April 19, 2025 • 13 mins
Guest host Rich Berra and author Mark Gober explore his research into the Big Bang Theory and the creation of the universe, whether we need to rethink how our existence began, and if evidence has been falsified to support theories that aren't true.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome back to Coast to Coast AM. I'm your host
this evening. My name is rich Bara, and Mark Gober
is our guest. And before the break, I was starting
to ask him about the Big Bang theory. And let's
start from the beginning with the Big Bank theory. Let's
start back before it was the Big Bang theory. Because
this is a hard one for me to get my
brain around. My I went to community college, you went
(00:25):
to Princeton, So you're gonna have to really, you're gonna
have to like talk to me like I'm a six
year old here. What before we question with the Big
Bang theory, why we should question it is what is
the common Big Bang theory philosophy.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
The common idea is that about thirteen point eight billion
years ago, so unimaginably long ago, there was an event
that started the universe that we currently live in, and
this is known as the Big Bang. And there was
basically a massive explosion in some very very far away place,
and it led to these pieces of matter to start
(01:01):
interacting with each other and bump into each other. And
that leads us to the current mainstream cosmological model where
you have all these various galaxies and solar systems and
Earth revolving around the Sun with other planets and so forth.
But it all started with the Big Bang. That's the idea.
And you know I say that now, but it's amazing
how deeply embedded that theory is in mainstream thinking and
(01:23):
mainstream academia. We almost take it for granted that it's
basically true, when in fact it's really just a theory
about something that we really cannot validate.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
I think we almost have more evidence of a multiverse
than we do the Big Bang theory.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
I want to give an analogy here because I think
what happens in cosmology and many other areas of life
is that we run into errors in logic and errors
in thinking where we observe data and then we jump
to conclusions about what caused it.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
Let me give you a very simple example.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
It's true that when it rains, the grass outside will
be wet, but it's problematic to say I observe grass,
therefore it rained. If you see what I mean, Because
sprinkler systems or do or children pouring buckets of water
that can cause wet grass. But what happens is in
science in many other areas, we observe things and then
(02:14):
we conclude, oh, well, it fits in the model that
it rained, and then we force fit all the new
data into the idea that it rained, and we ignore
other possibilities.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Okay, so for the Big Bang theory, it's there's some
that say it just happened, or there's some that use
what I touched on earlier, the unmoved mover theory. What
do you think about those two notions of the Big
Bang theory?
Speaker 4 (02:43):
I would say I don't know.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
I don't think we know enough to be able to
say with certainty how the universe actually started. And in fact,
there are some big problems, especially with the Big Bang theory,
because what happens is scientists basically have to plug in
things in order for their theory to work.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
I'll give an example. According to the Big Bang theory.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
There was rapid expansion at the very beginning thirteen point
eight billion years ago. It's known as inflation this expansion,
and in order for that to have occurred, the scientists
have theorized a particle called an inflaton that must have
existed to cause this rapid inflation. However, no one has
ever found an infloton particle. Okay, and yet this is
(03:28):
a very important part of the Big Bang theory, and
that's just one idea where it.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Falls apart without that then or it doesn't hold up exactly.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
So this is known as a reification fallacy, where you
speak about an abstraction as if it's real, and you
speak about it over and over again, but you don't
acknowledge that maybe this thing doesn't even exist.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Oh so, okay, now this is getting us into sort
of your take on all of this. So where we
start with you and maybe maybe we're all right to
question things, because it sounds like when you said as
you said you stated at the begin the show, you
kind of started off with kind of a you know
things are here because they're here, and you kind of
came from an atheist sort of point of view. But
(04:07):
then you started realizing, well, not only does that seem
like there's something to it, but there is some science
to back some of it up. But there's also science
that doesn't back up some of the science or some
of the academia.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Right absolutely, and when we're talking about the cosmos, this
is really important because it's it's where we live, this
is what we inhabit.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
It's really fundamental to science.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
And yet there are two major things I want to
make sure you and your audience are aware of because
this was like an.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
AHA moment for me.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Number One, mainstream cosmology posits currently that ninety six percent
of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, meaning
we only understand what four percent of the universe is
and the rest is this ninety six percent.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
That's a great mystery.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Dark matter, which is a big part of that ninety
six percent, has been falsified by an astrophysicist named Pavel
Krupa at the University of Bonn in Germany with his colleagues.
They've looked at it and and they say the observations
that we would expect with dark matter are not there.
It's been falsified. So it just shows you we have
a bit of a house of cards. That's point number one.
Point number two is if you take the biggest theories
(05:11):
in modern physics, which is Einstein's relativity and the other
one is quantum mechanics, these are the leading theories. The
problem is that when you combine them together metaphorically speaking,
the equations blow up. They don't work together, meaning we
don't have a unified theory of physics, no theory of everything.
So we've got a big problem here. When people say
to me, Mark, why are you questioning so much? We
(05:33):
can explain things so well to me, it's well, grant
me these miracles of dark matter and dark energy and
no unified theory, and then we'll try to explain everything.
So the fundamentals, the foundations of physics and cosmology are
objectively broken and we have to start from there.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Yeah, did we start too big when we start with
the everything was created like this? Because it doesn't. It's
really hard to understand something like a universe that is
continually expanding into what what's on the other side? How
do we how do we justify that?
Speaker 3 (06:07):
That's a great question, and what I would ask you Riches,
has anyone observed this expansion?
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well? Yeah, I mean, how how have we said?
Speaker 4 (06:14):
How do we?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
I mean, it seems like that's a pretty universally accepted thought,
But yeah, where is the edge? And what if it's expanding?
It's constantly getting bigger, and I mean, we can I
get that the universe is expansive beyond our ability to
figure it out, but expanding into what and who's proven
(06:36):
this and why do we think it's expanding.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
It's a great point.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
What I found is that science works with inference on
top of inference on top of inference, but they don't
tell us that these are inferences. They're put forth as
much more definitive than they actually are.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
I would argue that there's a lot of data.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
Which scientists have fit into a model that leads to
expansion and a big bang and moving and an expanding universe.
But that's just way to explain the observations. What if
none of that is actually true because they're all inferences
and no one has ever directly observed that.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
So in your in.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Your travels, that whiteboard that we see in like a
beautiful mind where people are drawn all those equations, you're
one of those guys. You've done that to disprove things.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Well, it's more I try to find the holes. I'm
more interested in falsifying models than I am in saying
I know what is true, and they're just thanked exercises,
because that ends up leaving us in a place where
we say this model they told us, we can prove
that's not true, but we're not actually sure what is true.
So that's where I'm in this space of I don't know.
But all you need is for one thing to be
(07:41):
untrue about a model in order to falsify it.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
For example, let's say there's.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
A law out there that says all swans are white,
and you and I rich we go around the world
with our colleagues and we find a million white swans
and one day we find a single black swan that
has violated the law. The law said all swans are white.
If there's a single anomaly, then the model needs to
change in order to accommodate it. So I love to
focus on those anomalies, which often scientists like to sweep
(08:05):
under the rug.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
So if the big Bang theory is, let's just say
that that we were blowing a hole in that, well,
then how did we get here?
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Yeah, this is that's the big question.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I don't know, but I will point to something that
they might give us a hint. There's something known as
the cosmic microwave background, and this is something your audience
can look up.
Speaker 4 (08:27):
It's very famous. There was a Nobel Prize awarded to it.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
And this is background radiation that many physicists attribute to
the Big Bang. They say this is radiation that came
from something thirteen point eight billion years ago. The issue
is that there are some anomalies in this cosmic microwave
background that actually point toward Earth, and some scientists have
called this the axis of evil, which is an interesting
(08:50):
way of putting it. One way this has been interpreted,
if you look at this anomaly seriously, is that maybe
Earth occupies a much more central place in the cosmos,
rather than just being a random ball in a big universe.
Maybe Earth is more special than we've been told. And
that goes against what's known as the Copernican principle, which
is baked into much of our science, which says we
(09:13):
don't occupy a special place in the cosmos, and yet
there are these little anomalies that suggest, hmm, maybe we do.
And that doesn't answer your question directly, Rich about how
do we get here, but it might point us into
new ideas.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Maybe we're here for a reason.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
It might come to that right exactly, which a lot
of science doesn't like to think about.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Well, yeah, I think that's you know. I grew up.
I grew up Catholic, and it was interesting when I
was putting this together. My wife is a theology master.
She went to seminary school. She has her master's degree
in theology. So she was really interested in you in
particular because of your background, because I don't think she
really believes anything like reincarnation or the possibility of remote
(09:56):
viewing or psychics, because you know, she can feels like
that can all be explained away except for things that
are divine. And then I think that comes with a
lot of our upbringing, where we're like, well, we have
to be here for a reason. We have to be
here for call it what you will. God's God has
a purpose in the idea that you exist just as
(10:18):
a human being. Seems like the odds are against that happening,
just a human being happening. I remember who was it.
It was Jeff Corwin, who I had in the studio
one time, who said, yeah, it's almost like that a
human being existing is almost like saying you could go
to the bottom of the ocean and shake a bunch
of rocks together for like thirty thousand years and it
(10:40):
turns into a Rolex watch, Like that's more likely to
happen than a human being born. So do you even
start with just even just how humans are put together.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
Well, I used to be in that camp.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
I used to believe that life is fundamentally random and
meaningless and if we want to try to attribute meaning
to it, we're just rationalizing a very nihil stick reality
that we have to just get over it. But I
do think there is evidence that we don't live in
a random and meaningless universe, and things like remote viewing,
which has been validated by the US government. There are
(11:12):
declassified documents that explicitly say remote viewing is a real phenomenon.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
That's in my book, An End to Upside Dow.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
I'm thinking that's just one example out of many, and
all of this points to the idea that our consciousness
is beyond the bodies. Do we start to get into
the realm of maybe there's a soul, maybe there's something
that connects all of us in a higher intelligence god,
those sorts of things, and it directly counters this notion
of a random and meaningless universe, which also goes against
this random and meaningless Big Bang idea.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
It's interesting, like you can you can almost do the
science to say, yeah, that the random Big Bang theory
is almost like a science fiction writer came up with
something and we all just said, yeah, that's it. But
it's almost like you can't scientifically disprove that we have
a soul. It almost seems like there's more evidence that
there's So there's something greater than us. There's some kind
(12:02):
of creative for something that is at least nudging this,
this great experiment called humanity in some kind of direction,
right something.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Yeah, And I think the reason that scientists should be
open to this idea is that they will admit they
do not understand human consciousness. So that consciousness refers to
our capacity for experience.
Speaker 4 (12:24):
We all have it right now.
Speaker 3 (12:25):
It's the part of us that's experiencing. So we know
we have it, but we can't touch it, we can't
point to it. It's abstract, whereas the physical body we
can point to, the brain we can point to it's
a physical structure. This is known as the hard problem
of consciousness, basically, which is, how could something non physical
and abstract like our consciousness come out of something physical
like a brain?
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
And the answer is, well, maybe it doesn't come out
of the brain. Maybe we just believe it does because
we know there are correlations between what happens in the
brain and what happens to our consciousness. But as we
all know, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. And maybe our
brain's like an antenna or a filtering mechanism, and we
are bringing in the soul to the body somehow.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one am Eastern, and go to Coast tocoastam dot com
for more
Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Welcome back to Coast to Coast AM. I'm your host
this evening. My name is rich Bara, and Mark Gober
is our guest. And before the break, I was starting
to ask him about the Big Bang theory. And let's
start from the beginning with the Big Bank theory. Let's
start back before it was the Big Bang theory. Because
this is a hard one for me to get my
brain around. My I went to community college, you went
(00:25):
to Princeton, So you're gonna have to really, you're gonna
have to like talk to me like I'm a six
year old here. What before we question with the Big
Bang theory, why we should question it is what is
the common Big Bang theory philosophy.
Speaker 3 (00:41):
The common idea is that about thirteen point eight billion
years ago, so unimaginably long ago, there was an event
that started the universe that we currently live in, and
this is known as the Big Bang. And there was
basically a massive explosion in some very very far away place,
and it led to these pieces of matter to start
(01:01):
interacting with each other and bump into each other. And
that leads us to the current mainstream cosmological model where
you have all these various galaxies and solar systems and
Earth revolving around the Sun with other planets and so forth.
But it all started with the Big Bang. That's the idea.
And you know I say that now, but it's amazing
how deeply embedded that theory is in mainstream thinking and
(01:23):
mainstream academia. We almost take it for granted that it's
basically true, when in fact it's really just a theory
about something that we really cannot validate.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
I think we almost have more evidence of a multiverse
than we do the Big Bang theory.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
I want to give an analogy here because I think
what happens in cosmology and many other areas of life
is that we run into errors in logic and errors
in thinking where we observe data and then we jump
to conclusions about what caused it.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
Let me give you a very simple example.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
It's true that when it rains, the grass outside will
be wet, but it's problematic to say I observe grass,
therefore it rained. If you see what I mean, Because
sprinkler systems or do or children pouring buckets of water
that can cause wet grass. But what happens is in
science in many other areas, we observe things and then
(02:14):
we conclude, oh, well, it fits in the model that
it rained, and then we force fit all the new
data into the idea that it rained, and we ignore
other possibilities.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Okay, so for the Big Bang theory, it's there's some
that say it just happened, or there's some that use
what I touched on earlier, the unmoved mover theory. What
do you think about those two notions of the Big
Bang theory?
Speaker 4 (02:43):
I would say I don't know.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
I don't think we know enough to be able to
say with certainty how the universe actually started. And in fact,
there are some big problems, especially with the Big Bang theory,
because what happens is scientists basically have to plug in
things in order for their theory to work.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
I'll give an example. According to the Big Bang theory.
Speaker 3 (03:06):
There was rapid expansion at the very beginning thirteen point
eight billion years ago. It's known as inflation this expansion,
and in order for that to have occurred, the scientists
have theorized a particle called an inflaton that must have
existed to cause this rapid inflation. However, no one has
ever found an infloton particle. Okay, and yet this is
(03:28):
a very important part of the Big Bang theory, and
that's just one idea where it.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Falls apart without that then or it doesn't hold up exactly.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
So this is known as a reification fallacy, where you
speak about an abstraction as if it's real, and you
speak about it over and over again, but you don't
acknowledge that maybe this thing doesn't even exist.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Oh so, okay, now this is getting us into sort
of your take on all of this. So where we
start with you and maybe maybe we're all right to
question things, because it sounds like when you said as
you said you stated at the begin the show, you
kind of started off with kind of a you know
things are here because they're here, and you kind of
came from an atheist sort of point of view. But
(04:07):
then you started realizing, well, not only does that seem
like there's something to it, but there is some science
to back some of it up. But there's also science
that doesn't back up some of the science or some
of the academia.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Right absolutely, and when we're talking about the cosmos, this
is really important because it's it's where we live, this
is what we inhabit.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
It's really fundamental to science.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
And yet there are two major things I want to
make sure you and your audience are aware of because
this was like an.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
AHA moment for me.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Number One, mainstream cosmology posits currently that ninety six percent
of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, meaning
we only understand what four percent of the universe is
and the rest is this ninety six percent.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
That's a great mystery.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Dark matter, which is a big part of that ninety
six percent, has been falsified by an astrophysicist named Pavel
Krupa at the University of Bonn in Germany with his colleagues.
They've looked at it and and they say the observations
that we would expect with dark matter are not there.
It's been falsified. So it just shows you we have
a bit of a house of cards. That's point number one.
Point number two is if you take the biggest theories
(05:11):
in modern physics, which is Einstein's relativity and the other
one is quantum mechanics, these are the leading theories. The
problem is that when you combine them together metaphorically speaking,
the equations blow up. They don't work together, meaning we
don't have a unified theory of physics, no theory of everything.
So we've got a big problem here. When people say
to me, Mark, why are you questioning so much? We
(05:33):
can explain things so well to me, it's well, grant
me these miracles of dark matter and dark energy and
no unified theory, and then we'll try to explain everything.
So the fundamentals, the foundations of physics and cosmology are
objectively broken and we have to start from there.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Yeah, did we start too big when we start with
the everything was created like this? Because it doesn't. It's
really hard to understand something like a universe that is
continually expanding into what what's on the other side? How
do we how do we justify that?
Speaker 3 (06:07):
That's a great question, and what I would ask you Riches,
has anyone observed this expansion?
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well? Yeah, I mean, how how have we said?
Speaker 4 (06:14):
How do we?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
I mean, it seems like that's a pretty universally accepted thought,
But yeah, where is the edge? And what if it's expanding?
It's constantly getting bigger, and I mean, we can I
get that the universe is expansive beyond our ability to
figure it out, but expanding into what and who's proven
(06:36):
this and why do we think it's expanding.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
It's a great point.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
What I found is that science works with inference on
top of inference on top of inference, but they don't
tell us that these are inferences. They're put forth as
much more definitive than they actually are.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
I would argue that there's a lot of data.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
Which scientists have fit into a model that leads to
expansion and a big bang and moving and an expanding universe.
But that's just way to explain the observations. What if
none of that is actually true because they're all inferences
and no one has ever directly observed that.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
So in your in.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Your travels, that whiteboard that we see in like a
beautiful mind where people are drawn all those equations, you're
one of those guys. You've done that to disprove things.
Speaker 3 (07:20):
Well, it's more I try to find the holes. I'm
more interested in falsifying models than I am in saying
I know what is true, and they're just thanked exercises,
because that ends up leaving us in a place where
we say this model they told us, we can prove
that's not true, but we're not actually sure what is true.
So that's where I'm in this space of I don't know.
But all you need is for one thing to be
(07:41):
untrue about a model in order to falsify it.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
For example, let's say there's.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
A law out there that says all swans are white,
and you and I rich we go around the world
with our colleagues and we find a million white swans
and one day we find a single black swan that
has violated the law. The law said all swans are white.
If there's a single anomaly, then the model needs to
change in order to accommodate it. So I love to
focus on those anomalies, which often scientists like to sweep
(08:05):
under the rug.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
So if the big Bang theory is, let's just say
that that we were blowing a hole in that, well,
then how did we get here?
Speaker 4 (08:17):
Yeah, this is that's the big question.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I don't know, but I will point to something that
they might give us a hint. There's something known as
the cosmic microwave background, and this is something your audience
can look up.
Speaker 4 (08:27):
It's very famous. There was a Nobel Prize awarded to it.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
And this is background radiation that many physicists attribute to
the Big Bang. They say this is radiation that came
from something thirteen point eight billion years ago. The issue
is that there are some anomalies in this cosmic microwave
background that actually point toward Earth, and some scientists have
called this the axis of evil, which is an interesting
(08:50):
way of putting it. One way this has been interpreted,
if you look at this anomaly seriously, is that maybe
Earth occupies a much more central place in the cosmos,
rather than just being a random ball in a big universe.
Maybe Earth is more special than we've been told. And
that goes against what's known as the Copernican principle, which
is baked into much of our science, which says we
(09:13):
don't occupy a special place in the cosmos, and yet
there are these little anomalies that suggest, hmm, maybe we do.
And that doesn't answer your question directly, Rich about how
do we get here, but it might point us into
new ideas.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
Maybe we're here for a reason.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
It might come to that right exactly, which a lot
of science doesn't like to think about.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Well, yeah, I think that's you know. I grew up.
I grew up Catholic, and it was interesting when I
was putting this together. My wife is a theology master.
She went to seminary school. She has her master's degree
in theology. So she was really interested in you in
particular because of your background, because I don't think she
really believes anything like reincarnation or the possibility of remote
(09:56):
viewing or psychics, because you know, she can feels like
that can all be explained away except for things that
are divine. And then I think that comes with a
lot of our upbringing, where we're like, well, we have
to be here for a reason. We have to be
here for call it what you will. God's God has
a purpose in the idea that you exist just as
(10:18):
a human being. Seems like the odds are against that happening,
just a human being happening. I remember who was it.
It was Jeff Corwin, who I had in the studio
one time, who said, yeah, it's almost like that a
human being existing is almost like saying you could go
to the bottom of the ocean and shake a bunch
of rocks together for like thirty thousand years and it
(10:40):
turns into a Rolex watch, Like that's more likely to
happen than a human being born. So do you even
start with just even just how humans are put together.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
Well, I used to be in that camp.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
I used to believe that life is fundamentally random and
meaningless and if we want to try to attribute meaning
to it, we're just rationalizing a very nihil stick reality
that we have to just get over it. But I
do think there is evidence that we don't live in
a random and meaningless universe, and things like remote viewing,
which has been validated by the US government. There are
(11:12):
declassified documents that explicitly say remote viewing is a real phenomenon.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
That's in my book, An End to Upside Dow.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
I'm thinking that's just one example out of many, and
all of this points to the idea that our consciousness
is beyond the bodies. Do we start to get into
the realm of maybe there's a soul, maybe there's something
that connects all of us in a higher intelligence god,
those sorts of things, and it directly counters this notion
of a random and meaningless universe, which also goes against
this random and meaningless Big Bang idea.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
It's interesting, like you can you can almost do the
science to say, yeah, that the random Big Bang theory
is almost like a science fiction writer came up with
something and we all just said, yeah, that's it. But
it's almost like you can't scientifically disprove that we have
a soul. It almost seems like there's more evidence that
there's So there's something greater than us. There's some kind
(12:02):
of creative for something that is at least nudging this,
this great experiment called humanity in some kind of direction,
right something.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Yeah, And I think the reason that scientists should be
open to this idea is that they will admit they
do not understand human consciousness. So that consciousness refers to
our capacity for experience.
Speaker 4 (12:24):
We all have it right now.
Speaker 3 (12:25):
It's the part of us that's experiencing. So we know
we have it, but we can't touch it, we can't
point to it. It's abstract, whereas the physical body we
can point to, the brain we can point to it's
a physical structure. This is known as the hard problem
of consciousness, basically, which is, how could something non physical
and abstract like our consciousness come out of something physical
like a brain?
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
And the answer is, well, maybe it doesn't come out
of the brain. Maybe we just believe it does because
we know there are correlations between what happens in the
brain and what happens to our consciousness. But as we
all know, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. And maybe our
brain's like an antenna or a filtering mechanism, and we
are bringing in the soul to the body somehow.
Speaker 1 (13:07):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one am Eastern, and go to Coast tocoastam dot com
for more
The Best of Coast to Coast AM News
Host
George Noory
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.