Understanding the Psychology of the Paranormal, the Philosophies of Christopher Hitchens, and More

Summary

The Nerve with Maureen Callahan
Episode: Understanding the Psychology of the Paranormal, the Philosophies of Christopher Hitchens, and More
Guest: Professor Sam Vaknin
Date: October 28, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this wide-ranging and intellectually charged episode, Maureen Callahan is joined by Professor Sam Vaknin for a deep dive into the psychology underpinning belief in the paranormal and supernatural, the limits of rationality and science, and why scientific luminaries have sometimes embraced mysticism. They discuss the human need for meaning, the blurred boundaries between science and “the paranormal,” and the philosophical approaches of figures such as Christopher Hitchens, William James, and Oliver Sacks. Along the way, they interrogate whether science can explain everything, why certain questions are undecidable, and the emotional returns people gain from beliefs outside the rational sphere.

---

Main Themes & Purpose

• Psychological Need for the Paranormal: Investigation of why humans across eras and cultures create and seek meaning beyond rational explanation, often through supernatural narratives.
• Science vs. Mysticism: Dissection of the historical and ongoing tension between scientific rationalism (“scientism”) and beliefs in the supernatural.
• Intellectual Humility: A plea for greater humility in scientific discourse when examining human experience, especially unexplainable phenomena.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Origins of Paranormal Belief and Meaning-Making

(05:49–12:49)

• Vaknin: Rationality “fails to provide meaning and hope” in the face of existential crises (05:49). Humans use narratives—often irrational, even counterfactual—to organize and explain existence, feeling more “at home” with supernatural explanations than with cold, indifferent logic.

• Quote:

  “Logic and rationality are alienating. They render us strangers in reality.” —Prof. Sam Vaknin (07:10)

• Modern “Universe-Talk”: Maureen notes the secular adoption of the “universe” as a guiding force, with Sam explaining this as a mix of grandiosity and magical thinking—infantile beliefs that thoughts can shape reality (08:16).

2. Historical Perspective: Science and the Paranormal

(09:33–11:49)

• Historical Unity: Up through the 19th century, scientific giants like Newton engaged in astrology and alchemy, seeing the “normal” and the “paranormal” as equally valid realms for organizing life.

• Quote:

  “Newton was an astrologer and an alchemist... Physics was a byline, a hobby.” —Prof. Sam Vaknin (09:50–10:06)

• Rise of Scientism: This “religion of science” began to ridicule and marginalize paranormal beliefs, yet such beliefs persisted due to their deep psychological roles.

3. Psychological Mechanisms Behind Paranormal Experience

(11:49–14:49)

• Boundaries and Hallucination: Vaknin explains that belief in the paranormal can reflect a temporary breakdown between “internal and external objects,” a feature also seen in psychotic disorders—yet not necessarily outright pathology.

• Quote:

  “It’s a valid experience. The person is not lying. They did see a ghost. But we know that this is a hallucination.” —Prof. Sam Vaknin (12:24)

• Case Study on Childhood “Paranormal” Memories: Most cases are explained by imaginary friends or selective memory; out of thousands of studied cases, only one remains truly unexplained (14:49–15:12).

4. The ‘Black Swan’ Case and Scientific Humility

(14:56–18:44)

• Stevenson’s Case: A noted case of a girl recalling a previous life in India (15:12–16:09) — verified facts that science can’t explain.

• Philosopher William James: A staunch rationalist who nonetheless acknowledged unexplained phenomena and the psychological importance of religious experience, especially following grief.

• Quote:

  “James said that if there is a general maxim that all swans are white and then there’s a single black swan, that is enough to falsify the maxim.” —Prof. Sam Vaknin (17:57)

5. Materialism vs Dualism — Consciousness and Identity

(19:42–21:44)

• Oliver Sacks Interview Clip: Asserts monist/materialist position while admitting reductionism feels incomplete.

  “I tend to think that there will be one day a biology of consciousness ... but there’s something always reductive about explanation.” —Oliver Sacks (20:30)

• Vaknin: Science isn’t about eternal answers, only good questions; all scientific knowledge is provisional, and “settled science” is an oxymoron (21:44–24:34).

6. Metaphysical Questions Science Can’t Answer

(27:45–32:44)

• Limits of Inquiry: Questions like “Does God exist?” or “What is consciousness?” are undecidable. Any attempt to answer is non-scientific; we must recognize science’s boundaries.

• Quote:

  “There are things that science cannot query ... These are undecidables.” —Prof. Sam Vaknin (28:54)

7. Misattribution of Arousal and the Paranormal

(28:54–34:28)

• Experimental Evidence: Physiological changes (e.g., increased heart rate) are often misattributed to feelings of love or paranormal events. Most paranormal experiences cluster around times of grief, stress, or emotional upheaval.

• Maureen presses: Could heightened states of crisis allow for a dissolved barrier between “our temporal world” and something beyond? Vaknin holds to coincidence and statistical probability.

8. The Role of the Observer — Parallels to Quantum Mechanics

(34:29–40:04)

• Observation and Reality: The experience of paranormal events, like quantum particles, may depend on the observer's presence (Copenhagen interpretation). Raises classic questions: “If a ghost is seen, but the observer is removed, is there still a ghost?”

• Quote:

  “What is good for the gander is good for the goose, but if it’s good for quantum mechanics, it should be good for the paranormal.” —Prof. Sam Vaknin (36:20)

• Deeper Motivation: The longing for paranormal beliefs may reflect a primal “oceanic feeling”—the infantile sense of oneness with the mother/world that adults seek to recreate.

9. Religious Myths, Birth Trauma, and Individuation

(41:04–45:56)

• Myth as Metaphor: Suggests religious myths (e.g., Noah’s Ark) encode the trauma of birth or the painful separation from the “maternal” oneness.

• Vaknin: The deepest trauma is realizing, as a toddler, that you are separate from the world/mother. Paranormal beliefs can be a means to recapture the safety of oneness.

• Quote:

  “We want to go back to ... the pre-traumatic phase when we were one with mother and one with the world. It felt so safe.” —Prof. Sam Vaknin (44:35)

10. Christopher Hitchens on Death, Stoicism, and Atheism

(48:56–53:40)

• Hitchens Clip: Facing cancer, he insists the universe “doesn’t know I’m here and won’t notice when I’m gone” (49:49), and resists religious consolations even in the face of mortality.

• Quote:

  “That seemed the only properly stoic attitude to take.” —Christopher Hitchens (50:20)

• On Prayers for His Soul: Hitchens critiques religious desire for deathbed conversion as “a kind of blackmail ... tremendous insecurity.” (52:00)

• Vaknin: Sees religious need as a psychological refuge for the “weak,” not as cowardice; identifies militant atheism as its own kind of faith.

11. Scientific Humility and the Taboo on Paranormal Studies

(54:00–63:12)

• Vaknin: True science demands humility. Paranormal phenomena, even if explainable as brain artifacts, are worthy of systematic study. Suppressing inquiry because of taboo or ridicule is intellectually dangerous and anti-scientific.

• Quote:

  “We need to study them. They are as real as any smartphone. More real even. They preceded the smartphone.” —Prof. Sam Vaknin (54:16, 59:14)

• Meditation as Precedent: The study of meditation transitioned from ridicule to mainstream acceptance once subject to empirical analysis—paranormal phenomena deserve similar rigor (61:02).

12. Final Reflections — Science, Boundaries, and Open Inquiry

(63:12–68:02)

• Maureen and Sam: Call for science to expand to include all human experiences—regardless of initial plausibility—since excluding entire domains limits progress and understanding.

• Quote:

  “The worst way to tackle or consider a problem is to deny that it exists.” —Prof. Sam Vaknin (67:36)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Logic and rationality are alienating. They render us strangers in reality.” —Sam Vaknin (07:10)
• “The universe doesn’t know I’m here and won’t notice when I’m gone.” —Christopher Hitchens (49:49)
• “A science which is sufficiently advanced would be indistinguishable from magic.” —Arthur C. Clarke, cited by Sam Vaknin (28:01)
• “Settled science is an oxymoron.” —Sam Vaknin (24:34)
• “We need to study [paranormal experiences]. They are as real as any smartphone. More real even.” —Sam Vaknin (54:16)
• “If we remove the observer, would we still have a ghost?” —Sam Vaknin (35:50)
• “The worst way to tackle or consider a problem is to deny that it exists.” —Sam Vaknin (67:36)

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• Origins of Supernatural Belief: 05:49–09:20
• Science and the Paranormal, Newton, and Imaginary Friends: 09:33–14:49
• Unexplained Paranormal Case & William James: 14:56–18:44
• Oliver Sacks & Mind-Body Dualism: 19:42–21:44
• Science as Questioning, Not Answering: 21:44–24:34
• Science Cannot Answer All Questions (Undecidables): 27:45–32:44
• Paranormal Experiences as Misattributed Arousal: 32:44–34:28
• Observer Effect and the Paranormal: 34:29–36:20
• Separation Trauma and the “Matrix”: 40:04–45:04
• Christopher Hitchens on Facing Death: 48:56–53:40
• On Studying the Paranormal in Science: 54:00–63:12
• Science’s Willingness to Ask All Questions: 63:12–67:36

---

Tone & Language

Throughout the discussion, both Callahan and Vaknin balance rigor and skepticism with humor, candor, and a profound commitment to intellectual inquiry. They critique the arrogance and rigidity of both scientism and religious dogma, advocating for bold questions and radical humility.

The episode moves naturally between personal experience, philosophical history, and contemporary cultural critique, making it engaging for both lay audiences and those familiar with psychology, philosophy, or science.

---

Summary for Non-Listeners

If you haven’t listened:
This episode serves as an accessible but genuinely deep investigation into why humans crave paranormal explanations; the historical entanglements of science and mysticism; the psychological safety offered by belief; and why the most honest stance toward the unexplained is humility and continued inquiry. With real-life cases, historical examples, and playful yet pointed philosophical sparring, Maureen and Professor Vaknin urge listeners (and scientists) to take seriously all aspects of human experience—even, and especially, those that science cannot yet explain.

Transcript

[Maureen Callahan]

With my job, I can't drink during the week. Weekends are a different story. Ugh. After eight hours of this, I have earned my wine. You know what I'm saying? My family is a lot.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

It takes me four beers just to hang out with them. Binge drinking isn't all college kids doing keg stands. Oregonians in their 30s and 40s binge drink at close to the same rates as younger people, raising our risk for long term health problems. [e-mail] an OHA initiative.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should 1. It's $15 a month.

[Maureen Callahan]

2.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Seriously, it's $15 a month.

[Nikki and Bri]

3.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

No big contracts.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

4.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

I use it.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

5.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

My mom uses it. Are you, are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront.

[Maureen Callahan]

Payment of $45 for three month plan $15 per month equivalent required. New customer offer first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See Mintmo hello and welcome to your Tuesday edition of the Nerve. I am your host Maureen Callahan and we have a very special episode for you today. This may be one of my favorite episodes ever in the nerv's young life in the runup to our Halloween extravaganza this Friday, which is going to be so fun but also smart and interesting and dark and provocative but in the best way. In today's episode, in honor of the spirit of the week, we are talking to one of the nerves favorites, none other than Professor Sam Vacnin. But this isn't a discussion about earthly dilemmas. Instead, we asked Sam Sam if he would be up for talking about the human impulse, the psychology behind the need. We all have to explain the nature of our very existence, the miracle of it really, through the lens of human psychology. Specifically, what do we mean when we talk about the paranormal and the supernatural? Why have human beings since recorded history searched for spirits and worlds beyond our comprehension? What are the limits of science in providing answers? And who among our greatest minds were surprising believers? Sam's answers may take you aback a bit. They certainly did me in the best way. Now, this segment was planned to be about 20 minutes plan. But because Sam is so fascinating and so well read and because our conversation only got deeper and richer, we kept going and we decided to devote today's Full Nerve to this subject. In this interview with Sam Vaknin. Settle in because you like all of us here at Nerve Central. It's an amazing, amazing discussion. So let's go. Today's show is sponsored by Cowboy Colostrum. Colostrum is the first milk that babies, cow babies receive after birth. It's often referred to as liquid gold because it is packed with proteins, natural growth factors and antimicrobials. Three factors that can enhance your immune system, your response. It can reduce inflammation, repair and balance gut lining and reduce bloating. This stuff can even make your hair and skin look amazing. Cowboy Colostrum offers the highest quality cow colostrum in the US they don't over process or strip their colostrum, leaving it whole with full fat and high protein for ultimate nutrient density. It is sourced from 100% grass fed cows here in the US with all natural ingredients and no artificial flavors. You can add Cowboy Colostrum to your coffee or smoothie. It's simple and easy to drink. For a limited time, our listeners get up to 25% off their entire order. Just head to cowboycolostrum.com Maureen and use code MAUREEN at checkout. That's 25% off when you use code [e-mail] Maureen after you purchase, they're gonna ask you who you are and where you came from and say, I'm a troublemaker. And I came from Team Nerve. Please support our show. Tell them that we sent you. We are so happy to welcome you back. Sam, how are you doing today?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Thank you for having me. I'm. I'm okay, thank you.

[Maureen Callahan]

You're coming to us from Paris, I understand.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yes, I'm in.

[Maureen Callahan]

I love your very Parisian backdrop. I'm very jealous. How is it over there?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Well, it's. It's like intermittent reinforcement. Hot and cold.

[Maureen Callahan]

Yeah, you're not missing much. It's the same. We here on the east coast are having the same. I'm so glad you were up for this discussion. I wasn't sure you would be because I would bet as a man of letters, you would consider yourself a rationalist. And I'm hoping that you can talk to us a little bit about. You know, it's a large subject, but. But could you speak to us about. Since the dawn of humanity, it seems we have searched for greater meaning, whether it's in the cosmos or invented gods of the Greeks and Romans. Can you sort of talk to us about the origins of this?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yes. I think the problem is that logic and rationality fail to provide meaning and hope. So when you're confronted, for example, with grief, when you're confronted with loneliness and isolation. Existential rationality is not going to help you much. Logic is going to lead you nowhere. You need other things. And these other things, regrettably, are irrational. And they are grouped under the label supernatural or paranormal or even religious. These are beliefs that are not grounded in either reality or in facts. These are counterfactual beliefs, but their strength is the narrative. They provide a narrative because they provide a narrative. They become organizing and explanatory principles. They allow us to make sense of life and reality, to imbue them with meaning, however artificial, and to provide some sense of direction, purpose. So we feel more at home in the universe with these kinds of explanations and stories and narratives, and we feel more at home. Logic and rationality are alienating. They render us strangers in, in reality, it's.

[Maureen Callahan]

In what way? In what way do they render us strangers?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

They're neutral. They're neutral. They're objective. And the main lesson of rationality and logic is that the universe is essentially random and it does not care about us. There's no element of caring. It's inexorable. The universe is inexorable. It's a machine. And that makes us cogs and wheels in this machine.

[Maureen Callahan]

You know, it's so interesting you say that because one of the most common concepts of the modern age, and you hear this all the time, particularly in American daytime television, is the universe. The universe has guided you here. The universe has heard you. The universe has made it so. The universe has become sort of this plug in for the secular notion of an all seeing God. Why do you think that's happening right now?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

It's a combination of grandiosity and magical thinking. The belief that the universe cares sufficiently about you to guide you. I find it delusional, to use a British understatement. And also it involves magical thinking. Magical thinking is the infantile belief that your thoughts or wishes, if they're strong enough, powerful enough, can affect change in reality.

[Maureen Callahan]

This is the other concept we now call secularly manifesting. Yes, wish hard enough for it, it.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Will become true action. Law of Attraction. The secret, all these things, they imply that your internal reality has external outcomes that by wishing or by thinking or by willing, you could affect change in reality. You could rearrange it to cater to your needs and promote your ambitions and, and so on and so forth. But with your kind permission, I would like to delve a bit deeper into the psychology of the, of the paranormal.

[Maureen Callahan]

Oh, yes, please. I would love it. Okay, Sam, I would love nothing more you're speaking my language. Let's do it. I mean it. I'm not being facetious. Please go.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

First of all, historically, the distinction between normal and paranormal would have shocked men of science well into the 19th century.

[Maureen Callahan]

Okay.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

They didn't see any different. They didn't see any difference or any.

[Maureen Callahan]

Distinction between the normal and the paranormal.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah, I mean, Newton was an astrologer and an alchemist.

[Maureen Callahan]

I did not know that. I did not know that.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah, he spent. He spent most of his career as an alchemist and astrologer. Actually, physics was a byline, a hobby.

[Maureen Callahan]

Wow.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

And. And this is only one example. Well into the 19th century, the. There was a separation between science and all the rest, and both realms of existence were considered equally valid and equally important to the meaningful and full and rich life of an individual. Only with the rise of scientism, which is the religion of science. Only with the rise of scientism did we come to disparage and. And kind of mock and ridicule the paranormal. The religious, the. The irrational, the. As if they have no role in human life or as if their only role is to corrupt the human mind. That is expressly untrue. Religion, parapsychology, the paranormal, the supernatural, spiritualism, I mean, the esoteric, all these are there because they're needed, and they're needed because they cater to specific psychological functions and needs. Having said that, they reflect highly specific psychological processes. First of all, anyone who believes in the paranormal has some kind of difficulty to tell apart internal objects from external objects. There's a confusion between what's happening internally and what's happening externally. And this, of course, is. Is why we see apparitions and ghosts. They exist in our mind, but we perceive them as external. This is an element in psychotic disorders. People with psychosis have this problem.

[Maureen Callahan]

So. So, Sam. So are you saying that anybody who says they have had a brush with the paranormal, who has had a brush with the unexplained, has experienced some manner of temporary psychosis?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

No, what I'm saying is that certain types of paranormal experiences reflect a confusion between internal and external objects. And that is also a clinical feature of. Of psychotic disorders. It doesn't mean that these people are psychotic.

[Maureen Callahan]

No, I'm not saying they are psychotic. But it sounds like you're saying it can be a temporary situational phenomenon.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

It's a temporary break with reality. Absolutely. Yes. It's a valid experience. The person is not lying. They did see a ghost. But we know that this is a hallucination. An upper in operation is A hallucination. We know that there is a breakdown of the boundary between external reality and internal reality, which leads to the confusion of the two. The two territories.

[Maureen Callahan]

Sam, let me ask you a question, because this is a case that we are going to talk about and delve into on our Halloween episode. And this is an isolated case, but there is a documented story and video, audio literature, what have you, of a young girl, I believe, in the 1980s. So this is before the Internet, and before one could have their fantasies augmented, buy such a thing, who, at about the age of five years old, reported playing with older. A couple of men who were in their 50s. She could name them, she could explain what they looked like. Nobody else saw them. It turned out these men were deceased. They had lived in the house next door. She. She had all of. All of the factual, biographical details of their. Of their lives correct. How would you explain such a thing? Can science explain such a thing?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

I don't know the particular case, but I can say. I can make two general comments.

[Maureen Callahan]

Okay.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Most children have imaginary friends, right? These imaginary friends disappear. Disappear in adulthood. But they fulfill very important roles. They are known as transitory objects. These imaginary friends allow the child to develop social skills and to feel protected and safe in environments which are less than stable and so on, so forth. But most children have them. That's point number one. Point number two. There have been multiple projects in academia and in science where we have attempted to study exactly such stories over decades. And I'm not talking about a single project. We have Stevenson's project. We have the Princeton Laboratory. Each of these projects has studied anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000 cases. In the totality of this endeavor, we succeeded to come across a single unexplained case.

[Maureen Callahan]

Really One.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

All the others.

[Maureen Callahan]

Can you. Can you talk a little bit about what that one unexplained case entailed?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah. That was a case described by Stevenson, who was a serious and rigorous academic year. Stevenson was in the United States. Yes. And Stephenson. Okay, I'm sorry.

[Maureen Callahan]

1960S, you said?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yes.

[Maureen Callahan]

Okay.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

And Stephenson. Stevenson described the case of a young girl who. Who came up with a recollection, perfect recollection of her previous life in India. There was an American young girl, a previous life in India. She described her relatives. She named them. She described a house. And she described the buried treasure, a treasure she herself had buried prior to her demise. She died in childbirth, I think. And then the only way to verify this was to travel to India. And so the whole circus traveled to India and they found she Named them correctly. They found the house and they found the buried treasure exactly where she pointed it out. And that's the only unexplained case in the entire history of the field, which is now at least 150 years old.

[Maureen Callahan]

I would say, though that case is beyond tantalizing.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Well, that's precisely what people like William James and I was going to get.

[Maureen Callahan]

To William James with you.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Exactly precisely what William James and Arthur Conan Doyle said. These were hyper rational people. William James is arguably the father of psychology.

[Maureen Callahan]

And let's just explain to anyone who may be unfamiliar with William James, brother of the famous novelist, 19th century novelist Henry James. He was a physician, he taught at Harvard, he was an expert in anatomy, a rationalist who later in life wrote one of the most famous books on the subject up until that point called the Variety of Religious Experience. And I remember reading that book maybe in my 20s, and thinking this was blowing my mind because I felt like I was experiencing a rationalist working through his own resistance to the idea of other dimensions or other understandings of human nature that were beyond our own recognition.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

There's also James, the father of psychology, who is a more. An even more interesting case. And he, he suggested that paranormal phenomena are real, are real. He developed this belief or belief system following the death of his, of his only son, Herman. And very often these conversions on the way to Damascus take take place after a period of grief in the wake of some grief. So we have Arthur Conan Doyle, who's lost his, who lost his son in the First World War, the father of Sherlock Holmes.

[Maureen Callahan]

Yes, yes.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

And Arthur Conan Doyle became a spiritualist in the wake of this experience, the loss of his son. So did James. And James said that if there is a general maxim that all swans are white and then there's a single black swan, that is enough to falsify the maxim. Now, I'm mentioning this because you asked me about this single case.

[Maureen Callahan]

Yeah.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

This single case has not been explained. And I find it difficult to think of a way to explain it to be honest. And in itself, it's sufficient to falsify the paradigm that the paranormal is wrong.

[Maureen Callahan]

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing, but I didn't want to say it. I was thinking the exact same thing.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

It's a curious case which challenges many, many underlying assumptions regarding many, many things.

[Maureen Callahan]

Well, you know, I just want to say you mentioned at the beginning of the conversation, and I love this phrase, the religion of scientism, the idea that scientism, this idea that we explain everything through known Laws of physics and medicine, biology, the known world is in itself a religion, even if said adherents consider themselves atheists. No, no, no. They do belong to a religion. I want to show a clip of the very famous neurologist O, who has since passed, being asked about what he thinks about the paranormal and the idea of dualism, the idea that the body houses the soul and those two things live together for a time, but are separate entities that divide upon death. Let's take a look.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Do you find.

[Oliver Sacks]

I mean, is. Is there a mind, body, dichotomy, or are we just one set of physical organism? I'm. I feel strongly that we are just one set. And I think the dichotomy is. Is partly because we don't know enough about the body and. And its wonder. Which is. Which is what Spinoza was saying in 1650. Many, many physiologists are dualists. Sherrington, who was the greatest physiologist of all, was a complete dualist.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

But.

[Oliver Sacks]

I tend to think that there will be one day a biology of consciousness and of sensibility which will not be redactive and will allow all the. All the fullness of life as we know it and will explain all. Well, will illuminate all. Maybe. There's something always reductive about explanation.

[Maureen Callahan]

So what struck. I'll talk about what struck me about that interview, and then I'll give it to you. Oliver Sacks, indisputably a brilliant man, if you haven't seen Awakenings. That was his discovery, and his research is struggling. To my mind, he is saying, I absolutely am not a dualist. I believe that there is one temporal existence, and upon death, we become nothing. But to me, you know. And he references Spinoza, who thought differently as early as 1650. He seems to be struggling, and that, to me, humanizes him. That to me, says, I may be a man of medicine, but I cannot, in my delivery and my comportment, say I 100% believe this to be the case. What are your thoughts, Sam?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Science is a method of inquiry. Science is not about finding answers. Science is about asking the right questions. All the answers of science are false and will always be false. That's why science constantly improves upon itself. That's why we no longer adhere to theories which were, you know, the best of trade or best of trade.

[Maureen Callahan]

I love that.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Or the state of the art in, in. In the 17th century or the 18th century. They're no longer valid, yet they were highly scientific at the time. The process of science is querying the universe in a way which would tantalizingly provide temporary answers which would then be disproved. This is not Sam Vaknin. This is Karl Popper, who came up with the idea of falsifiability. He said that scientific theories cannot be verified, they can only be falsified. It was right, of course. And so whatever it is that Newton has said is still valid. But there is a theory which is much more valid, which is Einstein's, which will be a hundred percent falsified in 100 years time.

[Maureen Callahan]

You think so?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

No doubt about this. Not the beginning of a doubt about this. It's already partially falsified.

[Maureen Callahan]

Which theory are you speaking of? Are you thinking of the theory of relativity? What are you thinking of?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah, his theories. All history. There's no scientific theory that's. That survives the test of time. Science is a succession of falsehoods, not a succession of truth or facts. It's a common mistake. Layman think this way. Laymen say, oh, science is going to give us the answer. No way. However, science can teach you what questions to ask and which questions are not legitimate. So science is about legitimizing discourse and delegitimizing other forms of discourse. Science is about language, not about reality.

[Maureen Callahan]

I love that you're saying this because I feel that we as laypeople, no matter how much we, we read or how much we listen to minds such as yourself, the message we get from the scientific establishment and anybody who's had dealings with the medical establishment, 99% of the time, you're going to be dealing with someone who says, I know best. This is factual. This is settled science. Settled science. And we live in an age right now where questions are being asked and people are being at. People who are asking questions are being told, you're an idiot. This is settled science. You say not so.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Settled science is an oxymoron. There is no science that is ever settled. And the essence of science is to unsettle itself. The essence of the scientific method, scientific inquiry, and the scientific mind is to challenge, undermine, and falsify everything we think we know. This is not Wikipedia. This is not crowdsourcing. So no, we are not never going to end up with a stable article, as Wikipedians call it. We're never going to have a stable article.

[Maureen Callahan]

Here's a shot. Shock. It's been over 16 years since the federal minimum wage was raised to $7.25. Can you believe it? Company productivity has doubled. But has your wallet size. One in five Americans can't even qualify for a basic credit card. The system is broken. We all deserve access to decent housing, transportation and financial stability. That is where kickoff comes in. Kickoff helps you build credit fast with affordable plans starting at just $5 per month. No hidden fees, no interest, just on time payments that get reported to credit bureaus and help you grow a strong credit score. Users with credit scores under 600 saw an average increase of 84 points in their first year. With premium plans, you can even build credit with the rent you already pay. Only positive payments get reported. It is so easy to get started. Sign up in minutes from your phone. No credit check, no hassle. Over 1 million users and hundreds of thousands of 5 star reviews make Kickoff the number one credit builder on the App Store. Start building credit today and get your first month for just $[e-mail] Maureen that's Getkick K I K O F F.com.

[Nikki and Bri]

Maureen hey everyone, it's Nikki and Bri, and we're here to let you know that we have a podcast, the Nicki and Bri Show. Yes. And we've got new episodes every Monday and Thursday. We're serving up real deal conversations that go beyond the cameras. Think Motherhood Confessions, Sisterhood Vibes, Boss Business Energy and TV Life Tea. Need a laugh? We got you craving inspo. We got inspiration and affirmations on deck one. A little cry or a big Heck yes. That's our jam. Whether we're breaking down pop culture, sharing parenting wins or fails, unpacking personal growth, or just riffing on everyday chaos, nothing is off limits. Plus, we welcome incredible guests, play our favorite games, and do what only sisters can. Keep it 100 while raising a glass together. So pop a bottle, hit play and come hang with us. Listen to the Nikki and Brie show wherever you get your podcast.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

But I want to kind of revert to something you have raised. Arthur C. Clark, the famous author science fiction?

[Maureen Callahan]

Yes, 2001.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

An inventor, by the way.

[Maureen Callahan]

I didn't know that.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah, he invented the satellite, among other things.

[Maureen Callahan]

Really?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

So Arthur C. Clark said that a science which is sufficiently advanced would be indistinguishable from magic. And. And that is a very astute observation. It means that what we consider today to be the paranormal will, with absolute certainty become science in due time. It is just that our science is imperfect and reflects our limitations right now, and to assume otherwise is hubris. It's grandiose. The paranormal is a set of experiences and we are confusing the question of validity while it is legitimate to challenge the objective external existence. The next comment I would like to make is that there are some questions the answers to which we are never going to find. Because in principle these questions are unanswerable and they're known in mathematics as undecidable propositions or undecidable theorems. Let me give you two examples of such questions and why it is a colossal waste of time to discuss them even Does God exist? And the other question is, what is consciousness? These are the kind of questions that in principle cannot be answered. Therefore any discussion of these questions is non scientific. That means that science, the ability of science to generate temporary false answers, mind you, we call them asymptotic answers. The ability to generate these kind of answers is highly limited. There are things that science cannot query, cannot help us with the meaning of life. Does God exist? What is consciousness? Is it real? You know, these are questions science can never in principle answer. So these are undecidables. I would like to inject an idea into the conversation. There is something called misattribution of arousal. Misattribution of arousal is a psychological phenomenon where something is happening in your body. For example, your blood pressure goes up or your heartbeat accelerates. Developed tachycardia and so on. And then you are kind of asking yourself unconsciously, why is this happening to me? And you come up with an answer and the answer is often wrong. We've conducted experiments with the classical guinea pigs of psychology college students and we induced in them a speedy heartbeat. We, we gave them illicit substances without their knowledge. Horrible, exciting or horrible things are happening in psychology lab. Don't ask. And so they had like an increase in blood pressure and heartbeat and so on, so forth. And obviously they didn't. They, they were not aware that they've consumed a substance which made this happen. So they came up with an explanation. When we asked them, why do you feel this way? They said, I think I'm falling in love. They were presented with photographs of appealing young women. I think I'm falling in love, or I'm finding her attractive, I'm aroused and so on. Nothing to do with it. It's a misattribution of arousal. I think this is an excellent explanation for the paranormal because we know that the paranormal observations and experiences are intimately linked to grief, loneliness, stress, tension, anxiety, a preceding traumatic event, abuse and so on. In all these situations, suddenly people experience paranormal phenomena. Anything from telepathy to remote viewing to ghosts. I mean, you name it, they're all associated with kind of stress. Even when we study such phenomena in the laboratory, that's a stressful situation. There are expectations of performance There is the unknown and so on. I think all these situations involve physiological arousal that is then misattributed to paranormal phenomena. People ask themselves, why is this happening to me? Why, you know, why is my heart pounding in my ears and why am I. Why is my face flushed? And so on? And they say it's because something paranormal is happening to me. I know my mother died. I just know it, you know?

[Maureen Callahan]

Okay. Okay. I've got a couple of questions for you. With this. With this new turn the conversation's taken, which I love. Misattribution of arousal. This experiment in which you. In which I'm not saying you. In which college students were given without their knowledge drugs which increase their blood pressure, heart rate, what have you. Would you not say that that is not giving the subject all of the information? Because without the knowledge of that drug in their system, what are they to do but react to stimuli that is deliberately placed in front of them and attribute that physiological reaction? Number one. Number two, my question would be, is there an argument to be made that when one, a human being is in a state of crisis, perhaps the veil between our temporal world and what may be beyond our earthly knowledge somehow reveals itself? And thirdly, what do you make of. Just curious as to your own suppositions of those who would be in otherwise a state of rest? There are. There are records of this all over the world where an individual wakes up out of a dead sleep. At the moment that a loved one has died could be thousands of miles away. You take it.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

I started with the third one. Coincidences happen. Of course.

[Maureen Callahan]

Those would be a lot of coincidences, though.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Not a lot, actually.

[Maureen Callahan]

You don't think so?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

If you look at the numbers, it's.

[Maureen Callahan]

Not a lot, but the recorded ones.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

We don't have millions of documented cases or billions.

[Maureen Callahan]

Documented, that, I think, is the key word. I'm just going to push back.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Even if we have missed a few, I don't think that's a widespread phenomenon.

[Maureen Callahan]

Okay.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

And it's definitely within the confines of statistical random probability. Definitely. Regarding the second question, I agree with you that the brain needs to be in an unusual state. So does Oliver Zacks, by the way. So does Christopher Hitchens.

[Maureen Callahan]

We'll get to him in one second.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah, we all agree with you that the brain needs to be in an aroused state, in an unusual state in order to experience paranormal phenomena. The difference between me and Hitchens and Sachs and others is is wrong to say that paranormal phenomena do not exist. They absolutely 100,000% exist. I have no Doubt about this, because they're being reported by people. That makes them real. The only question then is, do they happen outside the body or do they happen inside the body? Are they brain artifacts or are they real, objective things that are happening in reality? And there is a way to, to rephrase this. If we remove the observer, would we still have a ghost? That's the way to look at it. Someone who has seen a ghost, if a ghost. If we remove the observer, would we still have a ghost? We have a similar question in quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, we have a school, a dominant school of interpretation known as the Copenhagen Interpretation. I'm a physicist, by the way. I have a PhD in physics. So the Copenhagen interpretation says that it is the observer that determines whether a certain particle comes into existence or not. And then the question becomes, if we were to remove the observer, would the particle ever come into existence?

[Maureen Callahan]

Is this a version of if a tree falls? Sam, the philosophical question, it's the.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

If the tree falls, you know, or.

[Maureen Callahan]

Nobody'S there to see it, did it fall?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah. So, yeah, in a way. What is the role of the observer? Let's put it this way. I think what. What is good for the gander is good for the goose, but it's good for quantum mechanics, should be good for the paranormal. Studies of the paranormal, the dependency on the observer. It's. It's in science. It's already in science. We can't. We can't rebottle the genie. The genie is out. And now in physics, we're having. We're having debates, which sound a lot like the debates spiritualist societies used to have in the 19th century, a lot metaphysical debates. And one of them is, what's the role of the observer? And so, for example, in the 19th century, there was a concept of ectoplasm where the observer was able to manifest a deceased person as a ghost, a spirit. Manifest the spirit, convert it into visible energy, and that was called ectoplasm. That's not much different to the basic interpretation of quantum mechanics, that the observer creates the world, in essence, creates elementary particles. I don't belong. I don't subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation. Let it be clear. I completely disagree with it. But it's the dominant school. That's the orthodoxy. It's a mainstream. So I think that if we go back to. If we go back to the basics of psychology. Sigmund Freud described something that he called oceanic feeling. He said, he and many others, Anna Freud, Mahler, I can give you a long list. They suggested that the infant is immersed in a symbiotic phase, a kind of merger infusion with the mother. And the infant exits the physical womb when the infant is newborn, but exits the mental womb only two years later. Really, it takes the infant and mother two years to exit the symbiosis with the mother and to individuate, to separate and individuate. That is how a certain school of psychology looks at it. And so I think there's a lot of it in, in the paranormal. I think people need to go back to the womb. They need this oceanic feeling of connectedness, of being one with others, being one with reality, being one with the universe. There's a need to merge and to fuse. There's a need for symbiosis because when you're in a symbiotic state, all your needs are taken care of. There is the afterlife. Because if you're part of the universe and the universe is part of you, if you are inextricable, if you're indistinguishable, cannot, you know, you're one and the same, then you will never die. Obviously you will never die. And so there's the afterlife. There's a lot of comfort. It's a form of self soothing and it makes you feel very safe. It affords a narrative stability and it renders your life a lot more meaningful, even I would say to some extent grandiosely meaningful, because you are part of a cosmic scheme in the cosmic fabric. So I think it has a lot to do with this oceanic feeling. So you are predestined or preconditioned to experience paranormal phenomena. Then you experience a state of arousal and you misattribute it to the paranormal. That's how I see it.

[Maureen Callahan]

It's a trigger. Yeah. So this is before we play Christopher Hitchens, because I really want to talk to you about him. One of my all time favorites. You're talking about the need to go back to the womb and to birth and the experience we all share in studying comparative religion. You know, many. All of the myths, all of the symbolism, it all lines up. And one of the theories regarding, in Christianity and Judaism, the story of Noah's Ark is that Noah's Ark is really. And similar myths in other religions. It's the collective unconscious of the trauma of being born. The great flood is the experience of being born, of exiting the birth canal in fluids and the afterbirth and all of that. What are your thoughts about that? And how religion and either the paranormal or mysticism can converge or layer upon Themselves.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

It was Carl Sagan who suggested that near death experiences are actually a re experiencing of birth.

[Maureen Callahan]

Really?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah. He said, you know, the light at the end of a tunnel is the light at the end of the birth canal. Just people re experiencing the birth. I think there's another trauma in life early, very early in life, which is substantially more traumatic than. Than being born.

[Maureen Callahan]

Okay.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

And there's a. That is a trauma of realizing that you and mother are not one. The trauma of the breaking of the world, the huge schism when suddenly you realize that you are not one with mother and the world. That there is something out there which is not you. That you are separate from the world, that there's a boundary between you and the world. And that you're pretty helpless to do anything about it or about the world. The minute as a newborn, as an infant, the minute you see yourself in your mother's gaze, that very minute you realize your separateness and externality because her gaze is the outside world, you see yourself in it again. There were. There was a guy called Lacan, by the way, we are identical twins. Like is my. We are like. Absolutely, you know. Anyhow, Lacan suggested what he called the mirror. The mirror phase in, in human development. He said when the infant sees himself in the mirror or herself in the mirror, that's a major break, a major schism. I agree. Only I think it's not the mirror, not physical mirror. Because in his, in his work it's physical mirror. But we know that it would happen even without. In the absence of physical mirrors. I don't think it has anything to do with physical mirror. I think the first mirror is the mother. That's the first mirror. Mother. When I say mother, a caregiver, a maternal figure could be the father if the mother is not there. Yeah. So the person who is providing the gaze. And I think what happens at that moment, we divorce the world. The trauma is immense because then you experience a solipsistic, existential, all consuming solitude which cannot be remediated and cannot be soothed and comfortable, and which is a life threatening, is dramatically ominous. And you are 2 years old, 18 months to be precise. Like what can you do about it? Not much. So what do you do? You develop superstition. You develop an alternative world. You develop paranormal beliefs, fantasy, paracosm, imaginary friends. And in case the environment is abusive or truly traumatizing, you become a narcissist. You develop the false self. At any rate, you develop some kind of fantastic narrative that allows you the escape from reality because reality has instantaneously became threatening through the mother's gaze. And the information conveyed that you're all on your own. That's it. You're alone, all alone. And so I think we want to go back back there. We want to go to this, to the pre traumatic phase when we were one with mother and one with the world. It felt so safe.

[Maureen Callahan]

Mother Earth. Sorry, Mother Earth. We talked about Mother Earth.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

There are many maternal metaphors. Absolutely. And of course paternal metaphors. I mean that would be God or whatever. We want to go. We want to, we want to infantilize, we want to regress, we want back to the womb. And of course the Latin word for womb is the matrix.

[Maureen Callahan]

I did not know that.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah, so we want to go to the matrix. And one way of, of reverting to the matrix is denying everything. Adults and whatever else you have to say about science. And I'm, I agree with many of the criticisms, definitely I, I'm a harsh critic of scientism. But whatever else you say about science, it's definitely an adult pursuit because science rejects illusions, delusions, insists on randomness, on objectivity, on neutrality. You need to be a very strong person to never ever consider the possibility of a God. I'm proud to say I have never, ever considered it.

[Maureen Callahan]

Really.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

I haven't felt the need for it. I haven't felt the need for it, ever.

[Maureen Callahan]

Did you grow up with any form of religion as a child or were your parents atheists?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah, my parents were. Well, they were on the verge of atheism, but they were kind of observant. Observant, but I never felt the need for a religion or for the paranormal. I never felt the need for anything except rationality and logic. But it takes a very strong personality to do that. I'm praising myself, of course.

[Maureen Callahan]

Of course you are. Do you trust the seafood you bring home? Do you question the nutrition, the taste or the sustainability? Well, have you tried Wild Alaskan company? Wild Alaskan is the best way to get wild caught. Perfectly portioned, nutrient dense seafood delivered directly to your door. Their fish is 100% wild caught, never farmed, which means there are no antibiotics, GMOs or additives, just clean, real fish that supports healthy oceans and fishing communities. Wild Alaskan fish is frozen off the boat to lock in taste, texture and nutrients. I've had it and I love it. Wild Alaskan is sustainably sourced and and wild caught from Alaska. And your membership delivers flexible shipments, expert tips and truly feel good seafood. My favorites, sockeye salmon and Pacific cod. You can try it risk free. A 100% money back guarantee. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to Wild Alaskan for $35 off your first box of premium wild caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.com nerve for $35 off your first order. Thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode.

[Andy Cohen]

Hey everyone, it's me, Andy Cohen. Buckle up because I have a podcast called Daddy Diaries where I take my listeners on an as it happened recount of life as a daddy to two kids, dozens of housewives and the occasional fella. Listen to the Daddy Diaries to hear about my high highs and low lows of parenting, housewives, drama, and so much more. Daddy Diaries available wherever you listen to podcasts.

[DSW Advertiser]

Ah, DSW Earth. Place of the humble brag here. The shoes are so good no one would ever know how little you paid if you didn't go telling everyone that is. And with never ending options for every style, mood and occasion, all at really great prices, we'll definitely give you something to brag about. So go ahead, stock up on fresh sneakers from your favorite brands or try those boots you always secretly knew you could pull off. Find the shoes that get you at prices that get your budget at DSW stores [e-mail] let us surprise you.

[Maureen Callahan]

To that point. I want to look at two clips of Christopher Hitchens. The first is he was dying, famously of cancer, and he made it a point to give many, many interviews and write extensively about the experience of living while dying as we all are. But Christopher knew his time was closer than most of us do, and one of the philosophical arguments he continued to make was that he was dying as he lived as an atheist, and that he considered it the province. Now this is Hitchens himself, the province of a kind of a coward who would suddenly find God or find religion upon the diagnosis of a terminal illness. Let's look at this interview with NPR from eight years ago. Part one.

[Christopher Hitchens]

I'm here as a product of process of evolution, which doesn't make very many exceptions and which rates life relatively cheaply. I mean, most human beings who've ever been born would have been dead long before they reached my age. And I would think in the most of the rest of the world that, well, I know it is still true. So to have been relatively healthy till 62 is to have been dealt a pretty good hand by the cosmos, which doesn't know I'm here and won't notice when I'm gone.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

So.

[Christopher Hitchens]

That seemed the only properly stoic attitude to take.

[Maureen Callahan]

Now he says, as you said at the earlier part of the conversation, talking about the universe and in our conversation about this current vogue of the universe has brought you to this place you have manifested. Christopher Hitchens plainly says, the universe doesn't know I'm here. And extrapolating, even if it did, it would not care. And here next he goes into his. And I thought this was really smart, you know, on the face of it, you might say this is a harsh reaction, this is anger, misdirected anger at his own terminal diagnosis directed towards those who say they are praying for him. And he says, I want to understand exactly why you are praying for me and what is the point if you are praying for my illness to somehow heal itself? That is a wonderful wish. It's lovely, it's irrational, but that I can accept. If you are praying for another outcome and he's going to outly it here, I reject it and I kind of love it. Here we go.

[Christopher Hitchens]

Or a wish that I reconcile myself with the supernatural or the divine, which is a large part of it. I mean, I wrote back to some of the people, some of them in holy orders or running religious organizations. I said, when you say, or pray for me, do you mind if I ask what for? And a number of them said, quite honestly, not really for your recovery, but that you see the error of your.

[Maureen Callahan]

Ways, that you find God.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah.

[Christopher Hitchens]

Now I find that not as easy to be graceful about because though it's put in a nice way, it's part of a phenomenon that I've always thought of as very disgusting, which is the belief of the religious, that which they keep expressing and have done for centuries, that surely now you're dying, your fears will overcome your reason. I hope I don't have to underline what's horrible about that. There's an element of blackmail to it and an element also of tremendous insurance insecurity, I think, on their part. I mean, they don't. They don't seem to feel they'd win the argument so easily with someone who was mentally and physically strong, by the way. I think they're right.

[Maureen Callahan]

What's your reaction to that, Sam?

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

I don't. I don't berate people who are weak. I regard religion as a form of mental illness, but a mental illness that is adopted by people as a last resort because they're weak. I don't think they're cowards. I don't regard what they're doing as coercive. I'm not angry at them. I understand that we are not all blessed with the kind of fortitude and resilience that allows us to not need anything except reality. And so he's an angry person. I highly respect him, of course, but he's an angry person. He's also a bit of an activist, or was a bit of an activist. Atheism, especially the strong form of atheism, is a religion.

[Maureen Callahan]

Agreed.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Because it makes a claim based on belief or on faith. While I'm, for example, not an atheist at all, I'm an agnostic. Yeah, the agnostic says I don't. The question can never be answered. It's undecidable.

[Maureen Callahan]

There's a humility to that.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Exactly. I want to say that that being a rational person or adhering to rationality is implies modesty or humility. Not my strong suits, mind you, but.

[Maureen Callahan]

We would never know.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

But when it comes to the intellectual, I am humble. Intellectually, I am humble. I'm a very vainglory, vain and narcissistic person, obviously, but otherwise, when it comes to the intellect, I am humble. In the face of the universe, in the face of reality, I accept that the universe is indifferent, inexorable, random, uninterested. In me. I don't, I don't apply to myself any privilege or special status. I don't think I can interact with the universe in any meaningful way whatsoever. I can query the universe, nor do I think that I will ever be able to obtain the correct answer. As opposed to vainglorious, hubristic scientists who are bad scientists. If you're vainglorious, if you have hubris, if you make absolute claims about your discoveries and about science, you are a seriously bad scientist. Science is a philosophy, it's a way of life, is not a practice. And one of the major problem with scientists is that they conflate and confuse science with technology. Technology does provide answers, and these answers are always true. How do I know the technology works? But science never provides true answers. And science and technology are not the same things. You can convert science to technology and is often done, but they're not the same thing. They're not commensurate, they're not coextant. You could practice science that can never ever be converted to technology, and you could come up with technological inventions even if your college drop out and you've never studied science. These are not the same things. And yet scientists conflate them, confuse them and say, you see, science works. No, science always fails. Technology works and they're not the same thing. Therefore, the question to settle the question of the, of the Alleged paranormal phenomena, their objectivity, for example, their existence in reality, is not sign something that science can declare on. It's not something that science can answer. Right now, we need to be humble. In the face of the diversity of reality, we need to really be humble. That is not to say that telepathy exists or clairvoyance or ghosts exists. That's not what I'm saying. But what I am saying is people have been reporting this phenomenon. We need to study them. They are as real as any smartphone. More real even. They preceded the smartphone, you know, and that's where science, the hubris of science and scientism, in my view, retard the scientific endeavor. Because they say, no, we don't need to study this phenomenon. They are the equivalent of declaring that the moon is made of green cheese. No, they are not the equivalent of such a statement. They're not. Because to say that the moon is made of green cheese is a counterfactual statement that is not based on a single experience. No one has visited the moon and came back with green cheese. Unfortunately, I like it. But to say that you have seen a ghost is a qualitatively different kind of statement, assuming, of course, that you're not a fraudster and you're not, you know.

[Maureen Callahan]

Right.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

That you are. So it's. It's a qualitatively different statement because it does report something about reality. It could be a single individual's reality. It could reflect a brain abnormality, misattributed arousal. I don't know. I don't know what it could reflect because no one studies it, is studying it. And no one is studying it because it's taboo. Princeton closed down its laboratory in 2000. Yeah, in 2007. And that's it. There is no other. To the best of my knowledge, there is no other serious academic institution, institution of higher education that is studying these millions of reports by people in all cultures, in all periods, in all societies, in all continents of essentially identical phenomena. And that is shocking to exclude such a vast forest of experiences just because.

[Maureen Callahan]

It'S green cheese or because, again, there is a lack of humility. There's an intellectual snobbery there. What we're talking about is something that has been part of the human experience since humans were able to document human experience. And to excise that as a valid, inexplicable part, simply because we cannot answer the question, to me, makes it one of the most tantalizing questions there is. That is a field of study I think any academic could chew on for the rest of their living days.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yes, and I, and, and the irony is I do think we can provide the temporary answer. I don't think I, I proposed a few answers in this, in this podcast. They may be the wrong answers that probably are, but I did attempt at least to provide answers. You know, arousal, misattributed arousal. This, these are, these need to be studied. If I suggest a hypothesis that it's misattributed arousal, we need to check that. We can put people in laboratory conditions, people who claim, for example, to be able to talk to ghosts, mediums. We can put people who claim to have experienced telepathy or able to turn on and off telepathy. It will, there are such people and so on. And we can then test their physiology for signs of arousal.

[Maureen Callahan]

Again, the best of our knowledge thus far and the best of our technology.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yes, we do have to. For example, FMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging should demonstrate if there are is unusual activity in the brain.

[Maureen Callahan]

But that will only prove as far as we are able to right now, that there is unusual activity in the brain. We know about as much about the human brain as we do about the vastness of the ocean and what goes on beneath.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Well, we did this with meditation. By now.

[Maureen Callahan]

Yes, that's true, that's true.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

By now it's well established and it's part of mainstream to say that meditation induces changes in, in brain activity and in the long term even brain structures, pathways and so on. So we've done that with meditation and there was a long period where this, even this has been resisted. People were saying meditation, that's, you know, that's con artistry.

[Maureen Callahan]

Right? That's new age bs.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yeah, New age bs. And we should never study this. A waste of time, resources and so on.

[Maureen Callahan]

And by the way, a thousands of year old practice.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Yes. And now we are discovering and that's established, that's mainstream. We teach it in university now. We know that definitely we can use meditation to alter specific activities in the brain and so on, so forth. Even physiology, physiological responses such as heartbeat and reduced blood pressure and so on, so forth. So we know that meditation can be beneficial and we've missed out on it for like 60 years because we absolutely refuse to study the phenomenon because it came from this. And yogis don't look like academics, you know, most, most yogis don't look like academics, you know, and they sit, they sit very strangely and they contort.

[Maureen Callahan]

That's to Westerners. To Westerners, yes, yes, yes.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

So, you know, it's, I think we need to be more humble. I think we do need to study what is today called paranormal phenomenon. Maybe the phrases are unfortunate. Paranormal, supernatural, this, that these are reports by millions of people about something that is undoubtedly happening. Same applies to UFOs. There are reports by hundreds of thousands of people about something that may be happening. My inclination is to believe that these are brain artifacts. This reflects some problems with processing and so on. That's my inclination. I do not believe in the existence of ghosts or UFOs. Not even remotely fascinating. But I may be wrong, I may be right.

[Maureen Callahan]

Well, you and I should pick up UFOs after we, we talked to some, some. You know, I'm fascinated. There's a documentary coming out but by ex military fighter pilots. People who have been trained to the teeth. Ultra rationalists. Understand physics, aerodynamics. As you said, these reports I saw, we saw aircraft that could not be human made. You know, it's, it's wild stuff. It used to be the province of conspiracy theorists, tinfoil hats and now it's part of real sophisticated discussion. And I love, just makes life more interesting.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Needs to be studied. We should never ever exclude anything human from study. There was a Roman saying, you know, nothing human is, is alien to me. We should, wow. We should expand science to include everything humans report, everything humans observe, everything humans can measure, everything they cannot measure. We should expand science this way because only then we will become cognizant of the boundaries and limitations of science. As long as we pretend that science has all the answers for everything and that when science does not have an answer there is no question, then of course we will have failed science. Through the pursuit and through the study of other realms and other, you know, territories, science may come to realize its own limitations and boundaries and thereby rendered much more efficacious. But right now science says, right now scientists say if we cannot answer this then the question itself is not legitimate. And that is a highly a misinterpretation of the scientific spirit and I think anti intellectual when, when people first came up with quantum mechanics bore born all these scientists. Einstein rejected quantum mechanics. Although he, he was the philosophical and mathematical and phys and physical father of quantum mechanics. He disowned his intellectual progeny, he rejected quantum mechanics and he said I can't believe this, this is true. I can't believe this is true because God wouldn't be playing dice. And he rejected quantum mechanics and he excluded it from his studies. Consequently, Einstein sped the last 40 years of his life pursuing nonsensical theories that led nowhere.

[Maureen Callahan]

Wow.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

And he wasted the greatest genius that has ever walked the earth. He wasted his brain, he wasted his mind, because he would not countenance another theory which to him appeared to be a kind of paranormal or supernatural theory because it implied action at a distance. It implied all kinds of things which he absolutely considered non scientific. So Einstein said, if they come up with these ideas, and these ideas are non scientific, the ideas are not legitimate and the very query and quest are not legitimate, and I'm not going to participate. What did he do except ruin himself? As a scientist today, we know that quantum mechanics is by far the most precise scientific theory to have ever walked the Earth. We have no idea what it means or what it says, none. But it works. And so there's a lot. There are many debates and so on, and they're highly metaphysical debates and. But it's a theory that works.

[Maureen Callahan]

Well, I can think of no better object lesson and sort of place to leave it as that, because that really, I think, is the heart of the conversation we have been having. We don't know how it works, but it works. And we don't know how some of these phenomena can possibly be explained, but they're there. And so we need to inquire within.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Let me finish with a sentence.

[Maureen Callahan]

Yes, please.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

The worst way to tackle or consider a problem is to deny that it exists. That's the least efficacious way of dealing with it. And that's precisely what we are doing today with paranormal. Say we deny that it exists, but it exists. Of course it exists. Not in the real, objective sense, but in people's experiences.

[Maureen Callahan]

Thank you, Sam. And I don't know if they celebrate Halloween over in France, but happy Halloween and Happy All Souls Day. See, it transcends cultures. It's human. It's human.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

It does.

[Maureen Callahan]

Thank you, Sam. And we will see you soon back on the Nerve. Enjoy Paris. And that is it. Thank you to Sam Vaknin for one of the most fascinating conversations we have had yet on the Nerve. We will see you back here on. I'm going to say tomorrow for the Nerve at night and then Friday for a very special Nerve Halloween episode. Come ready to play. Thank you again. And we will see you back here on the Nerve at night, where you will never guess what we're about to say next.

[Andy Cohen]

Hey, everyone, it's me, Andy Cohen. Buckle up, because I have a podcast called Daddy Diaries where I take my listeners on an as it happened recount of life as a daddy to two kids, dozens of housewives, and the occasional fella. Listen to the Daddy Diaries to hear about my high highs and low lows of parenting, housewives, drama, and so much more. Daddy Diaries Available wherever you listen to podcasts.

[DSW Advertiser]

Holiday PSA from DSW this is a reminder that shoes are a gift.

[Professor Sam Vaknin]

Literally.

[DSW Advertiser]

So unwrap something good, like boots that inspire your next big adventure, or cozy slippers that give you an excuse to stay in. Or sneakers that feel like pure Jack joy. Because shoes aren't just shoes, they're exactly what you wanted. Let us surprise you so you can surprise them. Find shoes that get you and everyone on your list at prices that get your budget at DSW stores or dsw.com.