March 19, 2017 — Dr. Robert Davis and Dr. Maree Batchelor

[marduk]

Erica brings a great energy, different point of view and welcomed change of pace when she co-hosts. She also has a terrific voice for radio. I look forward to her continued participation in the show when Chris' responsibilities find him unavailable.

I totally agree -- her articulation and voice are amazing -- she can very nicely and in a very friendly way ask a guest 'what the hell are you saying?'

Where I would just say 'what the hell are you saying?'

Which makes sense why I'm not on the air.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Ok I tried. I got through one segment.

If my frontal lobe could puke, it would have.

Thanks for trying to have an open mind, Gene. I couldn't have held it together for a whole show.

To all the potential new age folks out there: could you cut a math guy like me a solid and stop using terms like dimension and vibration when you really mean "stuff I made up?"

Those words have meaning, and I end up yelling at my iPhone when you misuse them.

Seconded strongly!

An absolute pet hate of mine is when people - usually New Age types - use terms such as 'Frequencies' or 'Vibrations' without ever referring to what is actually supposed to be vibrating or oscillating. 'Raising vibrations' is meaningless. A frequency is just the numerical rate at which something is oscillating or switching states etc. You can increase the frequency of an EM wave or increase the rate at which a sewing machine needle goes in and out of the material being sewed but you cannot just talk about vibrations and frequencies without saying what it is that is supposed to be vibrating.

I realise that people are entitled to borrow terms from science and use them in different ways, but the argument stands that when anyone - usually from Sedona - talks about raising one's vibrations it is still meaningless without explaining what part of a human being it is that vibrates! Whether I agree or not personally, I'd be far less annoyed if it was explained that, for example, it is someone's 'aura' that is increasing in frequency etc.

Does this make sense? Does it annoy anyone else other than Marduk, who obviously gets it?

 

[marduk]

Seconded strongly!

An absolute pet hate of mine is when people - usually New Age types - use terms such as 'Frequencies' or 'Vibrations' without ever referring to what is actually supposed to be vibrating or oscillating. 'Raising vibrations' is meaningless. A frequency is just the numerical rate at which something is oscillating or switching states etc. You can increase the frequency of an EM wave or increase the rate at which a sewing machine needle goes in and out of the material being sewed but you cannot just talk about vibrations and frequencies without saying what it is that is supposed to be vibrating.

I realise that people are entitled to borrow terms from science and use them in different ways, but the argument stands that when anyone - usually from Sedona - talks about raising one's vibrations it is still meaningless without explaining what part of a human being it is that vibrates! Whether I agree or not personally, I'd be far less annoyed if it was explained that, for example, it is someone's 'aura' that is increasing in frequency etc.

Does this make sense? Does it annoy anyone else other than Marduk, who obviously gets it?

"Higher dimensions" drive me crazy, too.

Listen, folks. A 'dimension' is the minimum number of coordinates to define a point within it.

For example, on a number line, you only need one dimension. It could be '2.4' or '-7' and that's it.

For a point in space, you need three. For a point in spacetime, you need four.

There are many abstract spaces -- such as vector spaces or manifolds -- that require any number of numbers to describe a point there. These are mathematical abstractions that may or may not apply to reality, and even if they did do not mean that there is a 'higher dimension' where things exist separately. For example, string theory (m-theory) describes a possible 'Calibi-Yau' manifold where there are six dimensions curled up into a small space. This does not imply a magical space where unicorns and fairies exist -- this implies a spacial topology where you need six additional numbers to describe a point in it.

And that does not mean that there is an 'astral dimension' where 'beings of light exist' because that's not how freaking dimensions work. Argh!

 

[technomage]

Life-force is the driver of nature.
Growth requires exploration. Awareness is a constant.
The complexity of the present time seems to demand a summoning of our hearts if we are going to survive.
Who are we? Where on the great circuit will we be reborn? Our conversations with other starseeds have led to an invocation of hyper-enlightened consciousness. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the infinite via electromagnetic forces.

If you have never experienced this vision at the quantum level, it can be difficult to exist. Lifeform, look within and unify yourself. Have you found your quest?

To roam the story is to become one with it. We exist, we live, we are reborn. Consciousness consists of bio-electricity of quantum energy. “Quantum” means an awakening of the heroic.

Nothing is impossible.
The dreamscape is calling to you via supercharged waveforms. Can you hear it? It can be difficult to know where to begin. How should you navigate this spiritual quantum matrix?

Where there is materialism, growth cannot thrive. Desire is the antithesis of divinity. You may be ruled by desire without realizing it. Do not let it disrupt the growth of your vision quest.

 

[CuCullen]

I haven't found the ideal paranormal podcast, the Paracast comes closest for me, and for the reasons you cite.

I will say that Sasquatch Chronicles, which I've been listening to for about 7 months or so now (the free weekly version), does an alright job. I always desire more inquisitive skepticism from any paranormal show, but Sasquatch Chronicles has enough seemingly credible testimony such that my view on this creature has done an about face. I'm sure my friends think I'm off my rocker, but then again they can't be bothered to explore the subject either. What to do?

Do any other paranormal shows stand out for you?

I've been enjoying Kevin Randle's A Different Perspective blog/podcast [A Different Perspective] [A Different Perspective] for a bit now. It's a bit short, but Randle is a great critical thinker, and always follows excellent research protocols.

As far as the Davis/Batchelor episode...I listened to the whole thing, but just can't. Not enough meat on the bone, as my grandpappy used to say.

 

[Randall]

"Higher dimensions" drive me crazy, too.

Listen, folks. A 'dimension' is the minimum number of coordinates to define a point within it.

For example, on a number line, you only need one dimension. It could be '2.4' or '-7' and that's it.

For a point in space, you need three. For a point in spacetime, you need four.

There are many abstract spaces -- such as vector spaces or manifolds -- that require any number of numbers to describe a point there. These are mathematical abstractions that may or may not apply to reality, and even if they did do not mean that there is a 'higher dimension' where things exist separately. For example, string theory (m-theory) describes a possible 'Calibi-Yau' manifold where there are six dimensions curled up into a small space. This does not imply a magical space where unicorns and fairies exist -- this implies a spacial topology where you need six additional numbers to describe a point in it.

And that does not mean that there is an 'astral dimension' where 'beings of light exist' because that's not how freaking dimensions work. Argh!

I absolutely get what you're saying, but the problem then becomes: What words do we use? It's not like the phenomena don't exist. Even if it's purely subjective, it still has an effect on the psychology of the experiencer. In some cases the word "vibration" is actually literal. During one MIB encounter ( or at the very least an MIB like encounter ) there was a level of intensity ( of something ) that affected me on a physical level, to the point of manifesting itself in visible shaking. Perhaps this was some sort of psychological effect like subconscious anxiety or fear, but either way physical shaking has a frequency of vibration.

Additionally, I can attest to the layer of subjective sensitivity to the world after the loss of someone close. For me it was as though my awareness of subjective influences was highly amplified, allowing me to connect to this level in a way I had never experienced before. There are no adequate words to describe these kinds of experiences, and I think the field needs to come up with its own terminology rather than borrowing words from other fields. At least the word UFO was created by people in ufology, and therefore we can rightly define it however we want, which for USI is according to the objective word history and usage.

We should also ask: At what point does it become unacceptable to use existing words normally associated with something else, as synonyms? Synonyms are fairly commonplace, so should they be arbitrarily excluded from use with respect to other analogically similar phenomena? Or is their room for some crossover provided these terms are well defined beforehand? There is the term "Astral Plane" which is commonly explained as some sort of "spiritual dimension", but that is of course an explanation that makes no sense whatsoever with respect to the established usage of those words, and even the established usage of the word "spiritual" is often a point of contention.

Yet there are people who claim to have a subjective experience of their presence within some sort of spatial construct that is not the same as the objective 3D world we are normally aware of. IMO these experiences are probably some sort of mental construct like a dreamscape, but I also don't dismiss the possibility that such an environment could be subject to outside influences that can result in a transfer of information in the form of imagery and other sensory experiences. You see how I've filtered out most of the word salad there?

 

[Jimi]

I think if you cannot accept the ideas presented by Dr Batchelor because they cannot be proven, that's fair enough. I couldn't get my head round much of it and I fully respect your scepticism.

I know it's an obvious point but I am mindful that throughout the ages in the development of humanity, we have accepted as fact things we now have "proven" to be false.

Imagine the absurdity of telling a Medieval carpenter solid wood is nothing but vibrating atoms as fantastically far apart relative to their size as stars in space.

I wonder whether there is some much deeper understanding of the universe, consciousness and reality that will enrich us 1000 years from now. And the physical, materialist beings we now are, with our nanotech and 3D printing and black projects, will seem as primitive as a wooden goblet to that distant civilisation.

For this reason and due to the power of my own faith to move me spiritually, I choose to keep an open mind.

Great show Gene, I really enjoyed this welcome foray into an incredibly fascinating part of the "paranormal".

 

[technomage]

I think you can use words like vibration, dimension, etc. as long as you make it clear they don't conform to the physics definitions and that they're the best words that can be used for the time being until better words can be found to describe them. I think the confusion comes along when people think these physics concepts and terms can actually be used to describe what they're trying to describe. I would rather use non-technical words like "realm", "area of reality", "plane of existence" rather than "vibration", "dimension", "energy" to avoid this kind of confusion.

 

[marduk]

I absolutely get what you're saying, but the problem then becomes: What words do we use? It's not like the phenomena don't exist. Even if it's purely subjective, it still has an effect on the psychology of the experiencer. In some cases the word "vibration" is actually literal. During one MIB encounter ( or at the very least an MIB like encounter ) there was a level of intensity ( of something ) that affected me on a physical level, to the point of manifesting itself in visible shaking. Perhaps this was some sort of psychological effect like subconscious anxiety or fear, but either way physical shaking has a frequency of vibration.

c'mon, man. You know that's not what is being talked about here. If you are physically being vibrated, then say so. If you feel a vibration then say so.

If you think you are trying to raise your vibration to talk to beings of light and love from dimension 9, then just say you're stoned.

Additionally, I can attest to the layer of subjective sensitivity to the world after the loss of someone close. For me it was as though my awareness of subjective influences was highly amplified, allowing me to connect to this level in a way I had never experienced before. There are no adequate words to describe these kinds of experiences, and I think the field needs to come up with its own terminology rather than borrowing words from other fields. At least the word UFO was created by people in ufology, and therefore we can rightly define it however we want, which for USI is according to the objective word history and usage.

Totally agree. I've been there. It's a liminal state, a semiotic condition. There are in fact words for these things, because they've always happened to people.

We should also ask: At what point does it become unacceptable to use existing words normally associated with something else, as synonyms? Synonyms are fairly commonplace, so should they be arbitrarily excluded from use with respect to other analogically similar phenomena? Or is their room for some crossover provided these terms are well defined beforehand? There is the term "Astral Plane" which is commonly explained as some sort of "spiritual dimension", but that is of course an explanation that makes no sense whatsoever with respect to the established usage of those words, and even the established usage of the word "spiritual" is often a point of contention.

The problem is that appropriating the scientific words for anti-reason or anti-factual BS is intellectual poison. This is the definition of pseudoscience.

If you don't want to use science to explain something, don't exploit the perception of it's legitimacy by using it's terminology.

Yet there are people who claim to have a subjective experience of their presence within some sort of spatial construct that is not the same as the objective 3D world we are normally aware of. IMO these experiences are probably some sort of mental construct like a dreamscape, but I also don't dismiss the possibility that such an environment could be subject to outside influences that can result in a transfer of information in the form of imagery and other sensory experiences. You see how I've filtered out most of the word salad there?

Sure. Just like when I took a bunch of mushrooms and hit the dance floor and I thought God was talking to me.

Which had nothing to do with my 'vibration' and everything to do with psilocybin. Even though it was a transformative experience for me personally.

 

[marduk]

I think you can use words like vibration, dimension, etc. as long as you make it clear they don't conform to the physics definitions and that they're the best words that can be used for the time being until better words can be found to describe them. I think the confusion comes along when people think these physics concepts and terms can actually be used to describe what they're trying to describe. I would rather use non-technical words like "realm", "area of reality", "plane of existence" rather than "vibration", "dimension", "energy" to avoid this kind of confusion.

It's not confusion.

It's intellectual honesty.

Do not appropriate scientific terms in an attempt to lend legitimacy while undermining your grip on reality.

Quantum is another good one.

Unless you're happy extending the current "post truth" thinking into this domain as well, where we get to continually redefine words to suit our dogma.

 

[technomage]

I think there are cases where the terms are used to loosely describe a concept that they don't know a better word for; maybe not in this episode (since I didn't listen to it and I'm not sure I will). For example, people can use the word energy without realizing there is a specifics physics definition to it (plus energy has non-technical definitions as well). It's harder to justify with clearly technical words like quantum and dimension. Even vibration is something you feel in the real world so you "think" you're accurately describing something when you're using the term vibration. I'm not saying there isn't intellectual dishonesty as there clearly is, but I've heard scientific words misused a lot without any ill intent; just a misunderstanding of what the terms really mean and their applicability.

 

[marduk]

I think there are cases where the terms are used to loosely describe a concept that they don't know a better word for; maybe not in this episode (since I didn't listen to it and I'm not sure I will). For example, people can use the word energy without realizing there is a specifics physics definition to it (plus energy has non-technical definitions as well). It's harder to justify with clearly technical words like quantum and dimension. Even vibration is something you feel in the real world so you "think" you're accurately describing something when you're using the term vibration. I'm not saying there isn't intellectual dishonesty as there clearly is, but I've heard scientific words misused a lot without any ill intent; just a misunderstanding of what the terms really mean and their applicability.

Read doctor bachelor's page.

I do not have the words ironically enough to begin to articulate the problems with it.

It should be called out. Words have meaning. You don't get to redefine them at will in an attempt to sell your bad ideas to people who don't understand them.

 

[Randall]

Read doctor bachelor's page. I do not have the words ironically enough to begin to articulate the problems with it. It should be called out. Words have meaning. You don't get to redefine them at will in an attempt to sell your bad ideas to people who don't understand them.

Again, I certainly appreciate where you're coming from. At the same time, I also like to see if what a guest is getting at might make sense if the terms used are taken in context with what the guests are trying to convey rather than in the context of something else which isn't applicable. Unless we at least make that much effort, we aren't being entirely fair to them or ourselves, and that's because even if an idea has plenty of room for improvement and refinement, it doesn't mean the idea itself is of no value. So if we simply discard it rather than trying to grasp, improve or refine it, we're doing them and ourselves a disservice.

This certainly isn't to suggest that we should blindly agree with or adopt methods or theories that are flawed or highly problematic. However if we don't begin someplace, and make at least an effort to try to apply some critical thinking to the exploration of phenomena, then what are we to do? I think that at the heart of what the guests were taking about is something worth taking a closer look at. I also think that appropriating scientific terminology in an attempt to gain some sort of scientific recognition is only inviting trouble, especially when it needs to be thought through much more than is typical of that field.

BTW, one of the reasons I thought this was such a good show is because of the quality of the questions @Gene Steinberg brought to the interview. There wasn't much softball going on there. At times I thought it might even go off the rails, but he kept it all on track like a pro, and that made it certainly far more engaging than Noory who tends to agree with and be amazed by everyone and anything. Had that been an episode of C2C I probably would have turned off my radio and gone to sleep. Not so with The Paracast.

 

[marduk]

Again, I certainly appreciate where you're coming from. At the same time, I also like to see if what a guest is getting at might make sense if the terms used are taken in context with what the guests are trying to convey rather than in the context of something else which isn't applicable. Unless we at least make that much effort, we aren't being entirely fair to them or ourselves, and that's because even if an idea has plenty of room for improvement and refinement, it doesn't mean the idea itself is of no value. So if we simply discard it rather than trying to improve or refine it, we're doing them and ourselves a disservice.

This certainly isn't to suggest that we should blindly agree with or adopt methods or theories that are flawed or highly problematic. However if we don't begin someplace, and make at least an effort to try to apply some critical thinking to the exploration of phenomena, then what are we to do? I think that at the heart of what the guests were taking about is something worth taking a closer look at. I also think that appropriating scientific terminology in an attempt to gain some sort of scientific recognition is only inviting trouble, especially when it needs to be thought through much more than is typical of that field.

BTW, one of the reasons I thought this was such a good show is because of the quality of the questions @Gene Steinberg brought to the interview. There wasn't much softball going on there. At times I thought it might even go off the rails, but he kept it all on track like a pro, and that made it certainly far more engaging than Noory who tends to agree with and be amazed by everyone and anything. Had that been an episode of C2C I probably would have turned of my radio and gone to sleep. Not so with The Paracast.

And that's why I'm not on the radio.

I would have said "what do you mean by raising your frequency?"

And then said "that's not what it means and how it works" and then stop talking to her at all. Because if you're going to do an epic fail about taking about your own thing, then the chance of finding a diamond in the rough probably isn't worth it.

But that's me and my bias.

 

[Randall]

And that's why I'm not on the radio. I would have said "what do you mean by raising your frequency?" And then said "that's not what it means and how it works" and then stop talking to her at all. Because if you're going to do an epic fail about taking about your own thing, then the chance of finding a diamond in the rough probably isn't worth it. But that's me and my bias.

Hey at least you recognize your bias and aren't hypocritical about it. I respect that. I have to admit that sometimes even I'm guilty of using buzz words that are closely related to these. e.g. "We're on the same wavelength."

And of course ... Don't hit me with them negative waves ...

 

[marduk]

I've always thought the wavelength idiom came from talking on shortwave radio.

You can communicate by literally being on the same wavelength.

I don't think vibrations or dimensions is meant metaphically or idiomatically by most of these folks.

I think they think it's a literal raise in vibrational frequency. Of what, I'm not sure.

 

[technomage]

Like I said, I'm speaking about the use of these terms by a number of people, not what this guest specifically said, since I haven't heard the episode.

 

[William Strathmann]

It could be argued that the New Age jumped on the Beach Boys song from 1967, or alternatively, that the Beach Boys made big bucks using New Age terminology. I'm not sure which way it developed. This song has good "vibrations" and "excitations" that aren't related to particle physics. So, the idea of "good vibes" in a colloquial sense has been around for a long time.

I do have to admit though, that when Dr. B. told Gene to put his feet on the floor to make a good connection to earth, I was thinking of copper grounding straps.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It's how I normally sit when I do the show. Or just sit at that desk. No crossed legs.

 

[William Strathmann]

It's how I normally sit when I do the show. Or just sit at that desk. No crossed legs.

So, then, it would seem that Dr. B. told you to do something that you were already doing?

What is troubling to me is that Dr. B. was ordering/inviting un-named spiritual entities (but only the benevolent ones, of course) to directly interact with her patient, Gene in this case. I am not an expert on Hinduism, but I was under the impression that most Hindus are devotees of particular gods, whom they serve religiously, and whom they know by name. Dr. B. ostensibly got the basics of her spiritual knowledge from India, but her practice doesn't seem particularly related to Hinduism. She did not address particular beings, but rather left it all quite murky, and that for $120 an hour. So just who are the beings she is dealing with? I do think that there are non-human sentient entities that interact with humanity, but some of them are definitely not benevolent.