Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point

Dr. Alexander Wendt examines the implications of consciousness science for the social sciences. photo by: David Ohmer I was introduced to the power of interdisciplinary thinking when I found myself way over my head in a graduate course in cognitive psychology. I had gone back to school at the University of Arizona to pursue a PhD in this new, cool thing called “Artificial Intelligence.” Once there, I met a wonderful classmate from Norway with a similar interest. Oystein was a lot smarter than me, and a much better programmer, so I was willing to follow his lead when he suggested we take a graduate course in cognitive psychology.  After a week I was lost and ready to throw in the towel, but everything changed when  Oystein brilliantly turned the discussion toward the latest advances in computer architecture and the possible implications for cognitive psychology.  As it turned out, the professor and his graduate students were very aware that their models were largely based on computer models, so they were eager to find out how advances in computer science might effect them. The course was a breeze from then on. The lesson stayed with me, it’s okay to borrow models from other fields, but it’s a good idea to reassess how you’ve applied them when those interdisciplinary models change. Today on Skeptiko we look at a paradigm busting interdisciplinary approach to the social sciences by way of Dr. Alexander Wendt from the Ohio State University and his new book, Quantum Mind and the Social Sciences: Alex Tsakiris: Why is consciousness important to Social Science? Dr. Alexander Wendt: Well, not everybody would say that it is. I think most of my colleagues ignore consciousness or just take it for granted and would say that it doesn’t necessarily add anything to the kind of explanations that social scientists typically develop. On the other hand I do think that it is implicit in almost all explanations social scientists come up with… Alex Tsakiris: What are some of the ways in which these assumptions about consciousness are implicit in the assumptions we’re making when we look at political groups or the social sciences in general? Dr. Alexander Wendt: The key argument that I make is that… anything that has to do with the mind; that has to do with intentional phenomena–beliefs, desires, even the unconscious… imply consciousness. And in the social world, if you think about the kinds of things social scientists are interested in like states for example in my own field of International Relations, these are collective intentional phenomena. These are collective states of mind. They have no material existence out there. You can’t see them from space or anything. So they’re all implicated or dependent upon us being conscious as well. To put it in a different way, if human beings were just robots with no consciousness I don’t think we would have intentional states of mind. We wouldn’t have minds at all. And there wouldn’t be states. There wouldn’t be churches or corporations or anything like that. Click here for forum discussion

Dr. Alexander Wendt examines the implications of consciousness science for the social sciences. photo by: David Ohmer I was introduced to the power of interdisciplinary thinking when I found myself way over my head in a graduate course in cognitive psychology. I had gone back to school at the University of Arizona to pursue a PhD in this new, cool thing called “Artificial Intelligence.” Once there, I met a wonderful classmate from Norway with a similar interest. Oystein was a lot smarter than me, and a much better programmer, so I was willing to follow his lead when he suggested we take a graduate course in cognitive psychology.  After a week I was lost and ready to throw in the towel, but everything changed when  Oystein brilliantly turned the discussion toward the latest advances in computer architecture and the possible implications for cognitive psychology.  As it turned out, the professor and his graduate students were very aware that their models were largely based on computer models, so they were eager to find out how advances in computer science might effect them. The course was a breeze from then on. The lesson stayed with me, it’s okay to borrow models from other fields, but it’s a good idea to reassess how you’ve applied them when those interdisciplinary models change. Today on Skeptiko we look at a paradigm busting interdisciplinary approach to the social sciences by way of Dr. Alexander Wendt from the Ohio State University and his new book, Quantum Mind and the Social Sciences: Alex Tsakiris: Why is consciousness important to Social Science? Dr. Alexander Wendt: Well, not everybody would say that it is. I think most of my colleagues ignore consciousness or just take it for granted and would say that it doesn’t necessarily add anything to the kind of explanations that social scientists typically develop. On the other hand I do think that it is implicit in almost all explanations social scientists come up with… Alex Tsakiris: What are some of the ways in which these assumptions about consciousness are implicit in the assumptions we’re making when we look at political groups or the social sciences in general? Dr. Alexander Wendt: The key argument that I make is that… anything that has to do with the mind; that has to do with intentional phenomena–beliefs, desires, even the unconscious… imply consciousness. And in the social world, if you think about the kinds of things social scientists are interested in like states for example in my own field of International Relations, these are collective intentional phenomena. These are collective states of mind. They have no material existence out there. You can’t see them from space or anything. So they’re all implicated or dependent upon us being conscious as well. To put it in a different way, if human beings were just robots with no consciousness I don’t think we would have intentional states of mind. We wouldn’t have minds at all. And there wouldn’t be states. There wouldn’t be churches or corporations or anything like that. Click here for forum discussion

Buddhist teacher Stephen Batchelor explores scientific materialism and secular Buddhism. photo by: Stephen Lasky I remember the first time I tried meditation. The anxiety it stirred gave me a stomachache. When sitting meditation didn’t work I tried walking mediation as taught by Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh. That wasn’t much better — to confining, too restrictive, too many rules. It felt like church. But despite my inability to “do meditation,” I couldn’t escape feeling there was something to this Buddhist practice of quietly looking within. Today’s guest on Skeptiko, Buddhist teacher and author Stephen Batchelor, has probably done more than anyone else in the last 20 years to change how Westerners approach Buddhist meditation. His books, Buddhism Without Beliefs, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, and his latest, After Buddhism, stripped Buddhism of its robes and prayer wheels to consider mediation from a Western, scientific, reductionistic perspective. And while this approach has met resistance from many traditional Buddhists teachers, it has also been a tremendous boon to millions who wish to explore the well-documented scientific benefits of mediation without giving up their modern, secular worldview. Batchelor even made it okay for atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris to give meditation a try. Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Buddhist teacher and author, Stephen Batchelor. Alex Tsakiris: I think your orientation–your secular, atheist orientation–has been a great fit for the social movement [surrounding Buddhism]… but I think what you’re doing is a little bit of “shut-up and [meditate]” here in that we’re skipping over the deeper, philosophical implications of what this “mindfulness” really means… … I can shift over to another area where it’s even [clearer]… and that’s the idea of reincarnation. Again, it’s another area that back [when you began] wasn’t anywhere close to being studied scientifically, but since then it has been studied scientifically… and they offer rather compelling evidence highly suggestive that something like reincarnation is really happening. So again, where are you with all of that? And are you trying to fit that back into a secular orientation that may not hold up when we really look at the science? Stephen Batchelor: I’m not a scientist and I can only–if evidence appears through scientific study and so forth of the possibility of a non-material consciousness that floats free from the material world…if evidence can be compiled that indicates that reincarnation is a possibility then that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that. I just don’t think that those issues are actually central to what the Buddha was trying to do. I think these are fascinating areas and I’m fully supportive of all of this kind of research. Alex Tsakiris: Follow through with that thought because I think this is an area where you’re probably at odds with [the traditional Buddist community] when you [claim that reincarnation wasn’t] central to what the Buddha was teaching. And even if he wasn’t “teaching it”… they went inside, in the same way that you have, and they came to the conclusion that consciousness is ...

Buddhist teacher Stephen Batchelor explores scientific materialism and secular Buddhism. photo by: Stephen Lasky I remember the first time I tried meditation. The anxiety it stirred gave me a stomachache. When sitting meditation didn’t work I tried walking mediation as taught by Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh. That wasn’t much better — to confining, too restrictive, too many rules. It felt like church. But despite my inability to “do meditation,” I couldn’t escape feeling there was something to this Buddhist practice of quietly looking within. Today’s guest on Skeptiko, Buddhist teacher and author Stephen Batchelor, has probably done more than anyone else in the last 20 years to change how Westerners approach Buddhist meditation. His books, Buddhism Without Beliefs, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, and his latest, After Buddhism, stripped Buddhism of its robes and prayer wheels to consider mediation from a Western, scientific, reductionistic perspective. And while this approach has met resistance from many traditional Buddhists teachers, it has also been a tremendous boon to millions who wish to explore the well-documented scientific benefits of mediation without giving up their modern, secular worldview. Batchelor even made it okay for atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris to give meditation a try. Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Buddhist teacher and author, Stephen Batchelor. Alex Tsakiris: I think your orientation–your secular, atheist orientation–has been a great fit for the social movement [surrounding Buddhism]… but I think what you’re doing is a little bit of “shut-up and [meditate]” here in that we’re skipping over the deeper, philosophical implications of what this “mindfulness” really means… … I can shift over to another area where it’s even [clearer]… and that’s the idea of reincarnation. Again, it’s another area that back [when you began] wasn’t anywhere close to being studied scientifically, but since then it has been studied scientifically… and they offer rather compelling evidence highly suggestive that something like reincarnation is really happening. So again, where are you with all of that? And are you trying to fit that back into a secular orientation that may not hold up when we really look at the science? Stephen Batchelor: I’m not a scientist and I can only–if evidence appears through scientific study and so forth of the possibility of a non-material consciousness that floats free from the material world…if evidence can be compiled that indicates that reincarnation is a possibility then that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that. I just don’t think that those issues are actually central to what the Buddha was trying to do. I think these are fascinating areas and I’m fully supportive of all of this kind of research. Alex Tsakiris: Follow through with that thought because I think this is an area where you’re probably at odds with [the traditional Buddist community] when you [claim that reincarnation wasn’t] central to what the Buddha was teaching. And even if he wasn’t “teaching it”… they went inside, in the same way that you have, and they came to the conclusion that consciousness is ...

Investigative reporter Jon Rappoport explains why the media intentionally ignored whistleblower revelations about vaccines and autism. photo by: Art Writ My wife is the medical expert in our family. She has a PhD in psychology, works with doctors, and performed medical rounds as part of her training. I, on the other hand, can’t stand to drive by a hospital. So I was surprised when on a ride home from the movies Joni launched into a bit of a rant about a recent measles outbreak and accompanying media reports on the public’s lack of confidence in vaccines. “But what about that whistleblower from the CDC who revealed that there really was a link between the measles vaccine and autism,” I said. Joni looked at me with incredulity. She’s smart, well informed, watches the Today Show, reads medical journals and even blogs for Psychology Today; how could she not know about this large-scale medical fraud that destroyed the lives of thousands of children? Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with investigative journalist and author, Jon Rappoport, author of Exit From the Matrix: Jon Rappoport: … then if we flash-forward another year, to the end of July 2005 Congressman William Posey of Florida, who has been in contact with the whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, stands up on the floor of the House of Representatives and says, “I am now going to read a statement from Dr. William Thompson…” And in this statement Thompson is saying he and his coauthors on this study are sitting in an office at the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and bring in a large garbage can and proceed to throw out pages of documents that implicate the MMR vaccine and its connection to autism. I mean from a reporter’s point of view, can you ask for a bigger story than that? … so when you get someone who is say, well-intentioned and who is writing for the New York Times or whatever, their whole education and background and indoctrination is to rely upon what is published in these peer-reviewed accepted medical journals as fact. And therefore, yes, if you looked at all these studies, you would say vaccines are safe and effective. So what’s the problem? The people who say they aren’t must be crazy…  that would be the obvious conclusion; you would have to go one level deeper in order to discover that what they are relying on and calling science is actually fraud. Click here for forum discussion Click here for Jon Rappoport’s Website Read Excerpts: Jon Rappoport: Also, I want to point out something — judging what people can accept, what they’ll be willing to research on their own or investigate, that’s always a crap shoot to me. So therefore to characterize some of the things that I say as “moon shots” for most people, what I’ve discovered over the last 14 years that I’ve been publishing over the Internet is I take my findings and I present them...

Investigative reporter Jon Rappoport explains why the media intentionally ignored whistleblower revelations about vaccines and autism. photo by: Art Writ My wife is the medical expert in our family. She has a PhD in psychology, works with doctors, and performed medical rounds as part of her training. I, on the other hand, can’t stand to drive by a hospital. So I was surprised when on a ride home from the movies Joni launched into a bit of a rant about a recent measles outbreak and accompanying media reports on the public’s lack of confidence in vaccines. “But what about that whistleblower from the CDC who revealed that there really was a link between the measles vaccine and autism,” I said. Joni looked at me with incredulity. She’s smart, well informed, watches the Today Show, reads medical journals and even blogs for Psychology Today; how could she not know about this large-scale medical fraud that destroyed the lives of thousands of children? Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with investigative journalist and author, Jon Rappoport, author of Exit From the Matrix: Jon Rappoport: … then if we flash-forward another year, to the end of July 2005 Congressman William Posey of Florida, who has been in contact with the whistleblower, Dr. William Thompson, stands up on the floor of the House of Representatives and says, “I am now going to read a statement from Dr. William Thompson…” And in this statement Thompson is saying he and his coauthors on this study are sitting in an office at the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and bring in a large garbage can and proceed to throw out pages of documents that implicate the MMR vaccine and its connection to autism. I mean from a reporter’s point of view, can you ask for a bigger story than that? … so when you get someone who is say, well-intentioned and who is writing for the New York Times or whatever, their whole education and background and indoctrination is to rely upon what is published in these peer-reviewed accepted medical journals as fact. And therefore, yes, if you looked at all these studies, you would say vaccines are safe and effective. So what’s the problem? The people who say they aren’t must be crazy…  that would be the obvious conclusion; you would have to go one level deeper in order to discover that what they are relying on and calling science is actually fraud. Click here for forum discussion Click here for Jon Rappoport’s Website Read Excerpts: Jon Rappoport: Also, I want to point out something — judging what people can accept, what they’ll be willing to research on their own or investigate, that’s always a crap shoot to me. So therefore to characterize some of the things that I say as “moon shots” for most people, what I’ve discovered over the last 14 years that I’ve been publishing over the Internet is I take my findings and I present them...

Near-Death Experience Research, Dr. Jan Holden and her colleagues reveal their latest findings. photo by: Steve Jurvetson The question might sound crass, but then again, why should it? Dr. Oliver Sacks was one of the world’s best known and beloved neuroscientists, but at the time of his passing he was also an outspoken opponent of scientific findings suggestive of an afterlife. So, should a question contemplating a reality he was never willing to consider offend? Our cultural reflex to respect the dead may be trying to tell us something about underlying scientific question — what happens after we die? Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with near-death experience researcher and University of North Texas professor, Dr. Jan Holden, author of The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Alex Tsakiris: I was wondering if we could talk about the recent passing of the most famous neurologist of our time, Dr. Oliver Sacks. If anyone remembers the movie “Awakenings” with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro about this patient who’s experiencing these horrible, neurological conditions — that doctor is really the Oliver Sacks figure. And I wanted to talk about him because I hear what you are saying… about more people being open to looking at near-death experience science, but I juxtapose that against what mainstream science is saying, and what Oliver Sacks was saying before he passed into that next dimension — NDEs are hallucinations. And they may have some nice language about how those hallucinations are formed, but they’re [still insisting that NDEs are] hallucinations. And I just wonder how much progress we’ve really made because science isn’t done in a vacuum. It’s a social enterprise. It’s a cultural enterprise–it shapes culture and culture shapes it. So this whole [endeavor] of NDE research boils down to NDE researchers and the people doing the science on one side, versus Oliver Sacks and the neurologists and the neuroscientists on the other side. [This is] because NDE science is a direct attack not just on their profession but ultimately on their livelihood… Maybe do ourselves a disservice if we don’t understand and share with other people the extent to which the battle lines are drawn. Dr. Jan Holden: I’ve wondered too what Oliver Sacks would say now–that he has actually moved into my way of thinking [or] an extension of physical life. But it’s hard to get people who stay dead to come back and participate in interviews so we may never know. But I do agree with what you’re saying Alex–the mainstream scientific perspective is that consciousness is a product of the brain–such that when the brain dies, consciousness dies. And what near-death research and especially in concert with research of other phenomena like after-death communication, nearing-death awareness, deathbed visions, reincarnation, and so forth. When cardiologists like Dr. Pim van Lommel calls a convergence of evidence, it points to the idea that consciousness exists essentially separate from the brain but of course extremely interrelated with it while we’re physically alive. In my view, first of all I think that culture changes slowly and...

Near-Death Experience Research, Dr. Jan Holden and her colleagues reveal their latest findings. photo by: Steve Jurvetson The question might sound crass, but then again, why should it? Dr. Oliver Sacks was one of the world’s best known and beloved neuroscientists, but at the time of his passing he was also an outspoken opponent of scientific findings suggestive of an afterlife. So, should a question contemplating a reality he was never willing to consider offend? Our cultural reflex to respect the dead may be trying to tell us something about underlying scientific question — what happens after we die? Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with near-death experience researcher and University of North Texas professor, Dr. Jan Holden, author of The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Alex Tsakiris: I was wondering if we could talk about the recent passing of the most famous neurologist of our time, Dr. Oliver Sacks. If anyone remembers the movie “Awakenings” with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro about this patient who’s experiencing these horrible, neurological conditions — that doctor is really the Oliver Sacks figure. And I wanted to talk about him because I hear what you are saying… about more people being open to looking at near-death experience science, but I juxtapose that against what mainstream science is saying, and what Oliver Sacks was saying before he passed into that next dimension — NDEs are hallucinations. And they may have some nice language about how those hallucinations are formed, but they’re [still insisting that NDEs are] hallucinations. And I just wonder how much progress we’ve really made because science isn’t done in a vacuum. It’s a social enterprise. It’s a cultural enterprise–it shapes culture and culture shapes it. So this whole [endeavor] of NDE research boils down to NDE researchers and the people doing the science on one side, versus Oliver Sacks and the neurologists and the neuroscientists on the other side. [This is] because NDE science is a direct attack not just on their profession but ultimately on their livelihood… Maybe do ourselves a disservice if we don’t understand and share with other people the extent to which the battle lines are drawn. Dr. Jan Holden: I’ve wondered too what Oliver Sacks would say now–that he has actually moved into my way of thinking [or] an extension of physical life. But it’s hard to get people who stay dead to come back and participate in interviews so we may never know. But I do agree with what you’re saying Alex–the mainstream scientific perspective is that consciousness is a product of the brain–such that when the brain dies, consciousness dies. And what near-death research and especially in concert with research of other phenomena like after-death communication, nearing-death awareness, deathbed visions, reincarnation, and so forth. When cardiologists like Dr. Pim van Lommel calls a convergence of evidence, it points to the idea that consciousness exists essentially separate from the brain but of course extremely interrelated with it while we’re physically alive. In my view, first of all I think that culture changes slowly and as some fa...

Biblical Scholar Joel Watts looks at what Christians don’t know about Christianity. photo by: Bolton We’re conditioned to believe the cultural and political divide between Christians and non-believers is a matter of worldview and faith. Atheistic science-types are trying to rescue us from ignorance while believers are saving our souls from a culture that’s lost its moral compass. But these hardened battle lines leave most of us out of the equation. Polls measuring religiosity consistently find, “spiritual but not religious” among the fastest growing segment. Maybe it’s time to take a fresh look at what really divides Christians and non-believers. Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Biblical scholar Joel Watts, author of Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark: Alex Tsakiris: [I’m] someone who doesn’t accept Christian doctrine. So I look at this institution and wonder why [this divide] is allowed? Why would there be this situation where, when you go to seminary, or dig deeply into Biblical studies, [you learn something completely different than what the rank-and-file churchgoer knows]. Imagine a corporation. We would never have that kind of divide. Where the group in charge knows a completely different story than the rank and file members. Joel Watts: There’s a couple of ways to look at that: one, in American and the West, it’s all about convenience and consumerism. Christianity in its popular form is about consumerism. We educate our preachers this way. If you look at seminaries now, I would wager that the average degree plan is more about counseling and church administration than it is about doctrine or teaching people. So it’s about consumerism. You are educating these pastors and ministers to not lead people, but to feed people whatever their consumeristic desire is. We have a system that is predicated on “the customer’s always right.” Click here for forum discussion Click here for Joel’s Blog (UnsettledChristianity.com) Read Excerpts: Alex Tsakiris: I want to bring into focus how that chasm grows. I had an interview a couple years ago with Chris White. Really interesting guy. Very smart guy, intelligent, capable. He’s put together a well-done video documentary on the ancient aliens [topic] that has five million views. No easy feat. It’s a good piece of work. But in my conversation with Chris, who is a conservative Christian, as an aside we were talking about Noah’s Ark because there’s a very slight reference in the film to the Noah’s Ark story. I said, Chris, you’re a really bright guy. I think people would be astounded to find out that you literally believe there was this 500-year-old man who built this big boat, loaded it up with all these animals, and cruised around the world for a year. His response was, well, you don’t understand the text. The text is actually quite technical about Noah’s Ark, and it explains a lot of things and it’s very defensible. And he went into talking about metallurgy, and how maybe they had nails and stuff like that. And I [thought] do you realize how out of touch that is with what ordinary, rational,

Biblical Scholar Joel Watts looks at what Christians don’t know about Christianity. photo by: Bolton We’re conditioned to believe the cultural and political divide between Christians and non-believers is a matter of worldview and faith. Atheistic science-types are trying to rescue us from ignorance while believers are saving our souls from a culture that’s lost its moral compass. But these hardened battle lines leave most of us out of the equation. Polls measuring religiosity consistently find, “spiritual but not religious” among the fastest growing segment. Maybe it’s time to take a fresh look at what really divides Christians and non-believers. Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Biblical scholar Joel Watts, author of Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark: Alex Tsakiris: [I’m] someone who doesn’t accept Christian doctrine. So I look at this institution and wonder why [this divide] is allowed? Why would there be this situation where, when you go to seminary, or dig deeply into Biblical studies, [you learn something completely different than what the rank-and-file churchgoer knows]. Imagine a corporation. We would never have that kind of divide. Where the group in charge knows a completely different story than the rank and file members. Joel Watts: There’s a couple of ways to look at that: one, in American and the West, it’s all about convenience and consumerism. Christianity in its popular form is about consumerism. We educate our preachers this way. If you look at seminaries now, I would wager that the average degree plan is more about counseling and church administration than it is about doctrine or teaching people. So it’s about consumerism. You are educating these pastors and ministers to not lead people, but to feed people whatever their consumeristic desire is. We have a system that is predicated on “the customer’s always right.” Click here for forum discussion Click here for Joel’s Blog (UnsettledChristianity.com) Read Excerpts: Alex Tsakiris: I want to bring into focus how that chasm grows. I had an interview a couple years ago with Chris White. Really interesting guy. Very smart guy, intelligent, capable. He’s put together a well-done video documentary on the ancient aliens [topic] that has five million views. No easy feat. It’s a good piece of work. But in my conversation with Chris, who is a conservative Christian, as an aside we were talking about Noah’s Ark because there’s a very slight reference in the film to the Noah’s Ark story. I said, Chris, you’re a really bright guy. I think people would be astounded to find out that you literally believe there was this 500-year-old man who built this big boat, loaded it up with all these animals, and cruised around the world for a year. His response was, well, you don’t understand the text. The text is actually quite technical about Noah’s Ark, and it explains a lot of things and it’s very defensible. And he went into talking about metallurgy, and how maybe they had nails and stuff like that. And I [thought] do you realize how out of touch that is with what ordinary, rational, scientifically-minded people think?

Biblical Scholar Joseph Atwill has forever changed how we understand early Christian history by focusing on religion as an instrument of political mind control. photo by: Bolton A long time ago there was a war in the Middle East between the Romans and the Jews. Spoiler alert: the Romans won. After hauling the bounty back to Rome, and building a really nice arch, they had their official historian write it all down. The man they chose for the job was a Jewish general who not only switched sides to join the Romans in the sacking of Jerusalem, but proclaimed his Roman leader was the real Messiah the Jews had long waited for. Now, a New Testament scholar has turned Christianity on its head by pointing out obvious connections between Josephus’ version of the Roman victory and passages in the Gospels attributed to Jesus.  Joseph Atwill has challenged New Testament scholars to explain how Josephus’ very pro-Roman version of events wound up becoming Jesus prophecies. Atwill insists we need to re-examine what we thought we knew about the ability of the Romans to rewrite history in order to consolidate power. Join Alex Tsakiris for a second interview with Joseph Atwill, author of Cesar’s Messiah: Alex Tsakiris: Some folks are put off by any mention of conspiracy in world politics. I’m not. Given the well-documented history of misdeeds by those in power I think it’s the perfect place to start. What is your general feeling about conspiracy and how it affects our worldview? Joe Atwill: It’s all a conspiracy: 9-11; World War I; World War II. The most obvious conspiracy that we’ve suffered from was Constantine using Christianity as the foundation of the feudal system. This was clearly an insincere, conspiratorial, secret society moment where he developed the feudal system with a series of edicts and then also through an edict to Milan to start process of making Christianity a state religion so that the slave would think that there was a religious context for his condition… The theory of Caesar’s Messiah is simply based on the sequence of these passages in the [Bible and the ancient Roman account of the Jewish war]. How much trouble is it for me to defend it? I just say — put the texts side-by-side. I told one scholar, how old is your son? Just read it to your son side by side and have him tell you if there is parallelism. Anyone can see it. It’s obvious… If there’s one thing that comes out of Caesar’s Messiah that I hope occurs is that it will not only end the ability of the politicians to use Christianity as a propaganda tool but eventually it will force people to then put some sunlight into the Hebrew Bible and say, wait a second, what we’re looking at, tip to stern from Genesis all the way through the Book of Revelation is the literature of oligarchs. These stories are there to fool people into giving power to people that want to rule.

Biblical Scholar Joseph Atwill has forever changed how we understand early Christian history by focusing on religion as an instrument of political mind control. photo by: Bolton A long time ago there was a war in the Middle East between the Romans and the Jews. Spoiler alert: the Romans won. After hauling the bounty back to Rome, and building a really nice arch, they had their official historian write it all down. The man they chose for the job was a Jewish general who not only switched sides to join the Romans in the sacking of Jerusalem, but proclaimed his Roman leader was the real Messiah the Jews had long waited for. Now, a New Testament scholar has turned Christianity on its head by pointing out obvious connections between Josephus’ version of the Roman victory and passages in the Gospels attributed to Jesus.  Joseph Atwill has challenged New Testament scholars to explain how Josephus’ very pro-Roman version of events wound up becoming Jesus prophecies. Atwill insists we need to re-examine what we thought we knew about the ability of the Romans to rewrite history in order to consolidate power. Join Alex Tsakiris for a second interview with Joseph Atwill, author of Cesar’s Messiah: Alex Tsakiris: Some folks are put off by any mention of conspiracy in world politics. I’m not. Given the well-documented history of misdeeds by those in power I think it’s the perfect place to start. What is your general feeling about conspiracy and how it affects our worldview? Joe Atwill: It’s all a conspiracy: 9-11; World War I; World War II. The most obvious conspiracy that we’ve suffered from was Constantine using Christianity as the foundation of the feudal system. This was clearly an insincere, conspiratorial, secret society moment where he developed the feudal system with a series of edicts and then also through an edict to Milan to start process of making Christianity a state religion so that the slave would think that there was a religious context for his condition… The theory of Caesar’s Messiah is simply based on the sequence of these passages in the [Bible and the ancient Roman account of the Jewish war]. How much trouble is it for me to defend it? I just say — put the texts side-by-side. I told one scholar, how old is your son? Just read it to your son side by side and have him tell you if there is parallelism. Anyone can see it. It’s obvious… If there’s one thing that comes out of Caesar’s Messiah that I hope occurs is that it will not only end the ability of the politicians to use Christianity as a propaganda tool but eventually it will force people to then put some sunlight into the Hebrew Bible and say, wait a second, what we’re looking at, tip to stern from Genesis all the way through the Book of Revelation is the literature of oligarchs. These stories are there to fool people into giving power to people that want to rule.

  Northwestern University Psychology professor Dr. Julia Mossbridge’s has a novel experiment demonstrating psychic abilities among her male students. Photo by Daniela Vladimirova The experiment is tantalizingly simple, you’re presented four images and asked which one the computer will select. It may be simple, but since the images are randomly selected after you’ve made your choice it’s also impossible, right? Not according to a new research study that shows our body may know when events in the future are likely to occur. And, here’s the twist — it seem to happen often for men who are obsessed with being right. In her recently published study, Dr. Julia Mossbridge showed that men who “wanted to win” were statistically more likely to accurately predict the future than women who expressed no interest in “winning.” But this research into presentiment, and our body’s ability to to know the unknowable, has implications far beyond Psych 110 experiments on college Freshman. It strikes a blow against mainstream science’s insistence on the narrow limits of our abilities and our very nature. Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Dr. Julia Mossbridge where the experiment and the broader implications for neuroscience and science at large are discussed: Julia Mossbridge: I had Northwestern Psych 110 students. That’s the first Psych course they take and they have to do some research as part of that, be participants in research. So I had them come in and get hooked up to a skin conductance machine so it’s measuring the changes in the electrical conductance of their skin which is related to arousal. When you get more aroused your skin conductance goes up. It’s like a lie detector test in a way. I give them a computer monitor where they’re looking at a computer and they had to choose between four images. The question I asked them was try to guess which of these four images is going to be shown to you after you choose one of the images. So it’s like trying to predict the future. Alex Tsakiris: To them, I would think anyone who sat for that experiment it’s kind of nonsensical. What do you mean choose which one wins? It doesn’t make any sense but that’s part of the game, right? Julia Mossbridge: Yes and I sort of laugh with them about it. Okay, I’m going to ask you to do the crazy thing and they like that. And so I say I’m hooking you up to this skin conductance [machine] and we’ll just see how you respond… It looks like [men’s] skin conductance increases significantly when they’re about to be correct — to say this is the image that actually shows up about ten seconds beforehand versus where they’re about to be wrong. Alex Tsakiris: So the study sought to try and understand whether or not your physiology–in this case the skin conductance–is somehow related to some future event. Tying that back to what you said earlier, you said you had this hunch that you’ve confirmed in further research. Our physiology is able to predict future events if they’re meaningful to us. If they’re important to us. So the interesting twist here is maybe these young men are more motivated to be right than the girls are. Julia Mossbridge: The difference in the physiology is apparent in both 1...

  Northwestern University Psychology professor Dr. Julia Mossbridge’s has a novel experiment demonstrating psychic abilities among her male students. Photo by Daniela Vladimirova The experiment is tantalizingly simple, you’re presented four images and asked which one the computer will select. It may be simple, but since the images are randomly selected after you’ve made your choice it’s also impossible, right? Not according to a new research study that shows our body may know when events in the future are likely to occur. And, here’s the twist — it seem to happen often for men who are obsessed with being right. In her recently published study, Dr. Julia Mossbridge showed that men who “wanted to win” were statistically more likely to accurately predict the future than women who expressed no interest in “winning.” But this research into presentiment, and our body’s ability to to know the unknowable, has implications far beyond Psych 110 experiments on college Freshman. It strikes a blow against mainstream science’s insistence on the narrow limits of our abilities and our very nature. Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Dr. Julia Mossbridge where the experiment and the broader implications for neuroscience and science at large are discussed: Julia Mossbridge: I had Northwestern Psych 110 students. That’s the first Psych course they take and they have to do some research as part of that, be participants in research. So I had them come in and get hooked up to a skin conductance machine so it’s measuring the changes in the electrical conductance of their skin which is related to arousal. When you get more aroused your skin conductance goes up. It’s like a lie detector test in a way. I give them a computer monitor where they’re looking at a computer and they had to choose between four images. The question I asked them was try to guess which of these four images is going to be shown to you after you choose one of the images. So it’s like trying to predict the future. Alex Tsakiris: To them, I would think anyone who sat for that experiment it’s kind of nonsensical. What do you mean choose which one wins? It doesn’t make any sense but that’s part of the game, right? Julia Mossbridge: Yes and I sort of laugh with them about it. Okay, I’m going to ask you to do the crazy thing and they like that. And so I say I’m hooking you up to this skin conductance [machine] and we’ll just see how you respond… It looks like [men’s] skin conductance increases significantly when they’re about to be correct — to say this is the image that actually shows up about ten seconds beforehand versus where they’re about to be wrong. Alex Tsakiris: So the study sought to try and understand whether or not your physiology–in this case the skin conductance–is somehow related to some future event. Tying that back to what you said earlier, you said you had this hunch that you’ve confirmed in further research. Our physiology is able to predict future events if they’re meaningful to us. If they’re important to us. So the interesting twist here is maybe these young men are more motivated to be right than the girls are. Julia Mossbridge: The difference in the physiology is apparent in both 1...

Dr. Julie Beischel’s newly published research on assisted after-death communication sets a new standard of proof, but don’t expect science to change its stance on psychic mediums. Photo by Craig Sunter Before becoming the preeminent researcher of medium communication, or as she likes to call it, “assisted after-death communication”, Dr. Julie Beischel was a newly-minted PhD in pharmacology and toxicology who was trying to come to grips with the loss of her mother. Grief had led Dr. Beischel to the door of Dr. Gary Schwartz whose controversial research into medium communication had drawn national attention. After several years of collaboration during which Dr. Beischel designed and implemented experiments which have become widely recognized as setting the gold standard in such research, Julie left the University of Arizona to found the Windbridge Institute. Her research into medium communication and its effect on the bereaved continues to shed light on a phenomena that flies in the face of what science is telling us about life and death, and has the potential to redefine who we are. Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Dr. Julie Beischel: Alex Tsakiris: You’re researching psychic mediums? Is this some kind of joke? Research and science doesn’t go with the term medium communication does it? Dr. Beischel: Science is just a tool. It’s just one way we learn how the universe works so it can be applied to anything. And there were a lot of people with strong opinions about what the capacity of mediums is. Can they report accurate and specific information? So I took the scientific method and I applied it to mediumship. Again, it’s just a tool you can apply to anything and so yes, it does go together because it’s something we don’t fully understand yet. So yes, [mediumship] is the perfect thing for science to tackle because we don’t understand it. —————————— Dr. Beischel: What we’ve found in all three of those ways that we look at scoring, we’ve achieved statistically significant positive results in a study done in 2007, and a replication study that we just published earlier in 2015. So the original study was 16 readings and this most recent study is 58. So that’s a total of 74 readings in which under these more than double-blind conditions mediums could report accurate and specific information about the deceased when no sensory information could be plausible for where they got their information… Click here for forum discussion Click here for Final Transition Conference Click here for Dr. Beischel’s Website Read Excerpts: Dr. Beischel: George Clinton; George Hamilton; George Carlin; George Strait; George Bush–either one; George Noory; George Foreman; George Washington…all you...