Recent Comments

What can you get away with with the ankle monitors???

and Paul Laffoley: [link]

And don't forget Ted Vasin: [link]

Can scram detect alcohol 40 hrs before monitor is put on

Hello James and Jake, wonderful discussion and topics. Some thoughts and points on this and the previous pod-cast:
1. When we talk about consciousness, there are two distinct dimensions to it that are completely different: the objective material dimension studied by neuroscience, and the internal subjective dimension studied by the inner science of mysticism.
2. The inner subjective dimension IS completely non-local, in the sense that you CANNOT find it in a space-time location: you can slice up the brain and every neuron in it, but you will never find the inner sentient subjective experience of a rose, an illumination, a vision, or the inner meaning of a thought.
3. the only true science that studies consciousness is mysticism, which is thousands of years old and uses systematic technologies that can be consensually validated by those who follow the step-by-step procedures. Neuroscience only studies the external brain: all it can reveal is the nature of the circuitry; it does not touch the inner experience, no matter how much of the brain is sliced up.
4. After thousands of years of inner exploration, all mystics have concluded that in the depths of the conscious experience there is a sense of oneness; not just as a human experience, but as a universal truth.
5. The new physics seem to be pointing toward a similar conclusion: all matter and the forces that govern their relations spring forth from a Unified Field or substrate; from one to the many.
6. The quantum realm is not 'out there' somewhere...we ARE the quantum realm at the base of our existence....and we know that what we call matter is only a frequency surrounded by 99.99% empty space. Why couldn't consciousness tap into this vastness in very sensitized states.
7. Jake mentioned the monastic mystics: in my mind they are true scientists of consciousness, eliminating sensory signals though isolation and decreasing mental noise to hear the deeper frequencies of nature. They unanimously claim the inherent Unity behind all creation. Again, similar to the notion in physics that all of creation springs forth form a Unified Singularity.
8. And finally, the brain-as-transceiver metaphor is actually quite useful, for we are constantly receiving various raw sensory signal that our brain reconstructs as what we call reality. Just like a radio converts electromagnetic info into sound.
9. I actually attempted to view the world from a purely materialistic stance, and it just DID NOT work, for the mystery of subjective sentience was not even touched by my models of complex circuitry.

No love...plenty surching...finding death.

Crystal is fucked big time I've seen my whole family go crazy from it an even though its an amazing high it's deffiently not worth the troubles

We appreciate all the support, thanks for continuing to tune in! - Jake

All fair points.

I am grateful for your attention. Once again, I find the podcast a treat and hope you both continue them (and I similarly hope you continue lecturing at events like Horizons).

I am not sure psychedelics can present propositional knowledge, but one lesson I have taken to heart is epistemic humility (e.g., even empirical regularities are uncertain). That is, RAW philosophically trumps A.J. Ayer. Regardless of my stance (and it's a bit narcissistic to present it in a comment, no?), I do think there is a valid place for your worldview alongside the excesses of ayahuasca tourists preaching the Gospel of Terence. Thanks, again!

// I have purchased your book and consider this podcast one of my favorites. I am deeply grateful that you and Jake host such worthwhile content.

Much thanks! I'm sure Jake wants more arguments!

Finally, I will concede that there is no way to "prove" that there is no invisible external source creating language in the brain (like god, or nonlocal whatever), but there are also no good ways to prove that there is, and only the thinnest, non-functional evidence points to this option.

In contrast, there is a bounty of evidence to confirm that consciousness is entirely localized in form and function of neural circuitry, and after performing precise functional scans we can perform surgery to fix, adapt, or remove whatever functions we choose. This is demonstrable and not in dispute. This answer is the simplest and most functional and has the best evidence and does not require any "metaphysics". I will always chose this option, no matter how slick your philosophy might sound.

Also, I tend to ignore the disputes, because after studying academia for a couple decades I have realized that disputes often have nothing to do with evidence and are actually territorial pissing matches between this or that academic. This is the main reason I stayed out of academia. I did not want to study "disputes", I want to find good simple answers.

This is why I dismiss philosophy, because it is more interested in building arguments that solving problems. For instance, I see evidence of something simple, like a part of the brain that produces language when stimulated. Hey humans have this neat part of their brain that helps them create language. When it is injured it stops working. That is evidence of form and function in structure, end of assumption. If you want to say it is evidence of something else (external voices?) then YOU are the one who is jumping through hoops to explain something that violates physics because you have a "dispute". I see no dispute. What I see is indisputable. If you dispute the evidence, you should at least provide better experiments to prove your point.

I understand there is dispute in this field, but to my best examination of all the evidence I no longer see dispute, I see what I see and am comfortable with my assertions, even if someone with more "credibility" than me wants to disagree. I have no stake in the game of arguing phenomena, I only want the answers that are the least wrong, which is where I will always err on the side of. If you want to go with an alternate answer that is fine, but don't get mad at me. I am not looking at the light or the bulb or the switch or the electrons, I am looking at the wires. The way the wires are connected is what makes the long and the short of consciousness. It is reductive, yes, but after studying all the evidence that is the least wrong answer.

I think this is a little bit smart. I rather smoke candy then smoke cigarettes. There are stuff in a cigarette that are totally bad for your body but sweets are at least safe for kids.

I want to add that I am not a troll.

I have purchased your book and consider this podcast one of my favorites. I am deeply grateful that you and Jake host such worthwhile content.

Personally, I found this episode a misstep--perhaps because of the juxtaposition especially. Whereas we first have a rounded, sympathetic portrayal of Catholic roots, we then get a "How can you use the Internet if you ain't a Darwinist?" sort of laughable reductionism.

Moreover, I mentioned Chalmers, who can be dismissed (of course, will be dismissed with added nothing-buttery) as a philosopher.

Nonetheless, you did not dare dispute my other claim: neuroscientific scholarship is not a settled domain. As I said, even Damasio has his critics. My larger point is that more informed people than you, people that have specialized in both fields, contest your conclusions. So, to present "facts" and boast of one's intellectual might, is nothing but conceit.

John Eccles could run synaptic circles around you in the literature, I am sure. And he could likely fix what ailed my brain, too.

You're missing the fallacy.

To create electrode-induced voices simply does not dispel any other occurrence of heard voices as illusory. More investigation would necessarily be required. In other words, if I hear your voice, you cannot simply point to these experiments as proof I was hallucinating.

@OurMethod - And if you want to argue that voices created via electrode stimulation of a language center are not "of the brain" and are coming from an external source, like a spirit or something, then you have already demonstrated the silly lengths people will go to in order to ignore evidence in favor of something that is just plain crazy.

@OurMethod, I'm sure you will go see a neuroscientist when your brain breaks, because a neuroscientist can locate and fix brain problems with reductionism. David Chalmers cannot fix anything with his philosophy. You can believe all the hot air you want but I will believe what can be demonstrated with a brain lying open on a table and a couple electrodes, which are the demonstrable "facts" I so smugly boast about.

Very funny, I was just watching episode 6 and I was like, "HEY! They looks like Terence Mckenna. I wonder if they were fans or friends of eachother." And came across this.

DMT could most certainly be one of Lynch's inspirations!