Vox

Leitura de 35 min

The end of materialism | Àlex Gómez-Marín

Summary

Neuroscientist and theoretical physicist Alex Gomez-Marin argues that scientific culture too often smuggles in “isms”—especially materialism, reductionism, and secularism—as if they were required by science itself. He traces this to a Galilean split that prioritized what can be measured and mathematized, while sidelining felt experience (pain, love, meaning, consciousness). Rather than replacing materialism with a single alternative, he calls for pluralism in consciousness studies, where views like idealism, dualism, and dual-aspect monism can be taken seriously as live research frameworks.

A central contrast is between the brain as a productive organ (consciousness is generated by neural activity) versus a permissive/filter organ (the brain modulates or “lets through” mind). Gomez-Marin claims the permissive model better accommodates “edge” phenomena—near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, and synchronicities—and he points to near-death studies suggesting conscious experience can occur even when the brain is severely compromised or clinically “offline.” He also shares his own near-death experience and discusses research on children reporting past-life memories as additional, stigmatized evidence streams that science should investigate rather than dismiss on ideological grounds.

The conversation broadens into the politics and incentives of science (careerism, funding, reputational risk) and how materialism aligns with narratives of technological progress and growth. Gomez-Marin criticizes false dichotomies (Luddite vs. Silicon Valley) and argues for more honesty about technology’s trade-offs, urging a “science 2.0” that reconnects with philosophy, ethics, and possibly forms of the sacred—without simply reverting to dogmatic religion. He ends by reframing ultimate questions as “mysteries” that transform us rather than puzzles to be solved, while still inviting even “materialist friends” to treat matter itself as mysterious and to remain open to new metaphysical possibilities.

Recommendations

Books

  • The Assayer (Galileo) — Mentioned as a symbolic “birthdate” of modern science and its foundational split
  • The Machine (Paul Kingsnorth) — Cited in discussion of progress, growth, and the “machine” worldview
  • The Matter with Things (Iain McGilchrist) — Quoted to support the idea that contradiction can mark the limits of reason

Articles / Links

Topic Timeline

  • [00:00] — Opening claim: mind may persist even when the brain is shut down; challenge to materialism
  • [00:01] — Introduction to Alex Gomez-Marin and the interview’s focus (death, consciousness, progress)
  • [00:02] — Critique of “isms” in science and a call for metaphysical pluralism (idealism/dualism, etc.)
  • [00:03] — What materialism is and how Galileo’s split shaped modern science’s blind spots
  • [00:05] — Productive brain vs. permissive/filter brain models of consciousness (William James)
  • [00:06] — “Edges of consciousness”: NDEs, precognitive dreams, synchronicities as test cases
  • [00:07] — Evidence for NDEs: patient reports and physiological measurements during clinical death
  • [00:09] — Gomez-Marin’s personal near-death experience and its impact on his scientific aims
  • [00:10] — Afterlife possibilities: ego survival vs. merging into a universal mind; cautious stance
  • [00:11] — Children’s past-life memory research (Ian Stevenson) and the stigma around such topics
  • [00:12] — “Backstage of science”: incentives, ideology, and socio-politics shaping research agendas
  • [00:14] — Why materialism dominates: education, history of science, and the drive to control nature
  • [00:16] — Progress, growth, and transhumanism; ethics and the neglected “dark side” of technology
  • [00:20] — Critique of Enlightenment triumphalism (incl. Steven Pinker) and “science says” rhetoric
  • [00:22] — Post-materialist/post-secular future: “science 2.0,” reconciliation with religion/spirituality
  • [00:25] — True pluralism and living with contradictions; limits of reason and other human faculties
  • [00:29] — How beliefs about death change how we live; society’s death-phobia and care for the dying
  • [00:30] — Reality as mystery rather than solvable puzzle; invitation to rethink both mind and matter
  • [00:33] — Hosts’ closing reflections and farewell from Avi

Episode Info

  • Podcast: Philosophy For Our Times
  • Author: IAI
  • Category: Society & Culture / Philosophy
  • Published: 2026-02-17
  • Duration: 0h35m

References

Podcast Info

Transcript

[00:00:00] When brains are broken or shut off, there can still be mind going on.

[00:00:11] And that’s revolutionary.

[00:00:12] That would entail that when we die, it’s not game over, which by the way, is the thesis

[00:00:18] of materialism.

[00:00:19] I have this phrase, if consciousness survives, materialism dies.

[00:00:24] Hello and welcome to Philosophy for Our Times, bringing you the world’s leading thinkers

[00:00:31] on today’s Biggest Ideas.

[00:00:33] I’m Avi.

[00:00:35] And I’m Zeb.

[00:00:36] And today we have an exclusive interview with Alex Gomez-Marin.

[00:00:40] Now Alex is a controversial figure in contemporary neuroscience.

[00:00:45] He often challenges the materialist framework that dominates accounts from science of consciousness

[00:00:52] and brings in his own personal experience of a near-death scenario to account for what

[00:00:58] could be happening to our brains after death.

[00:01:01] This interview goes not only into what happens to the brain after you die, but also whether

[00:01:06] science is tackling the right problems, the false dichotomy of progress versus full luditism,

[00:01:13] and whether we should be truthful about the actual consequences of scientific progress.

[00:01:18] Sounds super interesting.

[00:01:20] So without any further ado, we will hand over to Simon Custer from our IAEI editorial team

[00:01:27] who’s interviewing Alex.

[00:01:37] Alex Gomez-Marin, welcome to How the Light Gets In.

[00:01:40] Thank you.

[00:01:41] I’m happy to be here.

[00:01:42] So you’re a theoretical physicist and a neuroscientist, and you’ve also been fiercely critical of

[00:01:46] materialist theories of mind and consciousness.

[00:01:50] What do you think is the ultimate nature of reality, and why do you believe that?

[00:01:55] I don’t know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but what I try to first assess is whether

[00:02:02] the stories that they’ve told us about it are right, or maybe whether there are other

[00:02:08] alternatives.

[00:02:09] That’s why I’ve been a fierce critic of materialism, because as a scientist, I realized that they

[00:02:14] have sold us this idea that in order to be a good scientist, you also had to subscribe

[00:02:19] to many other isms, like materialism, reductionism, and even secularism.

[00:02:26] And so first, I think one needs to unblock and mount these isms, and then, as it’s happening

[00:02:33] today in consciousness studies, we have a huge landscape where there isn’t only one

[00:02:39] game in town, the idea that matter is the only thing that really exists.

[00:02:44] But actually, because we are studying the heart problem of consciousness, it may be

[00:02:48] the case that other views of reality, like idealism, or even dualism, or other forms

[00:02:55] like dual aspect monism, I know this is a mouthful, but these are really philosophical

[00:02:59] ideas that now, I think, have room in science to be taken seriously.

[00:03:05] How does something like materialism relate to dualism or idealism?

[00:03:09] What is materialism in its most basic, if you could just say very briefly what it is?

[00:03:13] Well, materialism is the philosophical position that matter is the only really real thing

[00:03:19] in the universe.

[00:03:21] And I think that worked kind of well because science started 400 years ago, and Galileo

[00:03:27] made that split.

[00:03:29] I call it the foundational wound.

[00:03:31] It was a great business move.

[00:03:33] He said, let’s start doing science on that portion of reality that lends itself more

[00:03:39] easily to mathematization and measurement.

[00:03:42] So for some reason, the solidity of this table or the movement of planets lend themselves

[00:03:49] very well to this foundational idea of science.

[00:03:54] But as time went on, 400 years later, we realized that we had forgotten the other side, which

[00:04:00] is what really matters.

[00:04:01] What really matters is pain, is love, is feeling, sensation, consciousness, which is very hard

[00:04:08] to define but very intimate.

[00:04:09] We all know what it is.

[00:04:10] It’s that thing that disappears when we go into deep sleep and comes back in the morning.

[00:04:15] What it is like to be, as Nagel said, is the feeling of being alive.

[00:04:18] So materialism is good to study certain things, but then when it ossifies into this ideology

[00:04:24] and then is dressed like science, now it’s preventing us from understanding these key

[00:04:31] questions that are really that everybody wants to know.

[00:04:35] Why are we here?

[00:04:37] Why do we feel reality?

[00:04:39] Where do we go when we die?

[00:04:42] And so we need other ways.

[00:04:44] We need pluralism.

[00:04:45] I’m only asking for pluralism, actually.

[00:04:47] I’m only asking for having more options on the table and taking them seriously.

[00:04:51] Why does materialism fail to explain consciousness?

[00:04:54] For example, if you were to lobotomize me, I would not be a functional human being if

[00:04:58] you didn’t in a certain brain area.

[00:05:00] So a lay person on the street might have this view.

[00:05:03] So what do you say to someone who might think that?

[00:05:05] Well, here we could speak about different things.

[00:05:07] We could talk about physics or about neuroscience.

[00:05:10] I happen to have training on both.

[00:05:12] These are kind of my two legs.

[00:05:13] But very interestingly, for instance, for neuroscientists, 99% of them, I’m not included

[00:05:20] in that portion, believe that the brain can only be a productive organ.

[00:05:27] It’s an organ that somehow, somewhere, consciousness emerges.

[00:05:31] It’s like a lamp.

[00:05:32] And then something happens, magic happens, and then consciousness emerges.

[00:05:36] That’s the position you need to be if you’re a materialist, because if the only really

[00:05:40] real thing is matter, then you need to say, well, just give us some more time and money

[00:05:45] and we’ll figure out how mind emerges or is produced from matter.

[00:05:50] And there are many philosophically sophisticated ways of criticizing this.

[00:05:54] Now there’s another option, which is the brain as a permissive organ.

[00:05:59] This was said by William James more than 100 years ago.

[00:06:02] Now then the brain wouldn’t be like this machine, like this, for instance.

[00:06:06] A machine whose smoke is consciousness, which is what we would have in the first big model,

[00:06:13] the productive model.

[00:06:14] But in the permissive model, the brain would be a kind of a filter.

[00:06:18] And so the brain would still have a very important role in consciousness, but it wouldn’t be

[00:06:23] a productive role.

[00:06:24] It would be a permissive, much like a filter or much like a prism would receive light,

[00:06:30] and I’m speaking metaphorically, would receive the light of the mind, and then it could reflect

[00:06:35] it and refract it.

[00:06:36] And so the prism is not creating the light or the colors, it’s letting them go through.

[00:06:42] Now with these two big options on the table, I think we can make progress into what I call

[00:06:48] the edges of consciousness, which are all these experiences, weird experiences that

[00:06:52] many people have, but we don’t tell them to each other.

[00:06:56] Like near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, synchronicities.

[00:07:01] These experiences are very important for humans, and they have a place in the permissive

[00:07:07] hypothesis, and they are literally impossible in the productive hypothesis.

[00:07:12] So that’s yet one more reason to explore alternatives to materialism.

[00:07:16] Talk about near-death experiences and all these precognitive phenomena.

[00:07:20] What is the evidence for?

[00:07:22] There might be anecdotal evidence, but is there robust scientific evidence that would

[00:07:26] be accepted by the majority of scientists who subscribe to the scientific method, for

[00:07:30] example?

[00:07:31] And the plural of anecdotes someone said is data, and there’s a lot of data.

[00:07:35] Actually this year is the 50th anniversary, half a century, since Raymond Moody in the

[00:07:40] United States.

[00:07:41] He was a doctor and a philosopher, I believe, as well.

[00:07:43] And he realized that we have two ears and one mouth and started listening to what his

[00:07:49] patients or patients in general had to say about their experiences while they were clinically

[00:07:55] dead.

[00:07:56] So technically they were dead, the heart had stopped, breathing had stopped.

[00:07:59] So the question about what’s going on in the brain, we can discuss whether the brain

[00:08:03] is flat.

[00:08:04] But these patients would come back and tell him these amazing stories that some people

[00:08:09] may say are hallucinations, but for the patients were hyperreal, like seeing light at the end

[00:08:14] of the tunnels, seeing diseased family members waiting for them, feeling bliss.

[00:08:21] And so he and others started taking them seriously and writing them down.

[00:08:26] And then you can do a science based on that material of experience that people have.

[00:08:31] Now on the more objective side, and more recently, people have started to measure what’s going

[00:08:36] on in the brain when people are clinically dead and brought back.

[00:08:40] And this has opened a proper field of studies, which is near-death studies.

[00:08:44] And so the evidence, and evidence is a difficult word because sometimes people think that when

[00:08:50] you say evidence, this just is the final proof.

[00:08:52] This is like in a jury, you bring testimony, you bring pieces of data that point in one

[00:08:58] direction or another.

[00:09:00] So I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the activity of the brain,

[00:09:06] that when brains are broken or shut off, there can still be mind going on.

[00:09:12] And that’s revolutionary.

[00:09:13] That would entail that when we die, it’s not game over, which by the way, is the thesis

[00:09:19] of materialism.

[00:09:20] I have this phrase, if consciousness survives, materialism dies.

[00:09:25] It’s game over for materialism if something of us continues after we die.

[00:09:29] So you think there is mental continuity after death?

[00:09:32] Well, I think so.

[00:09:35] And I believe so.

[00:09:37] And I could also say I may have experienced it myself because four years ago, I had a

[00:09:41] near-death experience.

[00:09:42] I was in the hospital.

[00:09:44] I lost a lot of blood.

[00:09:45] And I saw those beings at the end of the tunnel, three beings, and there was yellow light.

[00:09:49] I was in a well.

[00:09:50] I was looking upwards.

[00:09:52] And I hadn’t read about NDEs by then.

[00:09:54] But when I came back from this experience, I decided I would try to integrate this also

[00:10:00] in my professional life, not just my personal life, of course, but my professional life

[00:10:04] as a physicist and as a neuroscientist.

[00:10:07] So I may have had the experience of glimpses of what an afterlife would be.

[00:10:12] And I’m not ashamed to say it in this way.

[00:10:14] And then one can do science of it.

[00:10:16] And then one can do philosophy of it.

[00:10:18] One can think about what isms we were discussing, what views on reality would allow those experiences

[00:10:25] to be really real as opposed to, well, poor guy, the brain was kind of broken.

[00:10:30] It must have been a hallucination.

[00:10:33] In your personal experience and with the ND that you just spoke about and also just as

[00:10:37] a scientist, do you have a view about whether individual individuality or the ego persists

[00:10:42] after death or we sort of merge into some sort of cosmic consciousness?

[00:10:45] Do you have a view about that?

[00:10:47] I don’t know, but my view will be along those lines you’re suggesting.

[00:10:52] I think we could speak about a kind of universal mind.

[00:10:56] And then the problem is not how we emerge from matter, but how we fragment from a more

[00:11:02] holistic consciousness into this individual eddies you could call that we are.

[00:11:07] And then when we die, this kind of dissipates.

[00:11:10] But I’m not very sure.

[00:11:11] For instance, idealism would promote that view, but then what would survive of us after

[00:11:17] these eddies just vanish and become again the big C, I’m not sure what that would be.

[00:11:23] So I don’t commit too early about what may happen after because I don’t know.

[00:11:30] But I would tell you, I believe something of us survives.

[00:11:36] And by the way, there are other lines of research, not just near-death experience, that can address

[00:11:41] this really hard question of survival.

[00:11:43] For instance, there are children who remember previous lives.

[00:11:47] This was studied by Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia for more than 50 years.

[00:11:51] It’s an amazing research.

[00:11:52] He went all over the world, especially in the East, and collected all these case studies,

[00:11:57] all these stories.

[00:11:58] In plural, these were data of kids, very young age, who would describe up to 40 items that

[00:12:04] then he could go and verify.

[00:12:05] There wasn’t internet.

[00:12:07] There was really no way the kid could know.

[00:12:10] Why would the kid say that when I was living in this other body and I was a woman and that’s

[00:12:15] where, that’s how my house would look like, or that’s how I would die, right?

[00:12:20] Again, there is evidence, not proof, but there’s evidence not only that something weird and

[00:12:24] interesting is happening as we cross the threshold, but also when we come back to this life.

[00:12:30] So scientists should not be afraid of studying this, but they are because there’s stigma.

[00:12:35] There’s usually stigma upon the enigma, and this is so unfortunate.

[00:12:39] And one of the reasons is because of the ideology of materialism, because those things cannot

[00:12:44] be possible.

[00:12:46] So what is wrong with the politics of science such that the stigma has happened in your

[00:12:50] view?

[00:12:51] So many things, actually.

[00:12:53] So many things.

[00:12:54] How to say them quickly.

[00:12:56] Science is a human activity to begin with.

[00:12:58] So it falls prey to all our passions and ego and greed, right?

[00:13:05] That’s one thing.

[00:13:06] Science is a job for the good and for the bad today.

[00:13:09] So you know, you need to get a salary, you need to get grants.

[00:13:12] Science within a mechanism, a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that

[00:13:20] are not very scientific, right?

[00:13:22] And then we didn’t have time to unpack this, but science for many years become entangled,

[00:13:28] as I was suggesting before, suggesting before, to other isms, right, materialism, secularism.

[00:13:35] So anything that smells like afterlife, people may think has to do with God, and then they

[00:13:41] freak out.

[00:13:43] No way.

[00:13:44] Anything that suggests that there’s something about the mind that may not need a physical

[00:13:49] material substrate to exist, it smells like non-materialism.

[00:13:53] So all these isms are ideologically blocking that kind of research.

[00:13:58] And then there are all these socio-political constraints as to what should be studied and

[00:14:03] what shouldn’t be studied.

[00:14:05] And that’s true.

[00:14:06] I call it the backstage of science, right?

[00:14:08] Sometimes we scientists or science communicators seem to speak as if the data is the only thing

[00:14:13] that matters.

[00:14:14] Say, well, no, data and theory.

[00:14:15] But then there’s a third leg of this tool, which is all the socio-politics that goes

[00:14:21] behind the scenes.

[00:14:22] And we often don’t speak about this, and it’s quite vicious and petty, and it’s very real.

[00:14:28] Why is materialism so attractive as a view to the majority of scientists?

[00:14:33] Well, an easy answer is because we’ve grown up with it.

[00:14:39] It’s what the educational system promotes, and that’s what you hear when you go to university.

[00:14:44] So it’s like growing in a culture.

[00:14:47] It feels like the air in which you breathe.

[00:14:49] So it’s very hard to begin with to detect, well, maybe there’s another alternative.

[00:14:54] Maybe there are other ways of doing science, other environments in which one could do science.

[00:14:59] That’s one reason.

[00:15:00] Other reasons maybe are more profound, and I’m not qualified to explain them.

[00:15:05] But I could say, looking at this 400 years history of science, since it started around

[00:15:11] 1623 with Galileo’s book, The Assayer, that could be a birthdate, that science went uncoupled

[00:15:20] with all what’s going on in the West, right?

[00:15:24] And so the fall of religion, you could say.

[00:15:28] Science presented as this new alternative that then could be coupled very well with

[00:15:33] other isms and this idea of growth, and then science losing its good twin brother, which

[00:15:40] was philosophy.

[00:15:41] There’s a whole natural history of science starting as philosophy, kind of emancipating

[00:15:49] or breaking out from philosophy, and then marrying to technology, and then marrying

[00:15:54] to other social systems.

[00:15:56] And so from that point of view, materialism is a very convenient idea to propose.

[00:16:01] There were attempts, like the German idealists tried to do a more romantic science, if you

[00:16:07] want, right?

[00:16:08] But no, the idea was prevailed, like Francis Bacon said, you should pursue nature through

[00:16:13] all her corners, he said, and make her spit her secrets, right?

[00:16:18] So our attitude towards nature in the science that dominates is very much reflecting how

[00:16:25] we treat nature in our society, in our culture, like a resource to extract secrets by force

[00:16:31] and then dominate it.

[00:16:34] How is materialism related to the idea of growth and maybe progress?

[00:16:39] And why is this a bad thing?

[00:16:41] What’s wrong with having productive citizenry and having the economy grow?

[00:16:45] This is another very interesting and very difficult question to answer and to answer

[00:16:49] briefly.

[00:16:50] But there’s, for instance, this recent book coming out by Paul Kinsnorth, it’s called

[00:16:55] The Machine, right?

[00:16:56] And in it, he explains this idea of the machine and this idea of progress.

[00:17:01] And again, this conflation of more is better, of we need to go forward always, and convincing

[00:17:10] us that the way to do that is to continually extract more from nature, and in a way, because

[00:17:17] we don’t have the religious context anymore, because God is dead, then what do we have?

[00:17:24] We have what we can do as humans with our own gadgets.

[00:17:28] It’s kind of the story of the Promethean fire.

[00:17:30] We will just build anything to make ourselves God.

[00:17:35] A good example today is transhumanism.

[00:17:38] Transhumanism is this pseudo religion dressed in techno-scientific language whose goal is

[00:17:44] very religious.

[00:17:45] They promise immortality, they promise redemption, they promise transformation of the entire

[00:17:49] natural world, but it’s done by our means, our human means, through technology.

[00:17:55] Are you suggesting that we can’t have ethics without religion?

[00:17:59] We should have ethics with or without religion.

[00:18:03] That’s another pruning that has happened in science, you know?

[00:18:06] We say, well, forget about aesthetics, although some physicists still think that beautiful

[00:18:10] means probably true, and forget about politics.

[00:18:13] We pretend there’s no backstage of science, and even let’s forget about ethics, right?

[00:18:18] Scientists, when they become more like engineers, they’re just thinking how to make things work

[00:18:22] so that they can, whatever, go to the moon, go to Mars, make machines that think, but

[00:18:26] they don’t think whether that’s a good idea.

[00:18:28] And even metaphysics, you know?

[00:18:30] Many scientists for a long time pretended, and maybe that comes from the stream of positivisms,

[00:18:35] that really one doesn’t need metaphysics at all, except that materialism is always the

[00:18:41] metaphysics running the system.

[00:18:43] So you see, it’s not just ethics, it’s the pruning of all of these, you could say, five

[00:18:48] main legs of philosophy that just makes a kind of unconscious science, a science that

[00:18:55] doesn’t really know what it’s doing.

[00:18:56] It’s doing it very well locally, but it just doesn’t know what it’s doing globally.

[00:19:01] So do you think science has to have an ultimate vision and purpose behind it for it to be

[00:19:05] effective, or for it to be meaningful and transformative, and what exactly are you…

[00:19:09] Yes, a way I would say that is that science needs to be in the service of mankind.

[00:19:15] And it hasn’t been that.

[00:19:17] And we can see through, you know, when we discovered the secrets of the atom and all

[00:19:23] of a sudden Manhattan Project, and then we create nuclear weapons, and now we’re trying

[00:19:27] to crack how machines may think, and now we’re creating this mess, right?

[00:19:33] So science needs to be in service of mankind, not in service of a few ideas that maybe want

[00:19:40] to make more money or just dominate upon nature.

[00:19:43] What about planes, trains, automobiles, and modern medicine, and why hasn’t, I mean, hasn’t

[00:19:48] science served mankind in that way?

[00:19:50] And yes and no.

[00:19:51] I see where you’re going, and it’s fair.

[00:19:53] I came here by plane, and it’s a blessing.

[00:19:56] When I almost die, surgeons did their job, and they saved my life.

[00:20:00] But this, this, I’m not saying you’re doing it, but these two alternative force choice

[00:20:05] between ludite and silicon valley types, I think it’s, of course, it’s a false dichotomy.

[00:20:13] Progress in a way it’s good, but we often don’t speak about the dark side of the moon.

[00:20:18] We say the great things that progress has brought, and we don’t say, we don’t speak

[00:20:23] about the disasters, the side effects that it has come with, and the same when we promise

[00:20:27] new technologies.

[00:20:28] We tend to think that any technology is great, that email is going to save us so much time

[00:20:33] because we don’t need to write letters and send them anymore.

[00:20:36] Is that true?

[00:20:37] I spend so many hours a week writing email, right?

[00:20:39] So let’s just balance, let’s just say the great things about it and the bad things about

[00:20:43] it.

[00:20:44] And people like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, for example, argued that we’ve made

[00:20:48] moral progress over time because of the Enlightenment.

[00:20:52] Do you think that’s totally wrongheaded?

[00:20:53] What do you think about that?

[00:20:54] I think he’s emphasizing a side of the moon, and he does that very well, and you can find

[00:21:02] tons of plots where there’s a slope going up and say it’s great, but I think he should

[00:21:09] also tell the not so friendly story.

[00:21:14] But if your ideology is just to resist and continue to explain that Enlightenment is the

[00:21:21] best thing ever, and reason is the best thing ever, and science, all of these are kind of,

[00:21:27] they feel to me like you’re worshipping these abstractions, and it’s very destructive to

[00:21:34] say only reason, only enlightenment, now we know, and very critical of it, and also of

[00:21:39] these, again, science communicators and scientists that say, oh, science says, in the name of

[00:21:45] science, experts say, it’s like, come on, let’s be careful because we can shoot ourselves

[00:21:50] in the foot by putting forth to the people an image of science that we know is not,

[00:21:57] it’s not really true, and it’s not the only one.

[00:22:01] There has been a decline in religion, I think you mentioned earlier in this interview, but

[00:22:04] recently there’s been a resurgence of spirituality or people who say that they’re spiritual but

[00:22:09] not religious in Europe, and also especially in the United States.

[00:22:13] If materialism is going out of the way, out of the window, what is going to replace it?

[00:22:17] Are we going to return to religion?

[00:22:19] Would that be dangerous if we did that?

[00:22:21] Is it connected with maybe the rise of the political right?

[00:22:24] What are your thoughts about this development?

[00:22:26] I’m not a fortune teller, so I don’t know what’s going to happen, but yeah, we could

[00:22:32] say when this post-materialist age, and even post-secular age, one cannot come back to

[00:22:39] the past, but maybe just to contact with the roots is a good idea.

[00:22:43] What do I mean by that?

[00:22:44] I think we need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you

[00:22:49] to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method and do it

[00:22:56] so in a culture where we realize humans cannot thrive in a vacuum where there’s this idea

[00:23:07] that the sacred has to be removed.

[00:23:11] How do we do that without bringing in back all the vices of religion?

[00:23:15] I don’t know, I’m from a Catholic country, here we are in England, so there are differences

[00:23:21] and inter-religious dialogue has always been a challenge, but I think maybe a way of putting

[00:23:25] it is after all these conflicts and branchings I was quickly alluding to, science from philosophy

[00:23:32] and then also from religion, now there’s a time of reconciliation perhaps and maybe debates

[00:23:41] in the proper sense, like exchange of ideas in service of learning and getting into something

[00:23:47] higher than both poles is what we need.

[00:23:49] We need science to talk to religious people and it’s interesting when people say they’re

[00:23:57] spiritual and not religious, I think this is just a way of saying, no, I don’t want

[00:24:01] to go back, I want to go forward, but at the end of the day, religions have offered us

[00:24:08] practices and grounding that we now desperately need.

[00:24:12] Now it’s also an individual option, everybody can and should just meditate or pray or do

[00:24:20] whatever they want, but we’re in crisis and it’s time for reconciliation.

[00:24:26] How do we reconcile different religions, for example, that are theologically incompatible?

[00:24:31] Judaism is completely theologically incompatible with Christianity and with Islam and with

[00:24:35] Buddhism, all these things are very difficult to, theologically at least when you’re looking

[00:24:41] at the claims they make, they’re making claims that contradict one another, so how do we

[00:24:46] do this?

[00:24:47] I’m a theoretical physicist or neuroscientist studying crazy shit, I’m not a sociologist,

[00:24:52] a theologian or anything like that, but maybe we can practice true pluralism.

[00:24:58] There’s this idea, let me answer it this way, there’s this idea that it’s in my blood as

[00:25:03] I did my studies in physics and even my PhD, this kind of universalism, this idea that

[00:25:10] the laws of nature are going to be finally written in just one equation, it’s like a

[00:25:14] monophasian, there’s going to be this God, this one thing from which everything is derived.

[00:25:21] But maybe that does violence on reality, again, it’s weird for the mind because when they’re

[00:25:26] incompatible things as you just said, we just want to make them compatible, want to make

[00:25:30] them into one thing, but if that’s at the price of homogenizing, this destroys the differences.

[00:25:37] So maybe we need to learn to live with incompatible differences and that entails true pluralism,

[00:25:44] maybe borrowing a metaphor from quantum mechanics to work in a space where you can have a cat

[00:25:52] that’s both dead and alive and this requires a leap for the human mind and I would also

[00:25:58] say for the human heart because we should be able to share a room, whether it’s literal

[00:26:04] or conceptual, with people whose ideas seem to cancel our own and maybe still make something

[00:26:14] beautiful and productive out of it.

[00:26:16] Do you think there could be true contradictions, is that what you’re suggesting?

[00:26:19] Yes, yes and as Ian McGilchrist wrote for instance in his wonderful book, The Matter

[00:26:24] with Things, opposition and contradiction is perhaps a signpost that tells us where,

[00:26:33] for instance, the limits of reason go and there we can use other faculties, we can

[00:26:38] use imagination, we can use intuition.

[00:26:42] So it’s bad news but at the same time it’s an opportunity to realize that there are contradictions

[00:26:48] and while we try to solve them, we can perhaps bootstrap ourselves.

[00:26:54] You’re not the only critic of materialism who’s appealed to a deeper meaning or asking

[00:26:58] for a more poetic science, for example, what do you say to critics that say we’re just

[00:27:02] projecting our need for meaning onto a fundamentally indifferent universe?

[00:27:06] Yeah, no I know that, like typical science communicator, well science says this whether

[00:27:10] you like it or not, but no, we’re not projecting, we human beings feed on meaning, it’s the

[00:27:19] other way around.

[00:27:21] If you’re a materialist because the only thing that there is is matter, all what comes

[00:27:24] next free will, consciousness, meaning, this is a kind of illusion that come on we need

[00:27:31] to explain.

[00:27:32] So it’s terrible, I would say ignorance and arrogance to treat people as poor guys, they’re

[00:27:38] just craving for meaning but there isn’t really, get on with it.

[00:27:42] So it’s more like flipping it the other way around and also reminding my materialist friends

[00:27:48] that for decades, if not centuries, they’ve said in the name of science we know that this

[00:27:55] and this and this doesn’t really exist and I think now they’re forced to say well actually

[00:28:00] we don’t know, we’ve been saying for instance that there’s nothing after you die and now

[00:28:08] probably they need to admit that they don’t know the answer.

[00:28:11] So it’s a moment to open up possibilities and also to gently but fiercely critique these

[00:28:19] claims that I think they harm society if you say in the name of science get on with it

[00:28:25] when your father dies, you’ll never see him again.

[00:28:29] Well what the F do you know about it, you haven’t studied the literature, you haven’t

[00:28:32] had any of those experiences and basically what you’re doing is you’re just doing marketing

[00:28:38] on ideology, stop it please.

[00:28:41] Do you think that it’s scarier for some people that there might be life after death compared

[00:28:47] to a materialist worldview where you just die given that there might be consequences

[00:28:53] for behavior?

[00:28:54] I mean many religions talk about the idea of karma or retribution right in Christianity,

[00:28:58] there’s heaven and hell, like is this a reason that people may want to steer clear of a religion?

[00:29:03] Well death and dying is scary, it is scary, it’s maybe the ultimate ending.

[00:29:10] There’s again limits on life and when we’re in this conquest mode we don’t like limits

[00:29:17] and it also has, there’s a shockwave backwards so I think if you change your notion of what

[00:29:22] death is or may be, you live differently and also it has consequences as you’re saying

[00:29:28] for the future because this is not our only goal here and we come back in whatever form

[00:29:34] and again different religions would say different things right, maybe in these they’re more

[00:29:38] happy with the idea of reincarnation and here in the West there are other preferences

[00:29:43] but in any case it changes, I would say it changes how we live and that’s really what

[00:29:48] matters.

[00:29:49] It’s not about just projecting or imagining what we’ll be after but how we live now and

[00:29:56] also how we treat those who are dying.

[00:29:59] So it goes from the individual to the families to the hospitals.

[00:30:03] Now in the research I do, in the near-death research I do, this has ramifications at all

[00:30:09] these levels all the way to society but our society is tannotophobic, it has phobia of

[00:30:14] death.

[00:30:15] We don’t want to hear about death and this is another thing we need to put on the table

[00:30:19] and be willing to talk about it.

[00:30:23] There are some Western religions that do have reincarnation, like Gogol and Judaism for

[00:30:28] example, the point taken.

[00:30:30] Do you think that we might get closer to answering ultimate questions like, you know, why is

[00:30:35] there anything at all, why is there something rather than nothing if we jettison materialism?

[00:30:39] Yes and no, that’s an excellent question I think Simon because two things, we should

[00:30:46] stop treating reality, I believe, as a great sudoku, as an enigma, as something that with

[00:30:53] you know intelligence, money and time we will crack as some people like to say and treat

[00:30:59] it more like a mystery and what you do in front of a mystery is not be the clever guy

[00:31:04] in the class and say I’ll solve you, it’s more like I will bow and you will transform

[00:31:11] me.

[00:31:12] I know this sounds a bit like a scientist speaking like a mystic but it’s this reorientation

[00:31:16] that I think is needed.

[00:31:17] So in the end we won’t crack the big questions but they will transform us and yet I would

[00:31:26] add that sure if we liberate ourselves from this prision of materialism the way we will

[00:31:31] explore those questions will be I think, yeah it will be freer, it will be more creative

[00:31:38] and it will be in service of mankind and that’s the big news I think.

[00:31:42] Do you think that exploring mystery is the reason why we’re here?

[00:31:46] I mean do you think that there’s a reason why all humans are born?

[00:31:50] I think we’re here because, and this is a pseudo-theological argument I’ll make here

[00:31:55] out of the hut, but the one, the absolute, if there’s such a thing, right?

[00:32:02] Had everything except limitation.

[00:32:05] So we are that absolute experiencing that contingency if you want to.

[00:32:14] So it’s great.

[00:32:15] It’s like an act of divine proprioception if you take my metaphor and it’s a wonderful

[00:32:22] adventure.

[00:32:23] It’s just incredible to be alive and perhaps we’ve forgotten why we’re here and the whole

[00:32:30] point is just to experience, to experience the flesh.

[00:32:34] Let me end by saying this.

[00:32:35] I criticize materialism harshly.

[00:32:37] I bang on it.

[00:32:38] I bang on this dead horse because I think it’s dead.

[00:32:40] But matter is a great mystery.

[00:32:43] So maybe my invitation as I was talking about true pluralism, hey materialist friends come

[00:32:49] Let’s work on materialism 2.0 because consciousness is a mystery, but matter is, it’s also a mystery.

[00:32:57] The fact that we can have an intersubjective consensus, the fact that we can apply mathematics,

[00:33:03] that we can measure things.

[00:33:05] The physical world we take it for granted and it’s a great mystery too.

[00:33:09] So maybe that’s related to your last question.

[00:33:12] Why, why are we here?

[00:33:14] Why spirit decided to incarnate?

[00:33:18] The flesh may be a great thing if spirit indeed decided to do so.

[00:33:22] Alex Garesmarin, thank you very much.

[00:33:24] My pleasure.

[00:33:25] Thank you for listening to Philosophy for Our Times.

[00:33:30] What did you guys think?

[00:33:31] Seb, what did you think?

[00:33:32] I loved Alex talking about all the different isms that can obscure the way that we tackle

[00:33:38] these more human aspects of life, the consciousness, what happens to our brains after we die and

[00:33:47] general feelings that don’t seem to relate to scientific fact.

[00:33:52] I thought that was a great interview and he remained very measured there with Simon’s

[00:33:55] questions at the end about different types of religion and trying not to weigh in too

[00:34:00] much on that.

[00:34:01] Very cool.

[00:34:02] I love these kinds of spiritual, religious chats and these confrontations and I’m a

[00:34:07] big fan of Alex.

[00:34:09] We would love to hear what you guys think so please get in touch via the email in the

[00:34:14] show notes and tell my team what you think because I am leaving and I’m so sad too but

[00:34:22] I’ve enjoyed every episode of Philosophy for Our Times.

[00:34:25] This is Avi saying over and out, keep engaging with the big ideas from the big thinkers we

[00:34:32] bring in and Seb and Daniel are taking over from me.

[00:34:35] They’re going to do such a good job bringing you guys all the big ideas that Philosophy

[00:34:39] for Our Times delivers.

[00:34:41] So have a really great time, keep emailing our email so they can read and get back to

[00:34:47] you and keep engaging with all the big ideas from the impressive and smart and insightful

[00:34:54] speakers that we bring.

[00:34:56] So over and out guys, bye!

Visão de gráfico