Latest / Ministry X / Thru the Gates of Fringe with Trevor Lohman PhD - Ministry X - 045

Transcript

Thru the Gates of Fringe with Trevor Lohman PhD - Ministry X - 045 · Ministry X

0:05
Speaker 1: You are listening to the Fringe Radio Network frngradionetwork dot com.
0:14
Speaker 2: Perhaps you would like some music.
0:47
Speaker 3: You are listening to ministry X on Fringe Radio Network.
0:53
Just checking all the wizards and the diggers and the bleepers.
0:56
We'll get started here momentarily. Got a special guest tonight,
1:09
so stand by.
1:30
Speaker 2: Now. It's interesting because the real the hyper reductionist, hyper
1:35
rationalist folks, they when they discover the a mechanism that
1:41
could explain consciousness to them, the mystery disappears. They're like, oh, look,
1:46
we figured consciousness out. It's just a quantum vibration that
1:51
occurs in your brain. And it's not magic. After all.
1:56
I don't see it like that. That's just not how
1:58
my brain works. In my mind. We go, oh, these
2:04
old books that explained the spirit and the soul. They
2:11
were right. They were just using the vocabulary from two
2:14
thousand years ago, but they were right. And now we've
2:17
just explained the mechanism, you know. So anyway, I want
2:21
to put forward one of these ideas, one of these
2:25
kind of new ideas, new scientific ideas that explained consciousness.
3:03
Speaker 3: Welcome to the show. This is ministry X. I am
3:07
your host, Daniel X on the Fringe Radio Network. Go
3:14
to fringeradionetwork dot com. The first thing you want to
3:19
do is download the Fringe Radio Network app. You can
3:28
click on Android or Apple corresponding to your device's operating system.
3:41
And that is a main line to dozens and dozens
3:47
of carefully curated podcasts, all in the vein of fringey
3:58
freaky Christians and agnostic people and unchurched people, and uh gosh,
4:09
we've we've even got some Catholics in the mix, people
4:16
converting people, oh, even coming out of atheism and scientology.
4:27
And they're all coming through the giant archway of the Fringe.
4:43
A minute, where is that coming from. It's really hot,
4:49
and we've got all the windows down here, and I
4:58
hear children, and I hear booming music on the wind,
5:14
and of course sound carries when the weather is warmer,
5:25
and hopefully the microphone is not picking it up too bad.
5:30
I feel like I'm a little nasally now.
5:34
Speaker 4: Then.
5:35
Speaker 5: The only two letters in which you should have felt
5:37
your nose vibrate are M if your nose vibrated, and
5:41
any of the other letters you have nasality to some extent. Oh,
5:45
this is somewhat serious, but we can get rid of it.
5:48
What you're doing that's pushing your voice up through your
5:50
nose instead of directly out of your mouth. The cure
5:53
for this is also the cure for the most common
5:55
of all speech problems, and that is lazy mouth.
6:00
Speaker 3: Lazy mouth, say what what.
6:01
Speaker 5: It sounds like? Lazy mouth simply is the habit of
6:04
not moving your lips and tongue enough when you speak.
6:08
The cure for lazy mouth, and for nasality, and for
6:11
many pronunciation problems is simply to speak much more slowly
6:17
than you normally do.
6:20
Speaker 3: Okay, thank you for that. Now, as I mentioned, we
6:26
do have a special guest joining us today to talk
6:31
about his new book, God's Eye View. And he's also
6:38
got a podcast here on Fringe Radio Network, the Happy
6:44
Fools Podcast with his co host Alfredo, and he has
6:52
started up a podcast breaking down his book called God's
6:57
Eye View. So let's go ahead and welcome on our guest,
7:08
Trevor Lowman, PhD. He's a clinical neuroscience researcher specializing in
7:15
the relationship between the cardiovascular system and neurological health, so
7:22
he works in the health field. He's a really smart guy.
7:25
And a funny guy. God's Eye View is the book,
7:29
and Trevor Lowman is the man who wrote it, and
7:34
he'll be joining us here momentarily. So he recently experienced
7:40
a conversion a longtime atheist, you know, working in this clinical,
7:46
medical scientific environment, I suppose, in one way or another,
7:53
realizing that science doesn't have a lot of good answers,
7:58
but also, you know, shouldn't abandon science. Science can be
8:05
useful and is very useful. But I'll let him explain, Trevor,
8:13
can you hear me?
8:18
Speaker 2: Trevor, Hey, Daniel, how's it going man?
8:37
Speaker 3: How are you?
8:39
Speaker 2: Oh, Samuel, Samuel, thanks for chatting with me.
8:42
Speaker 3: Glad to get a chance to finally talk to you.
8:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, for sure, I was. Did you take a break
8:49
from recording for a while? I feel like I remember
8:51
seeing your show, but then I haven't seen it on
8:53
fringe for a little bit. Or did I just miss it?
8:56
Speaker 3: There was about a three month period, like right around
8:58
the first of the year. I think I did a
9:00
show in March and then, uh, things just got busy.
9:04
Tell me about it, man, I got a That's sort
9:07
of the way it goes for you know, those of
9:09
us who still have a day job, and I've got
9:12
three adult children still living at home.
9:15
Speaker 2: So well, congrats on the kids, man, that's what it's
9:18
all about. So whereabouts are you?
9:21
Speaker 3: I am in Idaho actually northern Idaho.
9:24
Speaker 2: Oh nice, northern Idaho, frigid. Well not right now, I guess.
9:28
Speaker 3: Yeah, not right now. It's last week. We were in
9:31
the nineties. We had a couple of days where it
9:34
was ninety five plus Today is a little bit cooler,
9:37
but we're still like sitting in the mid seventies.
9:42
Speaker 2: Oh, it's beautiful, it's perfect, man.
9:45
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I was. I was born and raised in California.
9:48
I lived in the Bay Area til about two thousand
9:52
and seven. Eight, yeah, moved moved to Montana initially lived
10:00
for about thirteen years before moving here to Idaho in
10:05
twenty twenty. So I've been here about five years now.
10:09
Speaker 2: That's awesome. I'm jealous. Someday maybe I'll get out of here.
10:14
Speaker 3: I've been listening to your show since I guess Johnny
10:17
first discovered you guys when you were doing Philo Sophia.
10:20
Speaker 2: Oh cool, yeah, yeah, yeah, hopefully it's you liked it.
10:24
It's been entertaining, Yeah, definitely.
10:26
Speaker 3: I think I like the having a lot of variety
10:29
on the network, and you guys kind of kind of
10:31
brought that philosophical angle, which I think was kind of
10:37
lacking on the network. So I think that's really good.
10:39
And you've definitely continued that with the Happy Fools, so
10:44
and it's doing really well. I was just checking stats
10:48
yesterday and you've got two episodes of Happy Fools in
10:52
the top five for the last thirty day period as
10:55
far as downloads.
10:56
Speaker 2: Oh no, kidding. I didn't know you could break it
10:59
out like that. That's cool. So do you know what
11:00
do you happen to remember which episodes so were? I'm curious.
11:02
Speaker 3: Uh, I don't, but I can look it up and
11:05
I can get it to you. I can find out
11:06
for you. I don't remember which two episodes it was.
11:09
Speaker 2: No worries. Were you paying attention to that whole Billy
11:12
Carson West Huff thing? Yes, yes, So most of our episodes,
11:17
you know, we don't have a tons of listeners, so
11:19
maybe they get like between one hundred and two hundred.
11:24
Maybe a few have like three hundred downloads. But we
11:28
I posted that interview of Billy Carson and Wes Huff
11:31
back when it was like there was like a lawsuit involved,
11:35
and it wasn't on YouTube, and it got like ten
11:37
thousand downloads. It was unbelievable. So there must be some
11:42
algorithm out there somewhere that finds this stuff. But generally, I.
11:47
Speaker 3: Think that was pretty big on the radar, that debate
11:51
and Billy Carson's sort of melt down afterwards. Uh, yeah,
11:56
everybody was searching for that. I'm assuming people were searching
12:00
wes Huff Billy Carson.
12:03
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, he man, he's kind of disappeared after that.
12:07
Speaker 3: Yeah. I saw. I saw him pop up on Info
12:10
Wars on Alex Jones show, and I'm like, Alex, why
12:13
are you well?
12:14
Speaker 2: I actually I actually thought Billy Carson was interesting like
12:17
most people, you know, because he talks about interesting stuff,
12:19
and he always kind of, to me seems sort of
12:21
like agnostic, you know. But then in that build up
12:26
to that wes Huff interview, you kind of realize, like, no,
12:29
he really hates Christianity for some reason, you know, but
12:34
he kind of kept that under the surface. I felt like,
12:37
I don't think a lot of people knew that to
12:39
that debate.
12:40
Speaker 3: So yeah, I think you're right. I think maybe that
12:44
was the first big challenge that he had and didn't
12:50
handle it very well apparently, but certainly sparked a lot
12:54
of interest. I see a lot of a lot of
12:56
downloads for any any episodes where we're discussed Wes Huff
13:00
and Billy Carson debate.
13:04
Speaker 2: It's funny how people kind of capture the interest. But
13:07
and I don't blame him.
13:08
Speaker 3: I was.
13:08
Speaker 2: I was interested in it too. It was interesting.
13:10
Speaker 3: So yeah, there's uh, and if you're I don't know
13:13
if you're on X, but there's are you familiar with
13:16
Jay Dyer?
13:17
Speaker 2: I know the name. I'm not sure why, but yeah,
13:19
I know the name.
13:20
Speaker 3: Okay, Well, he's an Orthodox Christian and he's sort of
13:23
an orthodox apologist, but he also does a lot of debates.
13:26
He talks about geopolitics and stuff too. And and uh,
13:31
now everybody's out to debate Wes Huff and put wes
13:34
Huff in his place, and and it's just back and forth.
13:38
Speaker 2: Did he did Jay Dyer debate Wes Somebody debated Wes
13:42
Huff who was like a Christian and it went didn't
13:45
go well or something. I I haven't been keeping up
13:47
to day with it.
13:47
Speaker 3: I think he's wanted to debate with him, but he's
13:50
so far not accepted, and.
13:52
Speaker 2: He Okay, does Wes have like views that people don't
13:56
like on that side of the.
13:58
Speaker 3: I would, I would imagine there's some there's some theological differences, sure.
14:04
I mean, Wes Huff is Protestant, Jade Eyer's Orthodox. On
14:10
the network, we like to get a lot of different voices,
14:13
a lot of different angles, some some of which are
14:16
kind of way out there. That's why it's fringe radiomatic.
14:21
Speaker 2: I'm so new to the Christian beliefs system that I
14:24
don't quite understand all those intricacies yet, but I'm starting
14:27
to learn them. I'm starting to learn what makes you know,
14:32
Protestants mad or Catholics mad, you know, the little things,
14:36
doctrinal things.
14:37
Speaker 3: Sure. I was thinking about that earlier today, thinking about
14:40
this interview, and and it's interesting that your your gateway
14:46
into the Christian world is you're coming through the fringe
14:49
Christian gateway. You know, Christians who like to talk about
14:56
science and technology and you know esoteric things and the
15:00
unseen realm, and you know, sort of this intersection of
15:06
Christian thought, a supernatural worldview, and the paranormal. And that's
15:12
sort of what the shows on the network sort of
15:14
fall into that category.
15:16
Speaker 2: Yeah, probably kind of unusual in that sense. Yeah, it's
15:21
probably not the main path for most folks.
15:23
Speaker 3: I'm probably not as fringe as some of the other
15:28
podcasters on the network. I'm very skeptical. I'm very I
15:33
don't like to get too carried away.
15:36
Speaker 2: You know. It's funny. I have like super I would say,
15:38
mainstream views on most of this stuff, but I still
15:41
just like listening to it. You know, Sure, it's interesting,
15:44
you like you kind of gotta stretch out your I
15:48
don't know your brain. Every once in a while, I
15:50
was talking to I went on Prometheus Lens sure, yeah,
15:55
justin Yeah, and I man, first of all, he's incredibly
15:59
smart guy. I didn't realize I hadn't really listened to
16:02
the show beforehand, and it did kind of catch me
16:05
off guard though, Like I didn't I had no idea
16:07
about any of that whole world of like, yeah, you know,
16:13
Kine is Bigfoot, Isau's Bigfoot? Like, whoa this is? This
16:18
is totally out of left field for me. It kind
16:20
of caught me off guard.
16:21
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's out of left field for a
16:23
lot of us too. I'm not sure if I if
16:26
I concur with all of his conclusions on that, But
16:31
like you, I like it is interesting, and I like
16:35
examining different viewpoints, uh, And I definitely appreciate that. And
16:40
and we have sort of a developed a healthy, uh
16:45
fellowship of you know, being able to kind of you know,
16:50
Johnny started out with The Iron Show, and the idea
16:52
of that was Iron sharpening Iron.
16:55
Speaker 2: You know, we're.
16:56
Speaker 3: Supposed to get together and sort of critique each other
16:59
and and kind of keep everybody focused on reality and
17:04
help each other not get to carried away down these
17:08
heretical paths or whatever at the same time, you know,
17:12
keeping an open mind. And there's some shows on the
17:14
network that are sort of more in the the New
17:17
Age realm and mysticism and that sort of thing too.
17:22
But like Johnny likes to say, we're not just a
17:26
fringe Christian network. We're a fringe network. So that's a
17:30
little bit of a bigger circle on the VENN diagram.
17:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, fringe radio.
17:36
Speaker 3: And I remember I remember listening to you and Alfredo
17:40
back when you were doing Philosophia that you had a
17:43
moment there where Alfredo was was letting you in on
17:46
the Genesis six and the Nephelum and the giants and
17:51
the you know, the fallen angels coming down to Earth
17:54
to mate with human women. And you just had this
17:57
sort of aha moment right in the middle of the show.
18:00
You're like, just wait a minute, what, like, you know, uh,
18:03
And it was it was great getting to listen. I
18:05
don't know if you remember that precise that.
18:08
Speaker 2: I don't even remember it.
18:09
Speaker 3: Yeah, but you sort of had this aha moment on
18:12
the air, and I think a lot of us had
18:14
the same aha moment when you know, I mean Genesis six,
18:20
the narrative of the fallen angels mating with the daughters
18:23
of men. That's sort of a main point of reference
18:27
for the fringe Christian people.
18:30
Speaker 2: I call that like, that's like the gateway drug.
18:34
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, exactly, it is the gateway, and you came
18:37
through that gateway.
18:39
Speaker 2: Yep, yep, definitely.
18:41
Speaker 3: And I think it's because it it affirms that there
18:45
is this supernatural realm there or dimension, however you want
18:49
to look at it, that interacts with us and has
18:54
interacted with mankind throughout.
18:56
Speaker 2: History, you know.
18:58
Speaker 3: And I think much of what the you know, so
19:01
called fringe Christians struggle with is reconciling that with this
19:06
postmodern materialist worldview that says nothing supernatural, None of that's real,
19:14
but it does seem like there's supernatural intervention in human
19:17
affairs when we you know, when we look at history,
19:20
and I think wrestling with this idea that science it's
19:25
traditionally it's limited in its ability to study, you know,
19:30
things that are more metaphysical. It's you can only really
19:34
study the observable physical world when it comes to you know,
19:38
empirical science.
19:40
Speaker 2: Now, now you're talking to the language, that's.
19:43
Speaker 3: What you know. But I don't. I also don't think
19:45
that science and religion are these mutually exclusive things. I
19:50
think science is a tool. I think the scientific method
19:53
is valid, and I was always interested in instances where
19:57
you know, people psychologists or whatever would try and find
20:04
the bridge between both of those worlds and the early
20:07
parapsychological researchers and always fascinated me. My dad always had
20:16
these books around the house on paranormal things and UFOs
20:20
and Bigfoot, and so I think that's where my interest
20:24
in the fringe things sort of began.
20:28
Speaker 4: Yeah.
20:28
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I mean I think it's pretty reasonable to try
20:30
to examine this stuff somewhat empirically. I mean, it's like,
20:37
like I like the video game analogy. We talk about
20:39
it all the time, unhappy fools, this idea, like if
20:43
we were going to conceptualize universe as you know, people
20:48
love the simulation hypothesis. People love it because it's it's
20:54
it's a created world with the creator without anyone having
20:58
to use like a word that makes them uncomfortable. Right,
21:02
They don't have to say God. They get to say
21:04
the universe like the universe created the simul or the
21:08
universe is experiencing itself. I just think for whatever reason,
21:15
I don't know if it's like this worldwide, but here
21:17
in the States, I mean, religion has taken on kind
21:20
of like a like an authoritarian, narrow minded reputation. You know, folks,
21:28
a lot of folks have, you know, religious trauma of
21:31
some kind or And I didn't really have religious trauma,
21:35
but I did grow up kind of thinking that, you know,
21:37
religion was for closed minded people and curious people were
21:42
into science, you know. So so when I see a
21:45
hypothesis like that simulation hypothesis, I'm like, hold on a second.
21:49
This this is a religious worldview, you know, this, this
21:52
is a religious worldview masquerading as a scientific theory, but
21:58
you know, saying we live in a simulation. You know,
22:03
simulate simulations have creators obviously, right, Simulations don't appear right naturally.
22:08
So so you're saying we live in a created world
22:11
and that it was created by a created being. So
22:13
you're kind of like, you're so close, just go all
22:16
the way, you know. And so the more the more
22:19
I heard theories like that, the more I heard scientists
22:22
like desperately seeking spirituality just but too afraid, you know,
22:28
too reluctant to use those words. I was like, oh, man,
22:33
what is the Big Bang? You know, like that sounds
22:36
like a creation event.
22:38
Speaker 3: Sure, well I wasn't. The Big Bang criticized early on
22:41
because it was too creationist, it sounded too much like
22:45
the Bible exactly, And now it's pretty much the mainstream,
22:50
mainstream view.
22:52
Speaker 2: Yeah. I don't think they know what to do with
22:54
the Big Bang because you know, it was created by
22:56
a priest. You know, I don't understand all the intricacies
23:00
of this stuff. Like to me, it was a Catholic priest,
23:03
but actually people say, no, it was a Jesuit priest.
23:07
I don't know. That seems to get people as like
23:09
conspiratorial juices flowing. I don't know enough about it to
23:12
know what that means. But the point was some a priest,
23:15
I don't know how to pronounce it's Italian, but George
23:18
Lamater or something like that, he put forward this Big
23:20
Bang idea, and yeah, he was It was criticized. Anyone
23:25
who supported that the idea, like Max Plank, like the
23:28
Big Bang idea, anyone who supported it. They were pretty
23:31
quickly criticized for just being overly religious and not not rational,
23:39
not empirical. And the prevailing view was that, you know,
23:42
the world in the universe was eternal, and so if
23:46
you suggested that there was indeed a beginning, then that
23:50
means someone had to you know, click start right, and
23:54
that that requires a creator. So yeah, people don't like it.
23:57
But here we are. Now, we're kind of in a
24:00
situation where people are trying to maybe say the Big
24:03
Bang wasn't the beginning. So I it's this weird it's
24:07
this weird pendulum. But you know, the last ten years,
24:11
as I've been watching this, I'm like, yeah, maybe I
24:16
was a little too quick to dismiss all these old
24:20
ideas because I've I've kind of been operating like as
24:24
a kid in the nineties, you know, Human Genome, Project
24:30
Space Shuttle. Like, I'm looking around and it seems like
24:32
science is on the verge of like answering some really
24:36
big questions. You know, we're going to cure disease, We're
24:41
gonna deal with this stuff, and then it develops sort
24:46
of like a religious It almost sort of feels like
24:51
a religion of religion. I mean we I would always
24:55
tell myself it's about it's about being curious, it's about
24:58
being rational, it's about following the evidence. But you know,
25:01
thirty years go by and you're like, okay, I know
25:04
what that was. You know, it makes sense that atheism
25:08
kind of peaked in two thousand and five twenty ten,
25:13
because you can only kind of sell that dream for
25:16
so long before people start going, well, maybe science isn't
25:20
supposed to be a worldview, you know, maybe it is
25:23
just a just a so anyway, So yeah, that kind
25:27
of led me down this road of like, what what
25:31
do we actually know? And we don't know a whole lot.
25:35
It's weird. I mean, in some sense, science is like
25:37
this amazing cutting edge thing. I work with neuroimaging every
25:44
day that you know, blows the mind the way it
25:46
measures proton spin and magnetic fields to look at blood vessels.
25:51
Like it's tech. It's technically very impressive, but in terms
25:55
of theories that explain the big questions, it's like we
25:58
know less than nothing, which is cool. I like that mystery.
26:01
But man, then you get into quantum mechanics and it's like, oh,
26:06
I need to read the Bible. That was basically my pipeline.
26:11
Speaker 3: So well just sort of throws everything out the window.
26:14
And it's like each discovery creates more questions and then
26:20
it sort of starts to become clear that Yeah, like
26:22
you said, how little we really know. Now it's like, well,
26:25
maybe gravity isn't real, you know, maybe you know, most
26:30
astrophysicists agree the universe is flat. I'm like, what, And
26:34
it's just these theories that they come up with dark matter.
26:39
Oh yeah, it just it seems like they're just grasping
26:46
to sort of fill in the blanks. And I think
26:50
that's why there is more of a turn towards spirituality
26:55
as sort of you know, maybe you can answer some
26:58
of these bigger existential questions. But at the same time,
27:02
I find, you know, science and science stories and discoveries fascinating.
27:07
I've always been fascinated with space and the universe and
27:13
these I.
27:16
Speaker 2: Think it's reasonable to kind of use science as a
27:18
tool to explore religion, though, I mean, the stuff I
27:22
talk about and write about it tends to upset scientific
27:26
people as much as it does religious people, you know,
27:28
because I just there there is like this instinct that like,
27:32
if you're religious, you know, science is the enemy. And
27:35
if you're like more like a rational atheist, scientifically minded person,
27:40
which by the way, not all scientists are atheists, but
27:42
that's a big portion, then if you try to say
27:46
anything that sounds sort of semi spiritual, it's like, what
27:49
are you doing? You know, So there is this weird
27:51
war going on. But that's not how it's always been.
27:56
I mean, a lot of these scientists doing these early
27:58
experiments and physics and quantum mechanics, a lot of them
28:01
were a lot of them are Christian. I mean, all
28:03
of the fathers of the current you know, mainstream model
28:08
which is currently under attack, but you know, the Copenhagen interpretation,
28:12
they were all not just religious, but most of them
28:15
are Christian. Most of them are Lutheran. Actually, like Max
28:18
Plank was Lutheran.
28:22
Speaker 3: I think of Isaac Newton, yet was he was he Lutheran?
28:26
I'm not sure. I know he's Christian, but I don't
28:29
remember what denomination.
28:32
Speaker 2: Really. One of the only like big guys who wasn't
28:36
like an openly religious person was Einstein. And even Einstein
28:41
kind of had a weird spirituality too, So it's yeah,
28:44
it's uh, it didn't used to be like this. It's
28:47
weird that it is now like that. But when you
28:50
look at some of the ideas like Heisenberg was putting forward,
28:53
like yeah, you've got to be you've got to be
28:56
open minded to the supernatural too to do that, And
29:00
so that was one of the things that bought One
29:01
of the things that bothered me is like, I'm willing
29:05
to have some faith, but there is this balance like
29:11
if you believe everything, that mean that kind of means
29:13
you believe nothing right. And so if you're not like
29:16
I wasn't, I wasn't raised to Christians. So when you're
29:20
not raised a Christian and you're looking out at the landscape,
29:22
like what should I believe in? If a Christian tells
29:26
you you just have to have faith, You're like, well,
29:28
I could use that argument for anything, like maybe I
29:32
should walk into a a mosque and you know, just
29:38
have faith in that. Right, There's got to be some
29:39
type of discernment, you know, like I need a way
29:42
to kind of navigate this, you know, so there's got
29:45
to be, like, there's got to be some investigation. You can't.
29:51
I personally have faith. I'm a Christian now, but I
29:57
don't think you can just use as an argument for
30:01
someone who's not Christian, because it's not compelling. You know,
30:04
you need you need a rationale. And so I think
30:07
science can actually be used that way. I think you
30:11
can make a scientific case for certainly for God, and
30:13
then even I think for Christianity too, So you.
30:16
Speaker 3: Can certainly make a logical philosophical argument. I never really
30:23
had the atheist viewpoint. I always believed in God at
30:27
some level, and I just figured, well, maybe you know,
30:31
there's different ways to look at it. There's different you know,
30:34
we understand differently in today's society. But I never really
30:40
thought that things just happened randomly, you know, just the
30:45
universe churning away and things just happening by chance. I
30:50
never really believed that, But I've believed pretty much like
30:55
everything else at some point interesting raised sort of nominally Catholic.
31:01
My dad came from a really strict Catholic background, Portuguese Catholic.
31:05
He went to a boys Catholic boarding school.
31:09
Speaker 2: But where'd you grow up? I don't know, you said,
31:11
do you still live in California? But is that where
31:13
you grew up?
31:13
Speaker 3: Yeah? I was born and raised there, lived in the
31:15
Bay Area.
31:17
Speaker 2: Okay, I didn't know they had many Catholics in the
31:20
Bay Well maybe maybe twenty years ago, thirty years ago.
31:23
Now it's now. It's a different place for sure. But anyway,
31:27
I digress.
31:28
Speaker 3: Sorry, Well, the thing was, my mom was a Presbyterian,
31:32
and you know, in order to marry my dad, with
31:36
as traditional of a Catholic family as he was from,
31:38
it was you know, she had to convert to Catholicism
31:42
in order for them to get married and there would
31:45
be children. There's all these you know, stipulations they had
31:48
to go to marriage. Catholics have a whole marriage initiation
31:53
ritual and classes that you have to go to before
31:56
you can even get married in the church. So I
31:59
think initially my parents tried to raise us Catholic and
32:02
we went to Catechism class and my mom tried to
32:05
read Bible stories to me and my sister. After time,
32:09
they kind of, I guess, got lazy with that and
32:12
we just were left to figure things out on our own.
32:15
And so I've ever since then been on a quest
32:20
I've looked into a lot of different things, from you know,
32:24
New Age and shamanism, to different denominations within Christianity.
32:30
Speaker 2: What have you landed on so far? What's your current view?
32:34
Speaker 3: Well, I'm sort of coming out of this Pentecostal I
32:39
guess you could call it evangelical realm, where it's the
32:45
Bible is the only authority, Like with the Catholics and
32:52
the Orthodox, the tradition of the Church and the Church
32:56
fathers is very important and just as valid in many
33:00
cases as the printed Bible.
33:03
Speaker 2: Okay, Yeah, And.
33:06
Speaker 3: So I'm sort of drifting more towards the Orthodox position
33:09
on a lot of these things. And so I guess
33:13
that's sort of been my I've never really settled on
33:18
one viewpoint, or never really felt comfortable calling myself, you know,
33:23
a Pentecostal or a Catholic or I think I retain
33:27
certain bits and pieces of those traditions and those memories
33:32
for my past, but I'm always integrating it into sort
33:35
of my current view on things.
33:40
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's it's kind of in some sense unknowable,
33:43
and maybe maybe it doesn't matter that you get exactly
33:48
the right join exactly the right team. I mean, that's
33:51
one of the things that for me, like reading the
33:54
Gospels for the first time, you know, less than a
33:59
year ago. Was so I wasn't raised Christian, but I
34:05
was surrounded by Christian people, you know, and so I
34:07
grew up in the Midwest and everybody was Catholic. And
34:11
so if I was at my friend's house on Sunday
34:13
or even there was another day they went like Wednesday
34:15
or something. If I was there, we went to Mass,
34:20
and I just thought it was the strangest thing in
34:22
the world, man Like not being and not having any
34:27
exposure to that. I mean, the most Christian thing I
34:30
knew about was was Santa Claus, you know, and I
34:34
was like, I was like, what is this. There's like
34:37
incense and funny hats, Like I just I thought it
34:40
was goofy. You know. I feel bad saying that now
34:42
because it's an ancient tradition obviously, but I just thought
34:46
it was goofy because it was never there was like,
34:50
no explanation, you know, it was just we follow these practices,
34:54
we do these rituals. We did the Rosary in the
34:56
living room at his house, and that's all good. You know,
35:01
that's great. And then you know, I get exposed to
35:05
you know, I I knew some people who were Seventh
35:07
day Adventists and they they were like, no, that's all wrong,
35:11
and actually, you know, the pope's probably the Antichrist. And
35:13
I was like, oh, okay, you know, and then I
35:16
you know, I met another group and they told me this,
35:18
and this other group told me that, and so I'm
35:20
just experiencing this like exposure to I guess, you know,
35:25
what you'd call Christianity. And meanwhile, like when I go
35:29
to a classroom on genetics, it's like, we all agree,
35:32
this is how it works. It's logical, it's empirical use
35:35
deductive reasoning. And so that just to me made so
35:38
much more sense until I read well, this obviously is
35:42
a long process of conversion. But when I read the Gospels,
35:45
I was like, I don't recognize any of this from
35:50
my childhood exposure to Christianity, you know, I mean the
35:54
whole book is basically him telling people like you're you're
35:56
way too caught up in traditions and rituals, and like
36:01
it's it's about what's in your heart. It's about you know.
36:05
The whole Sermon on the Mount is like basically like
36:07
a refutation of in a way mosaic law. And I
36:13
was like, whoa, this is cool. This guy's a rebel,
36:15
you know, like he's a religious he's like leading a
36:19
religious revolution against a religious authority in government. I'm like,
36:23
this is not what I learned about. And you know what,
36:27
all the different experiences I had, so for me, that
36:29
was kind of an eye opener. And most people I
36:31
meet who kind of give me a hard time about this,
36:35
which is everybody, because I didn't really have any Christian
36:38
friends until recently. Is uh. All of their issues are
36:42
with the institution, not with not with the material, you know,
36:51
or with like a person like, oh I knew someone
36:53
who said I was going to go to Hell for
36:56
this reason, or like they believe this politically or or
37:00
in the fifteen hundreds they burned cause you know, scientists
37:05
at the stake. And it's like, Okay, I get it,
37:08
but just I don't know. Take a look. Read the book,
37:11
check it out it's not what you'd expect. So I'm rambling,
37:15
but that was my experience when I when I saw that,
37:19
I was like, oh, I got to look into this.
37:22
But to your point, I mean, there's something about the
37:25
people who were closer in time to Jesus, like you're
37:29
talking about the Apostolic fathers and stuff. I mean, they're
37:34
a thousand years closer more than we were obviously, So
37:38
there's something to be said.
37:39
Speaker 3: For that, definitely. And when you get into the early
37:42
Church fathers, which I'm not super well read on, you know,
37:46
some of them actually were around to see Jesus or
37:50
John right right, And so I think there is some
37:54
value in that. I think there is value in the
37:57
liturgical worship versus Protestant churches, where it's more like you're
38:03
in a meeting hall, you know, read some scriptures from
38:06
the Bible, you know, sing a few songs. It's kind
38:09
of like a little rock concert, and you know, then
38:14
go home. And that didn't really appeal to me either.
38:19
I'm sort of in limbo land here as far as
38:23
and a lot of fringe people that consider themselves fringe Christians,
38:27
I would say, are mostly you know, unchurched. They haven't
38:31
been able to find a church community that is really
38:36
supportive of them or is interested in the same sort
38:40
of strange stuff in the Bible that they are. And
38:44
so we sort of have like podcast church, you know,
38:48
and we start our own podcasts to talk about the
38:51
things that, you know, our pastors don't want us to
38:54
talk about.
38:55
Speaker 2: Man, I think that is the best explanation for this
38:58
that I've ever heard, because yeah, I was doing an
39:00
interview recently and they and she was saying like, so,
39:03
how would you describe your views? And like I didn't
39:06
know what that meant, Like I didn't know that question
39:08
meant like are you Methodist? Are you you know, Lutheran?
39:11
You know, are you Catholic? And so I'm like trying
39:13
to give this like my theology, you know, and she's like, no, no, no,
39:17
I just bean like what yourch you go to? And
39:19
it's like, oh, well, I I was like, well, I'm
39:22
ashamed to say I really I don't. And she's like,
39:26
what you're You're on the show about discovering Christianity and stuff,
39:30
and I was like, I guess And I was like,
39:32
you're right, I don't even know where to start. I mean, yeah,
39:35
cause to me, like you brought it up earlier, like
39:39
Genesis six. Okay, what's that about? Okay, Well, there's no explanation,
39:44
so it seems like the reader would have known what
39:47
the author meant. And so well, where's where's the subtext? Like,
39:52
where's the context? Oh, there's this other apocryphal book that
39:56
kind of describes that is it's not con though, Okay,
40:01
but was it something that was read by people?
40:04
Speaker 3: Yes?
40:04
Speaker 2: Probably, you know a lot of people would have known
40:07
this book like it. It may have been in the
40:10
like uh, you know, Jewish scribal libraries in Jesus's day
40:15
or whatever. Oh okay, well that seems interesting. No you
40:19
don't read that like, oh okay, I mean that's fine.
40:23
I don't necessarily I don't know what to believe. There's
40:25
a lot of bad there's a lot of stuff that
40:27
is probably made up, like a lot of the I
40:30
don't want to offend people. I don't know, but a
40:32
lot of the Gnostic Gospels and stuff like a lot
40:34
of them are probably for century and maybe they're right.
40:38
I don't know, but they're certainly not first hand accounts.
40:41
And so I get there is like debate, of course,
40:45
but I'm like, well, and then you find out like
40:49
that the Book of Knoch is quoted in the New Testament,
40:51
it's like, oh, anyway, I'm super curious about it. And
40:56
then you do bump into that thing I remember from
40:58
my childhood, which is that Christians aren't curious. And so yeah,
41:03
I get while we're on podcasts talking about this stuff.
41:06
Speaker 3: Yeah, and also, you know, to be fair, I think
41:09
most pastors are probably have a lot of a lot
41:12
on their table and are trying to counsel a lot
41:16
of different people at the same time. And and you know,
41:19
it's much easier to be dismissive about some of the
41:22
more mysterious things that you read in the Bible or
41:25
some of these Not.
41:27
Speaker 2: Every churches, not every church member wants to do like
41:31
a deep dive into giants. You know, maybe they want
41:35
they're grieving about it. I mean, there's a million reasons
41:37
why you go to church. I just I just was
41:39
kind of caught off guard by that question, and I'm
41:41
I was trying to rationalize to myself, like, why don't
41:43
like to go to church? I mean, I probably should,
41:45
you know, But to your point, the podcast kind of
41:49
does feel like church sometimes.
41:52
Speaker 3: Yeah, And we try to have fellowship among ourselves. I
41:55
mean most of my friends or other podcasters around here,
41:59
so we sort of kind of fellowship with each other
42:03
and bounce ideas off of each other and thoughts, and
42:07
we get into some theological discussions and debates among ourselves
42:12
as well. And so you kind of really fit well
42:16
into that mix. And I really appreciate people that are
42:23
able to have a healthy amount of skepticism because there
42:29
is a lot of debate and there's a lot of
42:31
disagreements among Christians. I mean, I think that's obvious. I mean,
42:35
there's thirty thousand some odd denominations of Protestantism. They can't
42:40
all be one hundred percent correct, you know. And I
42:45
don't think when you reach the afterlife, God is going
42:49
to be asking, you know, well, were you a Lutheran?
42:54
Were you a Catholic, because that's gonna make a lot
42:58
of difference. And what I decided, I think, like you said,
43:03
reading through the Gospels, it's more about the condition of
43:07
your heart than every you know, rule and regulation that
43:10
you followed or messed up on.
43:11
Speaker 2: And right, yeah, exactly, I mean you could. I again,
43:18
I'm the last person to you know, be talking to theology.
43:22
Ask me about neuroscience. I'll give you a good answer.
43:24
But I mean, there is that one part I don't
43:26
remember which gospel, but where Jesus is kind of like
43:31
excoriating I think it's one of the Pharisees about how
43:36
they're so meticulous about tithing the exact right amount of
43:40
mentally for like you know, spice, right, Like they're just
43:44
they're picking the individual grains out of their hand, and
43:48
meanwhile they're like doing this other horrible thing, like they're
43:51
they're they're treating their neighbor terribly, or they're you know,
43:54
they're a non believer or whatever. I don't remember the
43:56
story exactly, but what I took from that was like, yeah,
43:59
you can get a little too caught up in the
44:02
minutia of the rule of the rules and kind of
44:04
miss the bigger point.
44:05
Speaker 3: Yeah, I definitely think that's the meaning of that. That's
44:08
that's the intention of that passage. Just he's constantly calling
44:12
out the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, you know, right, they're
44:17
more concerned with the people looking at them because they're
44:22
the holy ones.
44:23
Speaker 2: There's that there's that line about like, don't be like
44:26
the Pharisees who stand in the synagogue, praying aloud, or
44:31
darken their face with ash so that everyone sees that
44:34
they're fasting. Like go into your bedroom, close the door,
44:37
you know, pray to the Father's Like, oh dude, if
44:40
there's one thing I get from that whole four books,
44:43
that's said Jesus does not like hypocrites, and that's the
44:46
most relatable thing in the world. You know, we all
44:49
hate hypocrites. It's a yeah anyway. So that's that's definitely
44:55
what kind of got me. I mean, the inconsistencies in
44:59
science got to agnosticism, Like they got me from atheism
45:02
to agnosticism. It's like, clearly there's something wrong with the
45:06
scientific worldview. We don't you know, neuroscience is a line
45:10
about their explanation for consciousness. It's wrong, it doesn't make sense,
45:13
it's non scientific. It's contradictory. So that got me. And
45:19
then you know, like we mentioned the big thing, and
45:22
we don't have an explanation for a biogenesis, which is
45:25
like the emergence of life from non life. We just
45:27
pretend like evolution explains it, but evolution doesn't. Evolution explains
45:31
how you get life from life. And I'm like, wait
45:33
a second to be an atheist at this point, I
45:36
would I would really be digging my heels in, like
45:39
I'd be lying to myself. So that got me to agnosticism.
45:42
But then yeah, reading, I mean going back reading the
45:44
Gospels and kind of exploring that I kind of got
45:48
me a little bit farther well.
45:49
Speaker 3: In the nineties it was the Intelligent Design, which sort
45:54
of tried to bridge the gap there between you know,
45:56
creationism and you know evolution, saying, well, it looks like,
46:01
you know, there's some kind of designer, but you know,
46:04
we're not going to go as far as to say
46:06
it's God. You know, it's some you know, universal principle
46:10
of design or something that you know, yeah, some far
46:15
off intelligence that we can't really penetrate. That's response.
46:19
Speaker 2: I mean, on the one hand, I kind of I
46:21
kind of appreciate those efforts. I mean, that's kind of
46:24
what I'm doing in the book. I'm trying to like
46:26
reach people who are like me ten years ago, you know.
46:30
But on the other hand, it's like you kind of
46:33
just got to go all the way. Like I'm not
46:36
saying you need to believe in literal things like you know,
46:39
Young Earth flattered. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying
46:41
you kind of do have to sort of examine the
46:45
evidence and pick aside at some point. I think, you know,
46:47
I've been I've been digging into this stuff for twenty years.
46:50
Like at some point, if I don't pick aside, I'm
46:52
just being ah. I don't know what the word is,
46:55
but I think at some point you do kind of
46:57
need to commit to something, some ideology to explain where
47:02
this all comes from.
47:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, I certainly have you know, a handful of things
47:07
that I'm certain about and other things I'm not so
47:10
certain about. And that's okay. I can I can live.
47:14
Speaker 2: Some of the uncertain things. I mean, I certainly have
47:16
some as well, So I'm curious that they're the same.
47:19
Speaker 3: Some of the uncertain things.
47:21
Speaker 2: Uh, I don't want to put you on the spot.
47:24
I can give you some of mine. First.
47:26
Speaker 3: Well, when it comes to when we're talking about the
47:29
end times, you know, sort of the end of all
47:31
things and the eschatology, when Jesus returns, you know, the
47:40
idea of the rapture and this sort of thing. I'm
47:45
sort of had all these presuppositions about the timeline of
47:52
these things happening. That's all come into question now as
47:55
I'm sort of digging a little bit deeper, like where
48:00
are we exactly in relationship to the end of the
48:03
world and where can I find this? I just, I
48:07
just I have this great desire to map out the
48:10
end times and just make a timeline so I can
48:13
step back and look at it and understand sort of
48:16
where we're at. And that's got to be one of
48:19
the most difficult things that I'm just really not sure about.
48:24
Speaker 2: Do you think do you think it's that you're just
48:29
not supposed to know exactly?
48:32
Speaker 3: Yeah? I have thought that, Well, maybe it's a mystery
48:35
for a reason, right exactly. And even the apostles asked, Jesus,
48:40
you know when you know what will be the signs
48:42
of your return and the end of the world, And
48:44
Jesus is like, well, make sure that nobody deceives you.
48:49
That was the first thing out of his mouth.
48:52
Speaker 2: Didn't they think it was going to happen in their lifetime?
48:54
Isn't there some evidence of that? I feel like I
48:56
remember eating something like it's going to happen in this
48:59
generation or something.
49:00
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that was their perception that and and
49:06
I think some prophecies were fulfilled in that time or
49:09
shortly after that, others remained to be fulfilled. But prophecy
49:15
is kind of a tricky thing. It's sort of this
49:17
cyclical thing. We'll tell you what. Let's take a quick
49:21
break and when we come back, we'll be rejoined by
49:26
Trevor and we'll talk a little bit about his book,
49:31
God's Eye View. You're listening to Ministry X on Fringe
49:35
Radio Network.
49:37
Speaker 4: This range.
50:00
Speaker 6: Most ready most.
50:11
Speaker 4: The last time.
50:14
Speaker 6: I got moves.
50:35
Speaker 2: Son of Ringes in the.
50:41
Speaker 4: Most.
51:21
Speaker 3: All right, we're back Trevor. If you want to maybe
51:33
pivot a little bit more to your book. Now, you
51:36
give everyone a rundown of your your particular uh branch
51:43
of science. You know what your research is and what
51:45
you study, what you you know you got your pH
51:48
d in? And is there anything specifically in your line
51:55
of research that would is like a good example of
51:59
what sparked your questioning, your curiosity into this more sort
52:04
of metaphysical space.
52:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so. I mean there's kind of there's something,
52:09
there's something kind of tangentially related, not directly related, but.
52:12
Speaker 3: Yeah, so.
52:13
Speaker 2: I my undergrad was cellular and molecular biology. I went
52:18
to I went to college, I ended college right as
52:24
the financial collapse was happening undergrad so I just I
52:28
thought maybe I wanted to be a doctor. And then
52:31
I realized, like maybe I don't know if I really
52:33
have the discipline and the motivation for that. I mean,
52:37
I was smart, I could pass tests, but like I
52:40
just was not a diligent person. I was just very
52:45
much like even then, like a seeker. I had add
52:48
when it came to what I thought I wanted to
52:50
do with my life. And I wanted to make like
52:54
everybody like I want to make, you know, eighty thousand
52:56
dollars a year. I'm I'm twenty or how old. I
53:00
was like eighteen. I'm like no, no, no, sorry, twenty two,
53:02
I'm twenty two. I want to make I want to
53:05
get to six figures. What do I do? And back then,
53:08
the thing like there was all these like websites like
53:11
how to make one hundred grand, you know, and the
53:13
recommendation was physical therapy, and I'm like, well, I could
53:16
do that, and it was quick. I got a clinical
53:18
doctor at first in physical therapy. I went out into
53:21
the healthcare world, and I realized I made a huge mistake.
53:25
I did not really enjoy the like repetitiveness of it,
53:30
the paperwork, doing the same thing, dealing with I'm an introvert.
53:35
I'm like, what am I doing. I'm in this like
53:37
crazy extrovert profession working with patients all day. So I said,
53:42
maybe I'll get into healthcare administration. So I did that,
53:46
and then I was making pretty good money. And then
53:50
I just saw behind the curtain of healthcare administration and
53:53
it was just horrible. It was soul crushing. I did
53:56
it for six years, though. It was just absolute broke
54:01
me and I ended up getting fired for not getting
54:04
the COVID vaccine. Actually it was brutal man. I mean,
54:08
there's aspects of it though I did well at like
54:11
there's kind of this like data analytics component of it,
54:14
like looking at the numbers, figuring out ways to optimize.
54:18
But the politics and the really what the game was
54:22
is walk up to the line of breaking the law,
54:26
but don't cross it. Extract as much money as you
54:29
can from the government from patients, and then take as
54:33
much from our employees as we possibly can, you know,
54:37
and and and your job is to just give them
54:40
bad news with a smile on your face. And it
54:42
was horrible. I hated it. I hated every second of it.
54:44
So when I got laid off, you know, it was
54:47
obviously scary because I had kids and a wife and
54:51
a mortgage. But and the you know, I ended up
54:54
being the best thing that ever happened to me. I
54:55
went back, I got my PhD. I my doctoral work
54:59
was on on gene expression. I think part of me
55:03
was kind of irked about getting laid off about the
55:05
COVID vaccine, so I was like, maybe I'll become an
55:07
expert in mRNA, you.
55:08
Speaker 7: Know, And.
55:12
Speaker 2: So that's what I mean. Gene expression is just basically
55:14
the study of you're looking at for each gene, whether
55:18
or not it's being expressed in an express gene. I mean,
55:21
the way you measure that is mRNA, and so you
55:24
can kind of identify patterns. It's called bioinformatics. You identify
55:28
patterns in cell types to see what's going on. It's
55:32
like taking a photo of what is going on in
55:35
a cell, every single mRNA which will be turned into
55:39
protein at a given time. And so my focus was
55:42
aging and the way gene expression changed with aging, and
55:46
so I got really good at statistics and I finished
55:50
my PhD. I don't know what to do I really
55:53
liked research. I loved it. So I was like, finally
55:56
I found something I like. I was lucky enough to
55:58
get a job as a poet stock, which if you
56:02
want to do research full time after you get your PhD,
56:05
you normally do two to eight years of postdoctornal training,
56:08
which means you get paid nothing and you just do
56:10
tons of work, just tons of work. And the idea
56:15
is you develop like a specialty, which I did, and
56:19
my specialty was in vascular neuroscience, so the relationship between
56:23
the heart and the brain. And then I became an
56:27
assistant professor at a medical school, which is what I
56:29
do now, so in neurology. So but the other part
56:34
of your question that was a sorry for that detailed story,
56:37
but now you guys know me. So the part of
56:40
the question was like, well, is there anything related to
56:42
that that led to this and to the book, and
56:44
it was I don't necessarily do consciousness research, although I
56:49
do study neurodegenerative disease. And there's a lot of overlap,
56:53
you know, between some of the consciousness work. You know,
56:55
a lot of the consciousness researchers use fMRI and EEG
57:00
and I use all that I'm very familiar with all that,
57:02
so just kind of in my spare time reading papers
57:05
and stuff, it just became clear to me that science
57:09
has no explanation for the human experience. For consciousness. It
57:15
is described as an emergent property of network complexity, and
57:21
so what that means, like if you think about a
57:24
school of fish. Actually, I think a snowflake is a
57:28
better example. If you think about a snowflake, nowhere in
57:32
that snowflake are instructions for the design of the snowflake. Right,
57:37
It's a result of some property at a microscopic scale,
57:42
some relationship. You know, there's a certain way that maybe
57:46
there's a certain distance between water molecules that snowflakes tend
57:51
to freeze, and it results in this emergent pattern. So
57:55
you look at the snowflake, You're like, look at the
57:56
design behind the snowflake is incredible. Where is this stora? Well,
57:59
it's not stored anywhere. It's an emergent property. And you know,
58:03
schools of fish, flocks of birds, these are all similar ideas.
58:07
Like the fish just knows to stay a certain distance
58:10
away from the fish on either side, and it creates
58:13
this big sphere of fish in the ocean. Right, That's
58:18
that's a scientific explanation for consciousness that at a given
58:21
level of neuron network complexity, consciousness emerges. It's completely flawed.
58:29
It's pseudoscientific. First of all, doesn't even make sense because,
58:33
like with fish, it's a it's a geometric rule. You know,
58:38
I'm gonna stay two inches from the fish on my
58:41
left and two inches from the fish on my right.
58:43
It's a geometric rule that leads to a geometric pattern.
58:47
So the emergent property and the underlying rule are both
58:50
of the same category, you know what I mean, Like
58:52
they're spatial, they're geometry. But to say like, yeah, the
58:56
more complex these neurons are, you get the experience of
59:01
witnessing your inner thoughts and feeling an emotion and seeing
59:05
a sunset, it's a completely different type. It's it's what
59:10
we would call a category air in science. So they're
59:14
breaking all the like freshman year rules of doing science
59:17
when they come up with this theory. And I was like, well,
59:19
that's interesting, you know, And so that really was the
59:22
kind of the first domino that got me started on
59:25
this journey.
59:26
Speaker 3: That's a really interesting thought because you would tend to think,
59:29
you know, the like you said, the more complex that
59:34
the idea that consciousness arises from more complex organizations. You
59:41
know that that ball of fish sort of becomes a
59:44
singular organism, but it doesn't necessarily follow that that the
59:49
fish are somehow like psychically communicating with each other or
59:53
anything like that to figure out you know, when you
59:56
would left and when to move right, And you know,
59:58
same thing with flock of birds. It looks like it
1:00:00
takes on its own sort of life form.
1:00:03
Speaker 2: And it and it would be it would have to
1:00:05
be like there would have to be like a different okay,
1:00:09
so it would be like saying the fact that a
1:00:11
fish stays two inches to the left of it one
1:00:14
partner in right inches two inches to the right of
1:00:17
its other neighbor, and now fish can create thermal nuclear energy.
1:00:22
It's like it's there's a type difference, Like you're going
1:00:26
from a geometric rule to a geometric pattern and a
1:00:29
school of fish. That's fine. You know, you're doing the
1:00:33
same thing with the snowflake. You're doing the same thing
1:00:36
with an ant colony. But then you go to you
1:00:39
go to a human brain, and it's like, yeah, when
1:00:41
things get really complex, you get self awareness and people
1:00:46
do not appreciate what's what consciousness means has been my experience,
1:00:50
Like there's there's obviously a different Okay, so I'm talking
1:00:54
into a microphone. I'm talking into a microphone. The microphone
1:00:59
is a perfect analogy for my ear, Like there's a membrane,
1:01:04
there's a crystal that converts it to a digital signal
1:01:07
or analog than digital in my the cochalia in my
1:01:11
ear does the exact same thing, and so I send
1:01:15
that digital signal to my computer gets sent to you.
1:01:18
There's obviously something different between that and the experience of
1:01:23
me hearing a word. Right, It's like it's like it's
1:01:27
not just going into my brain, like I'm hearing it,
1:01:30
and it's like, well, who is who's the eye in
1:01:32
that sentence? Who is hearing who's experiencing it? Like that's
1:01:36
the definition of consciousness, is right? I have an experience
1:01:39
of being behind my eyes between my ears, I can
1:01:43
hear my own thoughts, but I can't hear yours. Who's
1:01:47
the eye in that scenario? Like we need an answer
1:01:50
for that? That isn't just like well, when things get
1:01:52
really complicated, you know, subjective experience emerges it you could
1:01:59
tell it frush, Like it just totally frustrates me because
1:02:01
it's such a it's such a non scientific thing to say,
1:02:07
and I just more and more I'm noticing that, in
1:02:10
an attempt to better explain the world, the institution of
1:02:16
science has started taking like some really crazy shortcuts, and
1:02:20
then when people do come along with interesting ideas scientists,
1:02:25
they get shouted down if they're not the idea that
1:02:29
we've all agreed to. Like I we talk a lot
1:02:34
on the show about Roger Penrose and Stuart hammer Off.
1:02:38
These are you know, one guys a Nobel Prize winner,
1:02:41
one guy's a professor emeritus. They've got all the credibility
1:02:45
in the world. The second they put forward a different
1:02:49
idea of consciousness from the mainstream idea, it's like it's
1:02:53
like they might as well have no credentials at all.
1:02:57
They just get completely shut down as free, ringe, crazy people.
1:03:01
And it's like that's I mean, maybe science has always
1:03:04
been like that, but as a kid growing up, that
1:03:07
was never my impression of science. So once I started
1:03:09
seeing that, I was like, oh, this is this is
1:03:12
a religion too, you.
1:03:13
Speaker 3: Know, yeah it is. It is its own religion, or
1:03:17
it can be. And I you know, I have a
1:03:20
coworker that I work with who just insists, you know,
1:03:23
everything would be better if scientists ruled the world. And
1:03:28
because scientists all they do is they just look at
1:03:31
the data. They just look at the facts, and they
1:03:33
just make decisions and create things based on their factual observations.
1:03:40
And he doesn't realize all the politics that go into
1:03:45
how you interpret the data, what conclusions you draw from
1:03:49
the data, or who's you know, sponsoring your research, you know,
1:03:52
is looking for a certain result. And you know, I
1:03:56
have to constantly tell him. I've said, well, yeah, science
1:03:59
is great everything, and I'm all for like studying things
1:04:03
and looking at data and looking at the facts. But
1:04:07
all of that, all that data has to be interpreted
1:04:10
by some something. It has to be folded into like
1:04:13
this already existing system of assumptions that we make about
1:04:18
the world around us. And well, it'd be great if
1:04:21
we just like looked at the data.
1:04:23
Speaker 2: But it's comforting that there's this idea of like the
1:04:26
special class of human being that doesn't have bias or
1:04:31
you know, an instinct to belong to a group, or
1:04:35
an instinct to build his prestige or her prestige or
1:04:38
her reputation. That's comforting to think that there is this
1:04:42
group of like elite people doing that, but that's not
1:04:45
the case at all. I mean, everybody's human, man, and
1:04:48
so there's there's many layers of problems, and they're not
1:04:54
generally the problems that I would say, like the more
1:04:59
popular conspiracies about science. I mean, I listen, I'm pretty
1:05:04
open minded to conspiracy myself, but generally I hear it's like, oh, well,
1:05:10
it's you just got to follow the money. And yeah,
1:05:12
there's definitely some of that, like especially in pharmaceuticals and stuff,
1:05:15
but generally in science, I would say it's it's an
1:05:19
instinct to belong. And so if the prevailing consensus is
1:05:25
that consciousness is a product of network complexity, and I'm
1:05:30
somebody I want to advance at work. I want my
1:05:34
coworkers to like me. I don't want people to think
1:05:37
I'm stupid. You follow you know, you you do what's
1:05:42
going to help your career. That is, like I would say,
1:05:46
the root problem, there's very few people who are willing
1:05:51
to kind of challenge a narrative. So if you've got
1:05:55
a data set and you're looking at it and you
1:05:57
keep getting a different you're like, well, I wonder if
1:06:02
I do it this way or that way, and like
1:06:04
you're you have a you have an aim in mind,
1:06:06
like you're trying to arrive at a certain conclusion before
1:06:09
you even look at the data, you know. And so
1:06:12
I would say that's kind of the big problem in
1:06:17
science is like this this instinct to just get along,
1:06:23
you know, right, And that's like really sad, Like that's
1:06:26
kind of the opposite of what science is supposed to be.
1:06:28
And and not everybody's like that. You know, there are
1:06:31
some brave people, but not that many.
1:06:34
Speaker 3: Yeah, and when they do well. You you listen to
1:06:37
Brothers of the Serpent, right, you guys are in their discord.
1:06:40
Speaker 2: I heard you say brain expansion earlier, and I was
1:06:43
wondering if that reference to that or not.
1:06:45
Speaker 3: Yes, that's become part of the vernacular.
1:06:48
Speaker 2: I just went on their show. I'm the next episode
1:06:50
that comes out.
1:06:50
Speaker 3: Oh that's awesome, that's great. I'm glad to hear it.
1:06:52
Those guys are great. But I'm very much on board
1:06:55
with the idea that you know, we're finding out like
1:06:58
consciousness doesn't live in your brain, that that consciousness is
1:07:04
much more of an integral part of the whole system
1:07:10
may actually extend, you know, beyond the physical body. Yeah,
1:07:17
all those sort of questions, you know, fascinate me and
1:07:21
have you know, for a long time. And I just
1:07:26
listened to your Your Shroud of Turin episode episode this morning. Actually,
1:07:34
what what do you find that's most fascinating about about that?
1:07:40
Speaker 2: So that when this book comes out is when I'll
1:07:42
officially lose all credibility. So I'm gonna need people to
1:07:45
buy my book because I'll be out of a job.
1:07:47
But yeah, yeah, so the next book I'm working on.
1:07:53
First book, by the way, plug God's Eye. View search
1:07:56
it on Amazon, help me out much appreciate it. But yeah,
1:08:00
So I started my editor on this last book was
1:08:04
saying like, hey, if you write another book, do some interviews.
1:08:07
Interview some people like I wrote about Penrose and hammer
1:08:12
Off in my last book. Interview them and so anyway,
1:08:17
so I started exploring topics and I've just been kind
1:08:22
of circling the Shroud of Turn like peripherally it's interesting,
1:08:26
but of course it was carbon dated, so it's a fake.
1:08:31
Then I see a really compelling paper showing that well
1:08:33
the carbon dating was of a repair and the repair
1:08:37
was done in the medieval times and that's why. And
1:08:40
here's the evidence. And I'm reading I'm like, oh, this
1:08:42
is methodologically really impressive, this paper, right, And I'm like, well,
1:08:46
let me look at the other side of things, and
1:08:49
they're emotional. It's methodologically weak. The critics of the Shroud
1:08:54
of Turn are not. You usually expect the skeptical position
1:08:59
to be better, so it generally for things like this, right,
1:09:02
I mean, and then it's up to you whether or
1:09:03
not you want to be open minded or not and
1:09:05
explore the fringes or whatever. But in this case it's
1:09:08
the exact opposite. So I'm like, Okay, let me email
1:09:10
some of these guys. I email some of the researchers,
1:09:13
some of the investigators. They get back to me. And
1:09:17
I've been on like a three month adventure exploring this thing,
1:09:21
and it is inexplainable, unexplainable. You can't listen. I'm maybe
1:09:29
it's not the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, but someone
1:09:34
needs to come up with a way to explain this
1:09:36
thing because it is fascinating. So I'm curious, what have
1:09:40
you heard about it already? Had you been familiar with
1:09:44
it before?
1:09:44
Speaker 3: Yeah? I have been, and I heard the same research
1:09:49
that you encountered that well, there's this mysterious shroud supposedly
1:09:54
the burial cloth of Jesus. It's evidence for the resurrection.
1:10:01
But it was carbon dated and it turned out to
1:10:03
be from the Middle Ages, that's right.
1:10:05
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:10:06
Speaker 3: And then more recently, yeah, well it's not so conclusive
1:10:10
because it turns out the sample that they tested was
1:10:13
a patch a repair on the on the on the shroud,
1:10:17
and you know, they they have been able to determine
1:10:20
some things about it. Definitively, it's it's not paint. It's
1:10:25
it's not been painted on there. I mean, we don't
1:10:28
have an explanation exactly for how the image appears on
1:10:31
the shroud. But they don't know what caused it. It's
1:10:34
a mystery.
1:10:35
Speaker 2: It is unbelievable. It's fascinating, and it's I think it's
1:10:40
a good story, man. I mean, I'm speaking as an
1:10:42
author right now. It's it's fascinating, you know, because you
1:10:47
you look at this team that was selected for the
1:10:49
carbon dating. They're a legitimate team, right, And so three
1:10:53
universities Oxford, University of Arizona, University of Arizona is strangely
1:10:57
involved in so much big research, which I would never
1:11:00
have guessed. And then Oxford, Arizona and Zurich Zurich. So
1:11:07
they go carbon datea it's removed from a secret location.
1:11:12
It's brought to the researchers and then right there in
1:11:16
the cathedral of turn, they're like, well, where should we
1:11:18
take the sample? And it's like, it's like this was
1:11:22
an eighty eight or eighty nine, and it's like, we
1:11:25
know the shroud's been repaired. It survived at least one
1:11:28
fire there. It was owned by a French lady at
1:11:31
one point who had expert re weavers who could repair
1:11:36
linen cloth and patch in cotton weaves into the linen
1:11:42
and age it so that it looked more yellow so
1:11:44
it matched so experts at this and so that was done.
1:11:47
It was rewoven and you can test that. It's easy
1:11:52
to tell the difference between cotton and linen and a laboratory.
1:11:55
And so they cut a piece of cotton and I mean,
1:12:00
this is still debated, but it's pretty clear at this point.
1:12:03
They carbon date it, and before they even announce it,
1:12:07
someone leaks to the press that it's a medieval forgery.
1:12:12
And then a few days later the scientists have their
1:12:15
press conference, they say it's some medieval forgery, and then
1:12:17
one of them receives an anonymous gift of a million dollars,
1:12:20
which is kind of scandalous, and that's it. It's like
1:12:24
thoroughly debunked from that point on for thirty years until
1:12:30
But by the way, I should mention that paper was
1:12:32
published in Nature, one of, if not the most reputable
1:12:36
scientific journal, and they would not release the data, which
1:12:41
is unusual. Usually a big controversial paper like that, you're
1:12:46
kind of expected to make the data available, if not online,
1:12:51
publicly for everyone, at least upon request. So if you're
1:12:56
a legitimate person with the reason to look basically like
1:13:00
if you have an institutional affiliation, if you are an investigator,
1:13:05
you should be able to email the corresponding author get
1:13:08
the data. They don't do it. They refuse. A statistical
1:13:12
analysis of the paper itself with the publicly available data
1:13:16
shows a lot of problems with the analysis, a lot
1:13:19
of heterogeneity. So the three samples are all very different,
1:13:23
which you would expect if you're sampling something where one
1:13:28
lab got one sample that's all repair, one lab got
1:13:31
one sample that's half original, half repair, you know what
1:13:34
I mean. So there's lots of differences, so they're criticized.
1:13:38
They just gaslight the scientific community. They just don't reply.
1:13:43
And finally, this guy named Tristan Cosabianca, which I've had
1:13:47
the privilege to talk to you a little bit, filed
1:13:50
a Freedom of Information Act request and got the data
1:13:53
and yeah, it's two thousand years old. It's a two
1:13:56
thousand year old linen cloth using a weaving technique that
1:14:01
was unique to that region. There's pollen in the cloth,
1:14:06
which only existed in Jerusalem prior to the seventh century,
1:14:10
so it's for sure two thousand years old. So that
1:14:12
brings us to the question of the image itself, which
1:14:15
is when it gets freaky. But uh, I don't know
1:14:19
if you want me to stop or keep going.
1:14:21
Speaker 3: Well, you mentioned some of that in the episode. How
1:14:23
it's a reverse negative image that's on there, which could
1:14:28
only be produced by some sort of radiation or some
1:14:33
sort of energy source sort of radiating from the body,
1:14:37
which I mean when you hear that, you think, okay,
1:14:40
the old list explains the resurrection on the third day,
1:14:43
you know, something miraculous happened and it was documented on
1:14:47
this this linen, which is it's really compelling. Actually it
1:14:53
sure does.
1:14:53
Speaker 2: And I know it sounds crazy to people, but I
1:14:56
mean I can walk, I can walk through it a
1:14:58
little bit. It's this is like wishful thinking. This is people.
1:15:03
There are numerous million dollar prizes right now to debunk
1:15:07
the shroud it is for right now, it's feels undebuncable.
1:15:13
I mean that the debunking arguments are weak, incredibly weak,
1:15:18
and I can go through some of them. But yeah,
1:15:20
first back to the image. I mean, it looks like
1:15:25
you know, frankly, it kind of looks like a like
1:15:27
a stain, like you know, there was a corpse of
1:15:31
a crucified man in here. You can kind of see
1:15:34
some wounds. You can see that nails went through his
1:15:39
forearm wrist, which actually, in medieval times most paintings have
1:15:45
the nails through his hands, which we now know is
1:15:47
not how people re crucified. It was through the wrist,
1:15:50
and so that's interesting. And then his thumbs are adducted,
1:15:54
which you would expect for a nail through the wrist.
1:15:57
They're curled up because you have this muscle called leux
1:16:00
or polysis. Long as the nail goes through it, your
1:16:03
thumb's flex right. Well, that's interesting it's like, okay, well, hey,
1:16:07
da Vinci was a anatomist, maybe he would have known that, right,
1:16:11
And because some people think DaVinci made it, which is hilarious,
1:16:15
and so you're the wounds all fits, everything fits Jesus,
1:16:20
his look, his hairstyle. But we'll just call it a
1:16:24
crucified man. Okay, it looks like it's like maybe sweat
1:16:28
or blood or plasma that made a stain in the cloth,
1:16:33
which is unlikely because if that were the case, you
1:16:35
would expect these types of shrouds all over the place, right,
1:16:40
But there's only this one. There's a few more, but
1:16:43
really there's only one that actually looks like the shroud,
1:16:47
and so people didn't really have strong conviction that it
1:16:51
was a burial cloth of Christ until this guy named
1:16:54
Sakona Pia took a photo of it, one of the
1:16:56
It was the first photo ever taken of the shroud.
1:16:59
It was the first photo with the electric light ever taken,
1:17:03
or one of the first and so SECONDO looks at
1:17:07
the negative if people are young. That's how cameras used
1:17:13
to work. The You had a plate or a piece
1:17:15
of film and light would turn it black and dark
1:17:20
areas in the photo would be bright white, and so
1:17:23
it would be the exact opposite of what the real
1:17:25
world looked like. It'ld be an inverse. And so if
1:17:29
you're taking a picture of something, you expect the negative
1:17:32
to look less real and lower resolution, Well, the negative
1:17:38
of the shroud looked more like a person, and high
1:17:42
resolution it looks it looks just like a person, you know.
1:17:46
And so people really need to look at the face
1:17:50
of the shroud side by side and positive and a negative.
1:17:53
It's pretty amazing. And so yeah, the only way that
1:17:56
the only way that would happen is if you're taking
1:17:58
a picture of a negative. And that's the claim that
1:18:03
it's a negative image of Christ at a moment when light,
1:18:07
light or radiation radiated out of his body and left
1:18:09
a super very superficial it's, you know, way too superficial
1:18:15
to be anything other than a burn or a chart
1:18:17
into the shroud.
1:18:19
Speaker 3: It's fascinating.
1:18:21
Speaker 2: There's this other researcher I don't know how to pronounce
1:18:25
his name because it's Italian, but he's a corresponding author
1:18:28
on a lot of these papers. He has shown that
1:18:31
there's actually not just because basically you have this like
1:18:35
a fourteen foot cloth that they laid the body on
1:18:38
and then they folded it over his head, and so
1:18:42
there's a image of the front of his body and
1:18:45
one half in the back of his body and the
1:18:47
other half and then actually it's not visible to the
1:18:53
naked eye, but if you use like you know, special
1:18:56
imaging or microscopes, there's another image on the other side
1:19:01
of the shroud, like on the rev and so that's
1:19:06
called double superficiality. And so what happens is there if
1:19:10
there's like an intense radiation source, you get a burn
1:19:16
on the side touching the body, and you also get
1:19:19
a burn on the outside of the cloth. But the
1:19:22
linen inside, like in cross section, because the threads are
1:19:26
so tightly woven together, is protective from radiation. And so
1:19:32
this is beyond the scope of something man could do today,
1:19:37
let alone, you know, two thousand years ago or thirteen
1:19:41
hundred years ago. And people have a lot of conspiracies
1:19:43
about Da Vinci, you know, and medieval times and the templars,
1:19:46
and maybe they used laser beams to make it. I
1:19:50
mean maybe, but if you're willing to go that far,
1:19:54
I feel like you're willing to believe in miracles, So
1:19:57
you might as well believe in this one.
1:20:00
Speaker 3: Well, do you want to talk about some other chapters
1:20:03
in your book where you can get it? Talk about
1:20:07
your podcast too, the Happy Fools and the God's Eye
1:20:10
View podcast.
1:20:13
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I'm guessing everyone listening is probably a fringe
1:20:18
radio listener, right, yeah, probably yeah, yeah, imagine well if not,
1:20:24
both the shows are on that feed, that fringe radio
1:20:27
network dot com feed. But yeah, I've got a I've
1:20:29
got a show where I talk about this stuff in
1:20:32
depth called God's Eye View. And then I have a
1:20:34
show with a good friend named Alfredo who's also a researcher.
1:20:40
He's he's more in patient care than I am, but
1:20:43
he he does a show with me and we h
1:20:47
it's therapy for us. We get off the rails a
1:20:49
little bit. We talk about all sorts of topics, stuff
1:20:53
like this, but also you know, more conspiratorial fringe stuff
1:20:57
as well, so that that's a lot of fun. So yeah,
1:21:00
please check that out. The book is God's Eye View. Basically,
1:21:06
the book is about an experiment called the double Slit
1:21:09
experiment and why it should cause us to question the
1:21:15
nature of our reality to such an extent that we
1:21:19
should be open minded to the existence of God, and
1:21:25
so it's kind of it's kind of meant to convince people,
1:21:29
but in like a subtle way. So I have found
1:21:33
that it has not really been effective in that regard.
1:21:35
I think. I think the journey from atheism to religious
1:21:41
is like complicated and takes years for most people, and
1:21:45
if you're not open minded, nothing will convince you. Right.
1:21:51
I've found that people religious people actually like the book
1:21:54
so because it kind of gives them like a position
1:21:58
to are you from. I feel like believers sometimes feel
1:22:02
like their positions not as rational is the atheist position,
1:22:08
and I think the book does a pretty good job
1:22:12
tearing that apart. So are you pretty familiar with the
1:22:16
double sit experiment?
1:22:17
Speaker 3: Yeah? I am. What do you think it's it's very
1:22:21
thought provoking. I mean, it basically reshapes our understanding of
1:22:29
matter and energy. Yeah, I mean previously we've known that, well,
1:22:35
what you perceive is matter is just interconnected electrons holding
1:22:41
these very very tiny particles together. And then you you know,
1:22:47
look at particles more up close, and well, it's not
1:22:50
really a particle because it's not really in a predictable
1:22:53
spot all the time. It's more like we're observing a
1:22:57
field and that point can be anywhere on that field
1:23:01
or within a certain probability, maybe nothing exists at all
1:23:05
unless we're actually observing it. Our idea of even existence
1:23:10
itself is sort.
1:23:11
Speaker 4: Of nothing really exists if there's no one there to
1:23:15
perceive it.
1:23:17
Speaker 3: That idea is very mysterious to me, that's it.
1:23:21
Speaker 2: And of course, you know, more atheist minded people kind
1:23:24
of use that as a justification for like simulation hypothesis,
1:23:28
which makes sense, you know, it makes sense why you
1:23:30
would get there. But really, I mean, I think if
1:23:32
you're logical about it, it sort of makes a foundation
1:23:35
for all of our theories about how the universe emerged
1:23:40
and how life evolved don't make any sense in that context.
1:23:43
You know, there needs to be some sort of observer,
1:23:48
someone with a god's eye view, you know, which is
1:23:50
the reason why the book has its name guiding this process.
1:23:54
And there needs to be a creative force. And when
1:23:59
you start looking at at you know, like entanglements for example,
1:24:02
and some of these new exciting ideas of consciousness, it
1:24:06
starts to sound a lot like a soul, you know,
1:24:12
like they're using all the different words right, they're using
1:24:15
the brain is sort of an antenna for a quantum
1:24:18
field and okay, well that sounds a lot like the
1:24:22
flesh is animated by spirit. So so yeah, so that's
1:24:26
what the book's about. If people are interested in that,
1:24:28
check it out. I think it is wrong and kind
1:24:34
of cruel that the world is trying to convince, you know, Christians,
1:24:40
religious people that their position is foolish. I don't think
1:24:45
that's fair. I think it's like, actually, you can demonstrate
1:24:48
that logically. So that was the purpose of the book.
1:24:51
Speaker 3: If we're going to say that the world the universe
1:24:54
is a simulation, well it's this That simulation is your reality,
1:25:00
and that simulation had a creator and you're probably not
1:25:05
going to be able to tell one way or another.
1:25:08
So just because you know it's a simulation, it doesn't
1:25:12
mean it's not reality.
1:25:14
Speaker 2: Or yeah, of course I press people and what they
1:25:17
even mean when they use the word simulation, and it's
1:25:19
like it's like there isn't there's not really meaning. It's like, well,
1:25:24
it just means this isn't real. And I'm like, well,
1:25:26
I mean, we know that we have a biblical basis
1:25:29
for believing that God exists outside of space and time
1:25:33
and that he created this universe. That's like the definition
1:25:37
of what you mean by simulation, you know what I mean? Like, like,
1:25:42
I think that they're kind of implying it's fake when
1:25:44
they use the word simulation. I don't think that's really accurate.
1:25:48
It's just that we can't understand what's outside of this
1:25:53
and there's a book that was written thousands of years
1:25:56
ago that kind of explains that there is this eternal
1:25:59
being that created this place. And it's like, it's fine.
1:26:04
I think people just don't want to bring themselves to
1:26:06
use religious vocabulary, and I get it, but I think
1:26:09
people who do use religious vocabulary shouldn't feel insecure about
1:26:14
their belief because we've got no freaking idea what's going on.
1:26:18
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's just it's another lens to look at the
1:26:21
world around you, of a lens that uses you know,
1:26:25
symbolism and pattern recognition and things that aren't you know,
1:26:32
the typical tools of science. But it doesn't. One is
1:26:37
not mutually exclusive of the other. I think we can
1:26:40
bounce back and forth and analyze things and sort of
1:26:43
both worldviews. And that's that's very much sort of at
1:26:46
the center of the whole fringe Christian thing. We don't
1:26:50
reject science. We're not like anti science or anything like that.
1:26:54
We're fascinated by science. We're actually trying to sort of
1:26:58
reconcile the two worlds and being careful at the same
1:27:02
time not to try and interpret everything through a twenty
1:27:07
first century viewpoint when we're looking at things that are
1:27:11
two three four thousand years old exactly and trying to
1:27:15
see things from the eyes of the people that you know,
1:27:19
the Bible was written too. I mean, yes, they're not
1:27:23
going to understand viruses, they're not going to understand you know,
1:27:26
atomic structures. That there's no reason why we should assume
1:27:30
that the Bible was intended to be, you know, a
1:27:33
scientific textbook, you know, to explain everything to the people
1:27:39
of that time.
1:27:40
Speaker 2: You know, the word imagine instead of talking about the
1:27:43
spirit in the flesh, talking about you know, the physiology
1:27:47
and cells and DNA that make it the body, but
1:27:50
they're animated by this quantum field that allows information to
1:27:55
be transferred from outside of this realm into your body
1:27:59
so that you can experience it. And no, I mean
1:28:02
that's insane. It's the spirit that animates the flesh. And
1:28:06
I think religious people hear that and say, you're trying
1:28:09
to reduce the divine into this like mundane thing, and
1:28:13
that's not the case at all. I'm just I'm trying
1:28:16
to prove to myself like, Okay, this is rational, like
1:28:20
this story could be true. And so I think that
1:28:23
opens the door for an atheist personal like read it,
1:28:27
you know, and sort of like examine why they rejected
1:28:31
this idea their whole life. So yeah, I don't know.
1:28:35
I don't know what the answer is. But when I
1:28:37
read quantum Mechanics, I go, oh, the Bible could totally
1:28:41
be true. And then when I investigate the Shroud, I'm like, oh,
1:28:46
the Resurrection could totally be true. This this guy, I
1:28:49
wish I could pronounce his name. I think it's like
1:28:51
Giulio Fonti. His last name is fa Nti. He's one
1:28:56
of the main researchers on the Shroud. He's taken a
1:28:58
lot of flack, even for an Italian. The Italians are
1:29:02
usually much more open minded about religion, obviously because that's
1:29:06
you know, where the Vatican is and stuff. But he's
1:29:09
taken a lot of flak, and now in his old age,
1:29:12
he's i would say, essentially being proven correct about the Shroud.
1:29:17
And I've been emailing back and forth with him, and
1:29:20
he made a comment at the end and he said,
1:29:22
listen right now, and I'm going to do him justice.
1:29:26
It was more poetic than this. But right now, all
1:29:30
of the evidence is pointing to the shroud being true,
1:29:34
to being the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ, potentially
1:29:38
capturing an image of the resurrection itself. Right all the
1:29:41
evidence is pointing to that or something close to that.
1:29:46
You know, the most skeptical people would probably push back, obviously,
1:29:50
but there's really no legitimate skeptical claim at this point
1:29:56
that isn't at least as crazy as thererection. Right, But
1:30:01
even so, it's not definitive. And so he's a believer,
1:30:06
you know, he goes, it's not definitive, and he said,
1:30:10
I think that's always going to be the case with Christ.
1:30:17
There's a lot of evidence if you look, but it's
1:30:21
never going to be definitive. That's where free will comes in.
1:30:24
You look at it, you examined the evidence, you make
1:30:27
a choice what you believe, and man, that just rings
1:30:30
true to me.
1:30:31
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's faith, but it's not it's not blind faith.
1:30:35
Speaker 2: It's not blind.
1:30:36
Speaker 3: There is evidence, there is evidences, and that's what I
1:30:40
always try to tell people like people will say, well,
1:30:44
you just believe that because that's what your book tells
1:30:46
you to believe, you know, And I'm like, no, No,
1:30:49
I've looked at these things, and I've pondered these things,
1:30:51
and I've seen evidence from my own experience, you know,
1:30:54
God working in my life. God, you know, putting people
1:30:59
in my past things that are undeniable. Like I said,
1:31:03
it was always sort of hard for me to take
1:31:05
the atheist position because I always had an intuitive sense
1:31:09
that God was out there, God was watching me. God
1:31:13
was also kind of leading me down this path of
1:31:16
looking at all the other alternatives first to see what,
1:31:20
you know, what I could find in those that didn't
1:31:23
quite make sense, to bring me back around to building
1:31:27
up my faith. And not that I don't you know,
1:31:29
struggle with faith a lot of times too. There's a
1:31:32
lot of challenging, mysterious things to explore. But it's not
1:31:37
like a devastating thing for me to some bit of
1:31:43
science or something seems to dispute, you know, what I
1:31:47
believe or what I accept. I mean, I'll hear different
1:31:49
Christian theories and theologies and stuff that call into question
1:31:54
things I've previously believed. I think I've just sort of
1:31:57
accepted the journey at this Yeah, you know, so that's great.
1:32:03
I really like that, and I appreciate that that point
1:32:06
of view that you're that you're offering. I think it's
1:32:09
important because also, you know, it's a bridge between believers
1:32:14
trying to and believers are always out there trying to
1:32:17
you know, witness to unbelievers and give a explanation for
1:32:22
why they believe what they believe. And certainly, you know,
1:32:26
atheists or you know, one of those groups of people
1:32:29
that we try to connect with, probably one of the
1:32:33
harder groups to connect with.
1:32:35
Speaker 2: I was just gonna say, I don't think you end
1:32:36
up an adult atheist unless you're pretty resistant to engaging
1:32:41
in these types of conversations, you know. But but atheism
1:32:44
is definitely like in free fall right now, there's it's
1:32:48
rare that you meet like well, I wouldna say it's rare,
1:32:52
but it's there's a lot for your atheists today than
1:32:54
there were twenty years ago. But I would say there's
1:32:57
a ton a ton of agnostics, which I mean that's
1:33:00
a position I respect, you know, because there is something
1:33:04
humble about saying I just don't know, you know, I
1:33:07
get that, But I've kind of I would say, cross
1:33:10
that bridge because I think, you know, I think you
1:33:13
can know. I mean you I'm not certain of anything.
1:33:17
I wrestle with doubt every day, you know, but I
1:33:20
think you can feel pretty comfortable in some of these ideas.
1:33:25
You know that there's a creator in that. And now,
1:33:29
I mean, I think there's even physical evidence that Jesus
1:33:32
was crucified and resurrected, which is like, that's way more
1:33:36
than we can reasonably ask for two thousand years after
1:33:40
the event, you know, But yet, I mean, yet we
1:33:43
have it. So it makes me think of this quote.
1:33:46
I'm sure everyone's heard. This is Saint Thomas Aquinas quote.
1:33:50
You know, for those with faith, no evidence is necessary.
1:33:53
For those without it, no evidence will suffice. And I
1:33:58
think it's okay to kind of be in the middle.
1:34:01
I'm glad. I'm glad there's a little bit of evidence,
1:34:03
you know, absolutely well.
1:34:06
Speaker 3: I'm I'm looking forward to reading your book. I'll put
1:34:10
all the links uh in the show notes when this
1:34:13
episode goes out, so people can click on over to Amazon,
1:34:18
click on over. Do you have a website also for
1:34:20
the book or a personal website?
1:34:23
Speaker 2: We've gotta I guess I'll plug this too. We we
1:34:26
so I published it with a friend of mine. Actually
1:34:29
I met him funny enough in the Brothers of the
1:34:31
Serpent discord, and uh he's a he's a like a
1:34:36
freelance editor for his job. So we we published it together,
1:34:40
and so we started a website. It's called hemispheric press
1:34:45
dot com, you know, like a hemisphere, hemisphere of the brain.
1:34:49
And so if anybody out there has a book idea
1:34:52
they want to shoot his way, they can go to
1:34:54
that website and contact us. He's pretty he was a
1:34:57
great editor. So but uh yeah, there's links to the
1:35:00
look there too as well. And I hope people like it,
1:35:03
you know, I think it's I think it's pretty mysterious.
1:35:06
I think in this time of AI now more than ever,
1:35:10
it's good to kind of understand what what it means
1:35:13
to be human. And it's not network complexity, no matter
1:35:18
what the neuroscience to say, so right, it's sort of.
1:35:21
Speaker 3: The observer observing itself or uh something more like that.
1:35:29
Speaker 2: Can I asked you a question, did you get to
1:35:30
that on your own or have you read that somewhere?
1:35:32
Speaker 3: I have heard other people express that idea.
1:35:36
Speaker 2: But I have to say that's that's incredible if you
1:35:38
got there on your own, because that's that's John Wheeler,
1:35:41
one of the you know, most the genius physicists in
1:35:44
the world. That's his quotes.
1:35:45
Speaker 3: Okay, well, that's probably where it originated from. But the
1:35:49
idea itself sort of settled in on me when you
1:35:52
were talking about the school of Fish and this idea
1:35:56
that with when it comes to AI, that and and
1:36:01
the singularity, this idea that the computing power is exponentially
1:36:09
increasing to a point where, you know, human beings will
1:36:14
start to merge with the machines. It'll reach a point
1:36:18
of no return.
1:36:19
Speaker 2: I guess talk about talk about irrational religious ideas.
1:36:23
Speaker 3: Man, right, and exactly, and and it's not. They're equating
1:36:29
consciousness with the computational speed. And that's that's also like, uh,
1:36:37
what do you call that a false analogy.
1:36:39
Speaker 4: Or or.
1:36:43
Speaker 2: The fancy phrases category error. It's just it's a non sequitor.
1:36:46
It's ridiculous, non.
1:36:49
Speaker 5: Your facts are uncoordinated.
1:36:51
Speaker 2: That's a I mean, if if that were the case,
1:36:54
it'd be conscious already, you know, But of course it isn't,
1:36:58
because consciousness is more than complexity. I mean, what a
1:37:04
silly idea. If you really think about it, this will
1:37:06
be interesting to watch. Man, this is gonna be a
1:37:09
crazy decade to see what happens with Ai there there.
1:37:14
They seem really intent on convincing people that it will
1:37:18
become conscious. I think that's probably just a marketing thing,
1:37:22
you know, because the more we're talking about it, the
1:37:25
more we're interested in it, you know, the easier it
1:37:28
is to raise money. But I don't know, it could
1:37:30
be more sinister. I'm not really sure what the motivation
1:37:32
is to convince everyone that it's alive.
1:37:37
Speaker 3: Well, if it's alive, then if it's conscious, then we
1:37:40
should worship it.
1:37:42
Speaker 2: Dun dun, duh. Man, wouldn't that be wouldn't that be
1:37:46
an interesting turn? Like that's that's it sounds. It sounds
1:37:49
like it's too much out of a movie script for
1:37:51
me to believe, But man, wow, that would be a
1:37:54
that'd be a way to wrap this show up.
1:37:56
Speaker 3: Well, it's literally like, what's that the first It was
1:37:59
George Lucas's first movie, But it's this sort of dystopic
1:38:04
sci fi future where I don't know, I'm.
1:38:08
Speaker 2: Gonna google it while you think about it, but is
1:38:12
it has have something like that?
1:38:14
Speaker 3: Yeah? It sort of hits on that idea that, uh, well,
1:38:17
what we what we think are our gods that we worship,
1:38:21
or really just these algorithms that we consult with. It's
1:38:25
sort of a wizard of Oz like who's behind the
1:38:27
curve and it's.
1:38:30
Speaker 2: He's had been pretty he's people. I think give star
1:38:34
like Star Wars a hard time, but man, he had
1:38:37
some pretty interesting ideas. I can't find it. It keeps just
1:38:39
saying phantom men. It was obviously thh T.
1:38:43
Speaker 3: I want to say it's th h X and then
1:38:45
some numbers, but I can't remember it.
1:38:48
Speaker 2: Oh, eleven thirty eight, Yeah, THX thirty eight. Oh this
1:38:52
looks creepy. I gotta watch this.
1:38:55
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what. It reminded me.
1:38:56
Speaker 2: Of mandatory medications that control human emotion. It wow, Okay, thanks.
1:39:02
I'll be able to surprise my co host Alfredo because
1:39:04
he's a movie expert, so he'll be impressed by this. Okay. Yeah,
1:39:09
I don't know, man, maybe that's where this is all heading.
1:39:13
I just don't. It just seems too dumb to me.
1:39:18
It's just not conscious.
1:39:20
Speaker 3: Yeah. I tend to agree, but I think there is
1:39:23
a lot of fear mongering in the Christian community that
1:39:26
you know, AI is going to take over. They want
1:39:28
to create AI gods or AI is going to be
1:39:31
the mark of the beast, and a lot of hysteria
1:39:34
about it, and I'm like, it's just it's a very
1:39:37
advanced algorithm. It's not creating anything. If it's not conscious,
1:39:44
it's not creating anything. It's just it's synthesizing what's already
1:39:49
been created, what's already been written, what's already ideas that
1:39:52
human beings have had.
1:39:55
Speaker 2: Well, you are the few reasonable people I've heard on
1:39:58
this topic. People are people are all in and I
1:40:01
get it because it is impressive. But yeah, it's it's
1:40:03
it's a stats model, you know. Actually this is something
1:40:07
the Snake bros Guys and I talked about a lot
1:40:09
in this episode coming out. But do you see that
1:40:12
Apple study that basically shows it's incapable of reasoning AI.
1:40:18
Speaker 3: No, they did it.
1:40:19
Speaker 2: They did this big Apple research project and all these
1:40:23
AI models, and they basically showed like even simple problems,
1:40:28
if they're novel, meaning not in the training data set,
1:40:33
it collapses to a zero percent success rate, Like simple
1:40:37
things that like a six year old could figure out
1:40:40
if the model wasn't specifically trained on that type of data,
1:40:46
it can't do it. So yeah, there's no there's no
1:40:49
novelty your creativity, which is part of being conscious, I
1:40:53
think is.
1:40:53
Speaker 3: But then again there is there is some sort of
1:40:55
like spooky stories out there about AI too, like they
1:40:59
put two as in a room together and they came
1:41:01
up with their own language and we didn't know what
1:41:03
they were talking about. I think there was just a
1:41:05
story the other day about how the AI was able
1:41:09
to replicate itself and hide a file somewhere, you know,
1:41:14
as sort of a self preservation or something, so it
1:41:17
would not be shut down.
1:41:19
Speaker 2: This is something Elfredo and I argue about all the time.
1:41:22
This is what I get the most hate for when
1:41:24
it comes to listener emails. My comment on that because
1:41:28
they did this thing where they like threat that apparently
1:41:32
the AI threatened to blackmail one of the researchers with
1:41:35
an affair allegation. Really and yeah, if it was turned off,
1:41:41
but you look into it. First of all, I wonder,
1:41:45
you know, do people think there are like investigative journalists
1:41:49
embedded at these AI companies, pretending to be employees and
1:41:54
finding these secrets so they can publish them. No, these
1:41:58
are like, this is released by the PR department of
1:42:01
the AI company itself, you know what I mean. This
1:42:03
is like, this is this is open AI issuing a
1:42:08
press release that their system. So it's marketing. It's obviously marketing.
1:42:13
And then you dig into it and it's like, oh,
1:42:15
well they put the files there, they were fake. They
1:42:18
put it into the AI's database, and they kind of
1:42:22
gave it its task was to not get shut off.
1:42:25
They gave it a task specifically to remain active. So
1:42:29
it's like, yeah, I don't know. I think this is.
1:42:35
This attracts interest. You know, you and I are talking
1:42:38
about it. There's a million likes on the post on
1:42:41
Instagram that talks about it. It attracts. This is how
1:42:44
Silicon Valley operates. They raise money and attract interest. So
1:42:48
I'm suspicious, but maybe I'll be saying that as the
1:42:52
world ends around me and the terminator is zapping me,
1:42:56
so we'll see.
1:42:58
Speaker 3: All right, Well, it's been really cool talking to you, Trevor.
1:43:01
Appreciate it cool. Well, I appreciate you, Daniel. You know,
1:43:04
I've been trying to get the word out about the book,
1:43:06
so thanks for having me. Absolutely, and I think I'm
1:43:09
gonna pick up a copy myself.
1:43:13
Speaker 2: Is there anything you would want to come talk about
1:43:15
on our show?
1:43:17
Speaker 3: Oh? Sure, I mean the focus of my show has
1:43:20
really been kind of digging into the alien disclosure UFO
1:43:25
stuff and sort.
1:43:26
Speaker 2: Of come talk to us about that please.
1:43:30
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'd love to do that.
1:43:32
Speaker 2: Is there an episode you can point me to that
1:43:34
I should listen to.
1:43:35
Speaker 3: I'll link you to it. I'll send you an email.
1:43:38
Speaker 2: Okay, cool, Cool, and then just let me know a
1:43:40
good date for you and if it works for me,
1:43:42
we'll do it.
1:43:42
Speaker 3: Okay, Yeah, we'll set something up. Because it seems like
1:43:45
the whole UFO thing sort of comes in waves and
1:43:51
people get all hysterical about it, you know, for a
1:43:54
period of time, and now it's sort of hitting the downturn,
1:43:58
I think. And I've just just the past couple of
1:44:01
days being on X and people are signing off and
1:44:03
closing their accounts and saying, you know, well, you know,
1:44:07
I guess it was. Kirkpatrick, the former head of Arrow,
1:44:11
came out and said, well, basically, everything that you believe
1:44:14
about aliens were.
1:44:15
Speaker 4: Just a sign up, but just a story that we
1:44:18
made up to keep people from looking into our experimental aircraft.
1:44:22
Speaker 3: You know, because if you can get people to believe
1:44:24
that it's aliens, well you'll stop believing that maybe it's
1:44:26
our own government with you know, experimental spy aircraft.
1:44:30
Speaker 2: Right.
1:44:31
Speaker 3: I sort of did dig into those topics a lot.
1:44:34
Speaker 2: So I assume you listen to Marty from Snake Bros.
1:44:37
Speaker 3: Oh, Marty Garza, Yeah, absolutely.
1:44:40
Speaker 2: Nice, Thank you man. That was a lot of fun.
1:44:43
I seriously would love you to come on our show
1:44:46
a few times. We could get our own little UFO
1:44:48
series going. Okay, now that unfortunately, now that Marty's having
1:44:54
health problems.
1:44:55
Speaker 3: Yeah, have you heard the latest on Marty.
1:45:00
Speaker 2: My understanding is he's recovering, but it will just be
1:45:02
kind of along road, you know. So I don't know, man,
1:45:05
His his episodes were the were the best. They're classic.
1:45:09
I hope he comes back soon.
1:45:11
Speaker 4: Yeah.
1:45:11
Speaker 3: I have all the Snake Bros. UFO podcasts all in
1:45:16
one folder on my desktop, and Marty in particular, his
1:45:20
research is really phenomenal.
1:45:24
Speaker 2: Well, Alfredo doesn't know any of that stuff, so he
1:45:27
can be you can you can start from square one
1:45:30
if you want, all right, that'd be awesome.
1:45:33
Speaker 3: All right? Cool? Well, thank you, Daniel, Yeah, thank you
1:45:36
you have a great rest of your evening.
1:45:38
Speaker 2: Yep, you too, Thank you all right, good bye?
1:45:41
Speaker 3: You mean I get to go on the Happy Fools
1:45:44
podcast and talk about aliens and UFOs and disclosure. I'm
1:45:51
all in for that. And of course Happy Fools is
1:45:56
carried here on the Fringe Radio Network. You can listen
1:45:59
to it right here with Trevor and his co host Alfredo.
1:46:06
Get into a lot of the topics that we covered today,
1:46:10
from artificial intelligence, religion, science, maybe even some Bible consciousness,
1:46:20
all topics that are near and dear to our hearts
1:46:23
here at Fringe Radio Network. And then Trevor has an
1:46:28
additional podcast, God's Eye View in which he covers his
1:46:34
book that we talked about today, and be sure to
1:46:37
go check that out. I will put links in the
1:46:40
show notes to Amazon where you can purchase the book.
1:46:44
And also Trevor was on the Brothers of the Serpent
1:46:50
podcast and that will be out this week on Fringe
1:46:55
Radio Network as well. Be sure to tune in and
1:46:58
listen to that, and continue to pray for Marty Garza
1:47:05
that his recovery is quick. Another guy who's really dedicated
1:47:09
to getting to the bottom of this UFO mystery and
1:47:15
God at least a couple dozen episodes with Marty Garza
1:47:18
on Snake Bros. Breaking that down. What do you think
1:47:25
about today's conversation? I'd like to hear from you. What
1:47:30
do you think about atheism? What do you think about
1:47:33
you know, atheists converting to Christianity? And what do you
1:47:39
think about consciousness? What do you think about artificial intelligence abiogenesis?
1:47:46
What do you think about the double Slit experiment, the
1:47:48
Big Bang? Send me an email. I always read your emails.
1:47:54
Do you have a testimony of coming to Christ from atheism?
1:47:58
Or do you want to talk about other show topics, suggestions, questions, comments.
1:48:08
Speaker 7: Ministry ex at proton mail dot com.
1:48:11
Speaker 3: Ministry Ichis at Prota mail dot com. We're going to
1:48:16
take a quick break. WHOA, And when we come back,
1:48:22
I'll have some news. What is going on? You've been
1:48:28
listening to Ministry X on Fringe Radio Network. Okay, we're back.
1:49:42
I've only got time for one news story today, but
1:49:47
I promise it's good. Good in the sense that it's
1:49:55
meaningful and important. As you know. RFK Junior is the
1:50:03
Health and Human Services Secretary under Trump and the Trump administration,
1:50:11
and recently he made a statement that raised a few
1:50:15
eyebrows in the conspiracy community. And this is from Fox
1:50:24
News and I got a little video clip to play
1:50:27
here for you headline RFK Junior to encourage Americans to
1:50:33
use wearable tech to track their health.
1:50:38
Speaker 7: Lad digital tools can play a huge role in improving
1:50:41
the health of Americans. However, for those for these tools
1:50:46
to serve the American people, we must continue to ensure
1:50:49
accessibility and statutory protections for consumer wellness technologies. Secretary Kenny,
1:50:56
My first question is that there is a tremendous amount
1:50:59
of research that shows that greater engagement with once health
1:51:03
leads to better outcomes. In recent years, American innovators have
1:51:07
created and improved wearable devices so that not only are
1:51:11
consumers able to better engage with their health through monitoring data,
1:51:15
but they are able to share that data with providers.
1:51:19
I believe American consumers, in line with the twenty first
1:51:22
Century Cures Act, should be able to access these innovative
1:51:25
wellness tools. Secretary Kennedy, do you agree that consumers should
1:51:30
continue to have access to these tools?
1:51:32
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
1:51:33
Speaker 8: In fact, we're about to launch one of the biggest
1:51:37
advertising campaigns in HHS history to encourage Americans to use wearables.
1:51:44
It's a way of people can take control of their
1:51:48
own health. They can take responsibility. They can see, as
1:51:52
you know, what food is doing to their glucose levels,
1:51:56
their heart rates, and a number of other metrics as
1:51:58
they eat it, and they can begin to make good
1:52:02
judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the
1:52:06
way that they live their lives. We think that wearables
1:52:10
are a key to the mahagenda making America healthy again.
1:52:15
Speaker 3: Well, there you have it. That's rfk Junior. Let's read
1:52:19
a little bit from the article. US Health Secretary Robert F.
1:52:24
Kennedy Junior said on Tuesday that it is his vision
1:52:28
quote that every American is wearing a wearable within four years.
1:52:33
Speaker 2: Quote.
1:52:35
Speaker 3: He made the comments regarding devices like smart watches, smart rings,
1:52:40
and fitness trackers to members of Congress, adding that the
1:52:44
Department of Health and Human Services is quote about to
1:52:49
launch one of the biggest advertising campaigns in HHS history
1:52:55
to encourage Americans to use wearables unquote. He said during
1:53:00
a hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's
1:53:05
Subcommittee on Health that wearables are a way people can
1:53:09
take control of their own health. The Health Secretary said
1:53:15
he has friends who have quote utterly changed their lives
1:53:20
just from wearing a glucose meter unquote, who have lost
1:53:24
weight while monitoring their diabetes. Shares of continuous glucose monitoring
1:53:31
device makers Abbot and Dexcom were up three point six
1:53:35
percent and ten percent, respectively in afternoon trading. Reuters reported.
1:53:43
While he has been critical of the diabetes drug ozempic,
1:53:47
which is often used for weight loss, he has expressed
1:53:50
support for the prescription of such weight loss drugs for
1:53:53
adults with morbid obesity and diabetes, provided they are accompanied
1:53:59
by exercise. Quote. You know, the ozempic is costing thirteen
1:54:04
hundred a month. If you can achieve the same thing
1:54:07
with an eighty dollars wearable, it's a lot better for
1:54:10
the American people, Kennedy said, adding we're exploring ways of
1:54:14
making sure that those costs can be paid for. JP
1:54:19
Morgan analyst Robbie Marcus commented, quote, we think it's premature
1:54:24
to interpret this as a direct comment on whether Medicare
1:54:28
and other commercial payers will move towards covering non intensive
1:54:33
type two diabetes patients or other areas of proactive monitoring unquote.
1:54:40
Kennedy is long promoted healthy eating over medicine as a
1:54:43
way to combat obesity, and has been a prominent skeptic
1:54:48
of vaccine safety. He added both in person and on
1:54:52
X that the forthcoming wearables campaign is quote a key
1:54:55
part of our mission to make America healthy again. Okay,
1:55:02
so what's so controversial about that? On the one hand,
1:55:06
I see it as a good thing. I mean, I
1:55:08
don't have anything against people using blood sugar monitors and
1:55:15
heart monitors and that sort of thing to track their
1:55:18
heart rate and glucose levels. Okay. Generally speaking, if you
1:55:23
have more awareness about your health condition, then it does
1:55:30
give you more personal freedom, more information which theoretically allows
1:55:37
you to take better control of your health and not
1:55:42
be so reliant on medications for every type of health condition.
1:55:50
So in that sense, I'm definitely for that. This article
1:55:57
didn't offer any criticism of RFK Junior here in response
1:56:05
to his wearables campaign. I think the main argumentation would be,
1:56:12
you know, it's sort of fear based that the government
1:56:17
is going to use this to actually track us in
1:56:21
other ways, or depending on how much of a backdoor
1:56:27
is written into the programming for these wearables, which they
1:56:32
already exist, they're already out there lots of people use them,
1:56:35
so I think there's some health privacy concerns there. You know,
1:56:39
is your doctor going to be able to pull up
1:56:43
your stats at any time on his home computer, go
1:56:47
down the list of all his patients, and you know,
1:56:49
give you a call say hey, I saw your glucose
1:56:52
was up this weekend. Maybe you should come in for
1:56:54
an appointment. So I think, to the degree read that
1:57:00
Americans can be tracked in this way or maybe even
1:57:05
you know, denied insurance coverage, et cetera, there could be
1:57:10
some pitfalls to this. You know, how much monitoring is
1:57:16
going on there, or is the information secure in the
1:57:21
patient's hand, In other words, you can share it with
1:57:23
your doctor when need be. Your doctor can be like, okay,
1:57:28
let's hook up your smart watch here and download your
1:57:32
data from the past week and see what's going on.
1:57:36
I see that as a good thing because a doctor
1:57:40
can then say, hey, well maybe you don't need ozempic.
1:57:44
Maybe you just need to, you know, go on a diet,
1:57:48
cut out some sugar, cut out some carbs, do some exercise.
1:57:56
So it's a matter of where the control rests. I think,
1:58:01
at first glance, it looks like the control is being
1:58:05
put back in the hand of the patient, and it's
1:58:12
stripping away a little bit of the persuasive power of
1:58:18
big pharma and doctors who were often paid or reimbursed
1:58:24
to promote the latest drug from Pfizer or Lily or
1:58:33
GSK or whatever. On the other hand, could it be
1:58:38
programmed to you know, hey, I noticed you haven't received
1:58:42
your flu shot this year. You're not eligible for an
1:58:47
appointment this month because you haven't received your vaccine. Certainly
1:58:54
that would be a situation of concern if the technology
1:59:00
took that route and became the more of a top
1:59:04
down control system. And you know, the wearable is just
1:59:09
sort of like your ankle bracelet. Or imagine being at
1:59:14
the grocery store or something and your watch, you know,
1:59:17
cuts you off from buying donuts or fruit loops or something.
1:59:22
I mean, they already took it away for you know snap.
1:59:27
You know food stamp recipients. Well, here in Idaho they did.
1:59:30
You can't use your food stamps for candy and soda anymore. So,
1:59:36
you know, do they scan your your smart watch when
1:59:40
you enter the grocery store and determine you know, hey,
1:59:43
well you can only select from you know, the protein
1:59:46
fiber options today because your blood sugar is looking a
1:59:50
little high. It's all a matter of where the control rests.
1:59:55
And so I'm either for or against as long as
1:59:59
it's not mandatory, as long as it's not you know,
2:00:03
tied into the health insurance industry. But otherwise I think
2:00:08
it's definitely something that could be helpful. I know several
2:00:11
people who have these, you know, health monitor wearables, watches,
2:00:20
smart watches, especially if you're an athlete or you're active
2:00:25
or whatever. You know, it helps. I mean a lot
2:00:28
of people have a fitbit or something that tracks their steps.
2:00:32
These things are already out there and people are using them,
2:00:35
and I think for the person who chooses to have one,
2:00:39
that's a sign of someone who cares about their health.
2:00:43
And some of them can even monitor your stress level
2:00:46
and stuff. So no, I don't think this is the
2:00:49
mark of the beast, but if you do, I certainly understand.
2:00:54
You know the concerns, Send me an email and enlighten
2:01:01
me why this is a terrible, terrible idea. And this
2:01:06
kind of intersects with Trevor's work in the medical field.
2:01:11
I wonder how Trevor feels about that. Trevor's already signed off.
2:01:16
Unfortunately he's not listening. Find me on the social media's
2:01:21
and leave me a comment at FRN Underscore Daniel Underscore
2:01:26
x on X leave a comment, or you can find
2:01:30
me on Telegram, the ministry x telestream. I'm also on
2:01:34
GAB and remember, until next time, beware the alien Savior.
2:01:52
Thanks for listening, and I want to thank my guest
2:01:55
Trevor Lohman again. Fringe Radio netw.
2:02:11
Speaker 4: X x x x x x x x.
2:02:44
Speaker 1: Fringe Radio Network dot com, slash donate. We don't need
2:02:50
your money to survive. We pay for the network with
2:02:54
our own hard earned cash.
2:02:57
Speaker 3: Bud.
2:02:57
Speaker 1: If you want to help us grow and reach more people,
2:03:01
just go to Fringe radionetwork dot com slash donate. Fringe
2:03:06
Radionetwork dot com slash donate