Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Sep 28, 2015.
A very enjoyable interview Alex - thank you.
Julia came across as a very nice person - almost too nice when most researchers in her position are angry with mainstream scientific thinking because it's that very dogma which stops the funding which she agrees is badly needed.
She admitted that Koch hadn't studied the data in the NDE areas - so I do hope that she can capitalise on her oh so pally attitude to him and others, by sending him some of the research he's ignorant about.
Somehow I doubt if her being non-challenging will make him or the others any more likely to study the data.
Imagine when ancient scientists 'knew' the world was flat that a past-life Alex interviewed Julia who had pretty well proved it wasn't.
Can you imagine her saying "Well, they probably haven't studied the new evidence - and there is some research that ships go out of sight so maybe there is a small case for them falling off the edge of the Earth?"
No Julia - show your mainstream scientific colleagues all due respect but ONLY when they know exactly what you've researched and don't have their heads well and truly buried in an outdated paradigm.
I guess we just have to plug away and wait for the day (as Dean Radin predicted) that they all say... "consciousness more than brain... well of course, that's what I've been saying all along."
One of the most entertaining interviews to date! Julia was charming, though initially coy about advocating for her position on the weaknesses of the materialist model. I thought Alex might have drawn that out earlier in the conversation, but his style seemed too combative for her. That said, it made for great listening - and ultimately an informative exchange once the tension abated.
Just halfway through the show. It seems at a certain point that Julia is confusing criticizing people's ideas with attacking the people themselves. Also, I've got to say this: I didn't care for her gender stereotyping - i.e. the claim that women "physiologically" have a hard time with a certain type of conservation, and men don't. People's personalities and sensibilities don't boil down to whether they're male or female. Those kind of generalizations aren't helpful, or accurate.
An unusual interview and one that I enjoyed very much.
Julia has much more faith in people than I do. I think that people have any number of 'reasons' both conscious and unconscious for behaving and thinking the way they do. Be it money or preserving a worldview or a hundred other different reasons. It is what it is. Where I do see where she was coming from was that Alex does put out negative vibes at times. She couldn't put her finger on it but at the same time she sensed it. That is at the same time what makes Skeptiko and Alex Julia's "favourite interview so far", it is honest as satyanveshi has eloquently expressed in his post.
For me that is what makes or breaks an interview. Although no matter what the outcome, we can find some interest in it, something to talk about. When people can keep showing humour, humility and passion without getting angry or becoming too emotional, then I think 'magic' can be found.
I think she can and should express her disagreement with Koch and others more directly, as Psiclops says, without any animosity. Without ego. I think she could easily do that, not too many could. The reaction would be their issue, not hers.
The add on about the 2 dollar experiment at the end spoiled the 'magic moment' in a way. Like a music score at the end of an emotional movie playing lovely classical music with everyone crying suddenly being scratched off to be instantly replaced by the weather report. (Sorry Julia)
I too really 'endorse' Julia Mossbridge! Like is a lightweight word and my knowledge of language has only allowed me to express a bit of what I wanted to.
Thanks to both Julia and Alex.
I don't like this either, but I can rock with it rather than get sucked into the black hole of gender politics... I mean, the real problem here is that Julia is trying to prop up ideas she doesn't really believe in, but feels are in her best interest to support. I get that, but don't feel a need to pretend it's something else.
thx for this... made me smile.
I don't know about negative vibes, but playing The Emperor's New Clothes game does peeve me after awhile.
Loved this show. Instant classic. Dr. Julia Mossbridge is one to watch. However, yes, even though she is feels the need to harmonize with those skeptics in the pool where she must tread water in - she has sense of genuine realness to her. I had to laugh how Alex got snarfy and nasty in the idea that "ok we've lost another one to the BS Bandwagon.." And right then she called all of us out on the tribal warfare that humans engage in subconcuiosly. I thought it might be a lost interview but she rescued it and got you back on track Alex! even though, I can't fully see the merit in giving guys a pass on ignoring data and falsifying it based on world view. Dean Raiden may indeed be right. But... Great show!
Alex, is there a way to attach a pdf file from my PC to my forum post? I wanted to tell some news about the recent issue of the Edge Science magazine, a publication of the Society for Scientific Exploration, but Society's website is down... It fact, it has been down for several days, at least for me (maybe someone else can reach it?). Yet I have this issue downloaded in pdf format...
I think you hit the nail on the head with "pool where she must tread..." that's tough.
But I don't really buy into the "tribal warfare" stuff in this case. this is the Emperor-has-no-clothes game. I don't believe for a second that Julia buys into that neuroscience/materialistic nonsense Christof Koch is peddling... but she can't really say that, can she?
IDK = "I don't know"? At least, such is its Urban Dictionary deciphering...
This was a good interview. The part about Koch just looking at his own data was illuminating. There's this acceptance of basically selective ignorance in the sciences that one doesn't study at all about things outside a tiny little bailiwick .
I find skeptics use it alot. Also a refusal to analyze data in relation to other data. For example making sense of nonlocality/psi data without referring to NDE data or even necessarily other psi.
She says that something weird could be going on, but that explanation loses power over multiple areas unless you just won't accept any uncertainty before you make a conclusion. At some level there will always be some uncertainty because we can't rule out hyperadvanced beings screwing with us for trivial reasons.
To some extent I think it just represents getting pulled into the skeptics worldview that maximally formalistic science is the only way to arrive at truth. Also science is definitively necessary to think about reincarnation or NDE's and without science we could easily conclude that's just how the material universe works.
Also Alex is a bit aggressive, but I think that's needed. I remember sean carroll and steven novella debated raymond moody and eben alexander and it was an
absolute disaster. Within two minutes Raymond conceeded NDE weren't scientific proof and just an indication and said he saw the debate as more of a conversation.
There's something about embracing an interconnected love related consciousness thingy that just takes away that killer instinct.
I'd love the change to have a conversation with Sean and another one with Steve
This was difficult to listen to. I guess I am not liking the antagonistic interview style, especially with so much focus on pushing the ideological aspects rather than having a conversation with Julia.
I don't get such antagonism to materialist positions when the alternative view that the brain is a transceiver of consciousness is mired with the same materialist/mechanistic concepts.
I agree - too much time was spent in antagonism - even though they both almost agreed!
This I don't agree with. However you interpret the transceiver analogy, it surely isn't meant to mean a process in which thoughts are encoded as sound waves/electromagnetic waves/whatever. To me the essential idea is that because thought (as opposed to computation) doesn't seem to be a physical thing, it probably doesn't happen in the physical brain - but the two communicate to get things done.
This is the non-physical explanation as to how it is that out brains seem to be both completely physical and also conscious.
Consciousness is the subjective experience of awareness. The brain processes information from the eye to produce images that the mind is aware of. It is not a problem for the filter model of the brain if physical brain can produce thoughts or store memories. However the subjective awareness of thoughts, just like awareness of vision, why blue looks like blue, cannot be explained by physics.
Well the analogy is certainly described in mechanistic terms, with pretty much no non-mechanistic type of explanation. I don't see any reason to say that thoughts exist outside of the brain.
Bit late to the show as far as replying goes but I just really wanted to respond and talk about the interview so I created an account on here which I'm sure I'll use much more in the future. I've been listening to your interviews for a while as I find them really well done and fascinating!! I'm impressed with how you managed to keep your cool throughout the interview and did your best to continuously steer it in the right direction.
In a later show I believe you talk about how people try to hold that middle ground and that it's a very unstable foundation. That's really what I felt like Julia was doing here. I think she's a good person, but I feel like she either doesn't completely understand what science is about or just didn't convey what she wanted to say in the best way possible. I agree with you in that science should 100% be about attacking the data, seeing what's wrong, seeing what fits, and getting rid of old outdated paradigms as new data comes around. She kept thinking that you were attacking scientists directly when that's not what you were doing at all. She consistently back-peddled and then tried to throw in some psychology about women or something that was somehow supposed to explain why the conversation wasn't working.
Sure, there may be other data that hasn't come to light... yes, we don't know everything about consciousness... but that doesn't mean we just sit there and accept all conclusions as the truth or as you put it "sit on our hands" because we don't want to offend anyone. She has a very idealized world view about what science is when many of the scientists she 'holds dear' probably wouldn't hesitate to attack her data. I just don't get it. To be honest, by the time you guys finally got to discussing the paper I was drained. I'm glad I listened through the whole thing though and that you guys patched it up in the end.
Anyways, I wish the best for Julia and thanks for an awesome and entertaining interview Alex! Keep up the good work!
Separate names with a comma.