:
Top