I suppose we could also call this ‘bong rip Thursday’. But I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to amplify the signal around a book with such a delicious name; Why Materialism is Baloney.

Here’s a quote from Bernardo’s website:

Archetypal science is ontologically neutral: it is merely a method for unveiling the empirically-observed patterns and regularities of reality, without philosophical interpretations. But science-as-you-know-it implicitly adopts the materialist ontology. Perhaps not all scientists do this; perhaps even only a minority does. But this minority is vocal and influential. They clearly control where the research funding goes, for projects that do not assume the materialist metaphysics collectively get much less funding than projects that do. If you ask me to substantiate this assertion with data, you will be simply revealing your naiveté about what’s going on: it’s like asking for proof that the Earth is round. Moreover, this vocal minority also controls how science-as-you-know-it is presented in the media, in school curricula, and to the culture at large. Just think of people like Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, and others such specialized prodigies of rhetoric and intellectual puzzles, who cavalierly ignore rigorous logic, epistemology, and ontology. As much as it pains me to admit this, the fact is that science-as-you-know-it has become synonym with the materialist metaphysics. Even if, as assumed, only a minority of scientists are responsible for this association, the institutions of science seem to be in no hurry to correct the situation. As such, they and all their members are guilty, at least by omission, of allowing it. As argued in my latest book Why Materialism Is Baloney, as well as in recent essays and videos in this blog, materialism is a fantasy. It’s based on unnecessary assumptions, circular reasoning, and selective consideration of evidence and data. Materialism is by no stretch of the imagination a scientific conclusion, but merely a metaphysical opinion that helps some people interpret scientific conclusions.

This is an interview he did on one of my favourite podcasts.

And since we are sharing kickass interviews, here is a recent one with the wonderful Dr Russell Targ.

http://youtu.be/X9cEpxXg3pA

From the interview:

“In physics, we consider phenomena that are not forbidden by known equations and principles to be mandatory in their appearance. That is, we assume that everything not so deemed outside the range of possibility will eventually be found to occur.”

Moving further out, here is an interview Terence McKenna conducted in a graveyard with the recently-departed Alexander Shulgin. A few people shared this around the time of his death so I have no idea where I got it from, sorry. Anyway, two masters of and now in the graveyard. It is fascinating to here McKenna’s zeal and passion toward the end, as I’m sure you all know he pulled back quite a bit from that before he died.

Finally, some light, mildly-racist entertainment. The full 1968 Asterix and Cleopatra. Growing up, my little brother and I watched this until the tape broke. You try getting that replaced in regional Australia in the mid-eighties. Also, I watched it stoned a bunch of times at university, which is how it has come to close out this post.

http://youtu.be/HwYVO1TtWaI