[Interesting interview w/ Will Storr, author of The Unpersuadables: Adventures with the Enemies of Science. The interview dovetails nicely w/ out current show w/ parapsychologist George Hanson –chris]
Interview HERE:
[Excerpt]
Alex Tsakiris: ...There’s a number of people who I’ve interviewed, really some of the top consciousness researchers in the world, and there’s a completely different theory about consciousness – since we really don’t’ know how consciousness is created. Whether [that is] it’s created in the brain or whether…the brain is like a receiver/transceiver that somehow is tuning into consciousness. But the best evidence we have is some of the evidence you stumbled across in your demonology experiment. But when you [explore this kind of phenomena in] a lab or clinic, you look at NDE, or terminal lucidity, all these things have been done in hospitals…[the experts] say “Hey, clearly our relationship between brain and consciousness isn’t what we think it is.” It isn’t this 1:1 [correspondence] thing…there’s a bunch of good research done in UK on psychedelics…psilocybin…we give someone…a heroic dose of psilocybin, to use a Terence McKenna’s term, and their brain is supposed to be firing off like crazy because they’re having this incredibly hyper-lucid experience. And we find the opposite. We find that the brain is shutting down at different parts, as if it’s tuning into some consciousness from the outside. I don’t need to sell you that whole thing; I just need to come back…
Will Storr: That’s interesting…
Alex Tsakiris: …and point out what would that paradigm shift mean to that whole debate that you’re just reporting on? It would just throw it in the dustbin of history, and the history of science…it isn’t about the brain, it’s about this other aspect of…you mentioned Sheldrake…akin to some field out there, field-event, whatever the answer would be. What’s the old analogy? You’re climbing the ladder of knowledge but you’re leaned up against the wrong wall so it’s never going to work. I think we have to consider that we’re not going to get there from here with the methods and tools that we have in place. What are your thoughts on that?
Will Storr: …Consciousness…that kind of level of neuroscience is extremely complex. And when you drill down and review the arguments between the people who believe in the non-local ideas vs. materialistic ideas, it quickly becomes far too complex for the layman to understand…in my experience…you get the sense that people are arguing about very advanced statistical methods that actually they have no idea about. What they’re doing is picking sides and picking an expert…we pick the professor who argues for our case. But my other thought about that goes back to a chapter I actually did on History. It was about Holocaust deniers…the main peg of the evidence for this [allegedly]…is there isn’t a document, there isn’t a magic-bullet document where he signs saying “Yes, I agree with the Holocaust. I order the Holocaust.”…[but the truth is] as Historians we don’t look for the magic-bullet. We look for a convergence or a nexus of evidence…I love that…because it speaks to me on the brain wars debate as well. I think there can be a million Rupert Sheldrakes, but they’re so emotional in that sphere of [science-as-we-know-it] that they’re not going to [let it] get anywhere. [People like Sheldrake are] always going to be ignored no matter how sound their evidence seems… REST OF INTERVIEW HERE:
Interview HERE:
[Excerpt]
Alex Tsakiris: ...There’s a number of people who I’ve interviewed, really some of the top consciousness researchers in the world, and there’s a completely different theory about consciousness – since we really don’t’ know how consciousness is created. Whether [that is] it’s created in the brain or whether…the brain is like a receiver/transceiver that somehow is tuning into consciousness. But the best evidence we have is some of the evidence you stumbled across in your demonology experiment. But when you [explore this kind of phenomena in] a lab or clinic, you look at NDE, or terminal lucidity, all these things have been done in hospitals…[the experts] say “Hey, clearly our relationship between brain and consciousness isn’t what we think it is.” It isn’t this 1:1 [correspondence] thing…there’s a bunch of good research done in UK on psychedelics…psilocybin…we give someone…a heroic dose of psilocybin, to use a Terence McKenna’s term, and their brain is supposed to be firing off like crazy because they’re having this incredibly hyper-lucid experience. And we find the opposite. We find that the brain is shutting down at different parts, as if it’s tuning into some consciousness from the outside. I don’t need to sell you that whole thing; I just need to come back…
Will Storr: That’s interesting…
Alex Tsakiris: …and point out what would that paradigm shift mean to that whole debate that you’re just reporting on? It would just throw it in the dustbin of history, and the history of science…it isn’t about the brain, it’s about this other aspect of…you mentioned Sheldrake…akin to some field out there, field-event, whatever the answer would be. What’s the old analogy? You’re climbing the ladder of knowledge but you’re leaned up against the wrong wall so it’s never going to work. I think we have to consider that we’re not going to get there from here with the methods and tools that we have in place. What are your thoughts on that?
Will Storr: …Consciousness…that kind of level of neuroscience is extremely complex. And when you drill down and review the arguments between the people who believe in the non-local ideas vs. materialistic ideas, it quickly becomes far too complex for the layman to understand…in my experience…you get the sense that people are arguing about very advanced statistical methods that actually they have no idea about. What they’re doing is picking sides and picking an expert…we pick the professor who argues for our case. But my other thought about that goes back to a chapter I actually did on History. It was about Holocaust deniers…the main peg of the evidence for this [allegedly]…is there isn’t a document, there isn’t a magic-bullet document where he signs saying “Yes, I agree with the Holocaust. I order the Holocaust.”…[but the truth is] as Historians we don’t look for the magic-bullet. We look for a convergence or a nexus of evidence…I love that…because it speaks to me on the brain wars debate as well. I think there can be a million Rupert Sheldrakes, but they’re so emotional in that sphere of [science-as-we-know-it] that they’re not going to [let it] get anywhere. [People like Sheldrake are] always going to be ignored no matter how sound their evidence seems… REST OF INTERVIEW HERE:
