Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind from how Stuff
Speaker 1: Works dot com. Hey, what's the stuff to Blow your Mind?
Speaker 1: My name is Robert Lamb. Hey, I'm Christian Seger and
Speaker 1: I'm Joe McCormick, and all three of us are in
Speaker 1: the same room at the same time. First time. It's
Speaker 1: first Yeah, and it's a good time for us all
Speaker 1: to get together because the mail bot that we use
Speaker 1: on this show has been out of service for a
Speaker 1: couple of months now, Old Arnie, Yeah, Arney, We're gonna
Speaker 1: have to reboot the robot. We're going to have to
Speaker 1: make sure that it imprints on you guys as as
Speaker 1: new hosts, because we want to avoid any unnecessary, uh complications. Yeah,
Speaker 1: except didn't I hear that We're gonna have to reboot
Speaker 1: it under the new name Carney, with the C standing
Speaker 1: for Cartesian doubt, the newest feature of the mail bot. Yes, yeah, because, uh,
Speaker 1: I mean enough programming has changed on it. It's gonna
Speaker 1: reject its old name. I'm not a roboticist. I don't
Speaker 1: know the poticulars on it, but but yeah, we need it,
Speaker 1: and we also need to make sure that it has
Speaker 1: all three of the laws of robotics. Installed this time.
Speaker 1: I've heard enough about this around the office that I'm
Speaker 1: kind of nervous. I mean, hasn't attacked other podcasts before. Well,
Speaker 1: that is why Scott Benjamin had to have all his
Speaker 1: limbs sewn back one, that's why. Okay, well then that's
Speaker 1: where he got the tail. Well, there were extra pieces
Speaker 1: of and it's like ikea, you know, you could assemble it,
Speaker 1: there's something missing what you need to you can't put
Speaker 1: it back in the box. I'm always afraid to ask him.
Speaker 1: You know, he's just a personal guy, doesn't doesn't like
Speaker 1: to talk about stuff like that. Yeah, alright, so let's uh,
Speaker 1: let's see flip the switch. Okay, Joe, can you get
Speaker 1: that one? Yeah? All right, now, Christian can you pull
Speaker 1: that back? That metal contraption to the big one? Yeah? Okay, okay, whoa,
Speaker 1: what is with this sall blade? Well? Well that's um,
Speaker 1: that's a different feature. Okay, push that back in, okay, okay, alright, okay,
Speaker 1: Now see this metal flower thing opening up there like
Speaker 1: the inside of a you know, the head portion of
Speaker 1: an iron Maiden. Why is it presenting us pills? Um?
Speaker 1: Those are optional, but you do need to stick your
Speaker 1: face into this contraption real quick. This reminds me of
Speaker 1: those robots in that movie R Runaways. Oh well that
Speaker 1: that's a predecessor. Okay, prototype for Arnie. But hold on,
Speaker 1: so you put your face in the flower. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: then it's going to imprint, and then we can be
Speaker 1: able to actually deliver the listener mail to us and
Speaker 1: we can read through some of them. I think you did.
Speaker 1: If you think I got to oh wait, didn't do
Speaker 1: it again? Well, that's perfect, that's perfect. I'm not putting
Speaker 1: my face in that thing. Well you wipe it down first,
Speaker 1: the spray. Oh all right, I think they got to. Look,
Speaker 1: it's folding up and everything. Uh, seems to be coming online,
Speaker 1: all right. Now, we just have to see if Arnie
Speaker 1: responds graciously or if it activates its latest Okay, are
Speaker 1: you ever going to explain the sol blade or um?
Speaker 1: That feature may become necessary later on right now, No,
Speaker 1: don't worry about that. All right, there, he is all right,
Speaker 1: you're accepted. Arnie seems to be operating, uh more or
Speaker 1: less a long design parameters. Carney Carney, Yes, sorry, Carney,
Speaker 1: I got your name wrong. All right, Carney, you're online,
Speaker 1: bring us some listener mail. What do you got for us? Hey, guys,
Speaker 1: I'm a newer listener of HSW and a big fan
Speaker 1: of your podcasts and all the HSW shows. You get
Speaker 1: me through long, lonely train rides to and from New
Speaker 1: York City and where I live in New Jersey. I
Speaker 1: just listened to your episode on Stigmata and heard you
Speaker 1: reference the wound on the side of Jesus as happening
Speaker 1: during his carrying of the cross, which I don't think
Speaker 1: was the case. This is this is absolutely accurate. I
Speaker 1: got this wrong in the episode. Uh, not being overly
Speaker 1: Christian myself, but raised in such a manner with a
Speaker 1: Bible hungry aunt that's sounds awful. I have always known
Speaker 1: the story different. After my punch and some quick research,
Speaker 1: I think the wound was given after he had been
Speaker 1: nearly spent. The story. Yeah, the story I know goes
Speaker 1: that he had been hanging for hours and hours, long
Speaker 1: after typical people who are crucified would live. The Roman
Speaker 1: centurion was seen as a do gooder, giving Jesus mercy
Speaker 1: and making sure he was dead after his marathon of torture.
Speaker 1: The unnamed soldier is also credited with saying, quote, truly,
Speaker 1: this is the Son of God. Oh so that's where
Speaker 1: that comes from. I didn't know that. Uh, not trying
Speaker 1: to step on toes, just a big fan reaching out,
Speaker 1: keep up the great work, thanks for reading, Michael. Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Somebody on Facebook also alerted us to that mistake. On
Speaker 1: my part, I believe I somehow had it in my
Speaker 1: head that the spear wound was inflicted as he's carrying
Speaker 1: the cross to the crucifixion. But yeah, I believe. I
Speaker 1: hate to call it canon, but I suppose it is canon.
Speaker 1: Is that he was what Michael said, Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: it's sort of considered the or the literal reroll it
Speaker 1: plays in the narrative is it's the the Kuda gras.
Speaker 1: You know, it's the final blow to make sure everybody knows, okay,
Speaker 1: he's really, really, actually dead. So it's like it's a
Speaker 1: compassionate thing from the way that Michael's making it sound
Speaker 1: that the this this soldier didn't want him to suffer
Speaker 1: any longer. Um, you know, I don't know if I
Speaker 1: ever heard that exact interpretation of it. I always thought
Speaker 1: he was doing his job, like so, I don't know
Speaker 1: if the gospel narrative is is much No, not necessarily.
Speaker 1: I don't think the Gospel narrative is much trying to
Speaker 1: get in the head of the Roman soldier. I think
Speaker 1: it's more serving the purpose of demonstrating to the reader
Speaker 1: that Jesus was really dead, so the reader wouldn't be
Speaker 1: wondering like, oh, maybe he wasn't dead, Oh, like he
Speaker 1: would pull like a I almost just said a huge
Speaker 1: game of thrownes spoiler. I'm going to keep that to myself. Yeah, now,
Speaker 1: I I also want to point out Bible hungry aunt
Speaker 1: that could be referring to Grimore's talk about individuals who
Speaker 1: consider the book in order to gain its power. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's what was going on there. All right, Michael, thank
Speaker 1: you for writing in with with that little bit of
Speaker 1: clarification there. What else do we have to read here? Alright?
Speaker 1: So next, it looks like we've got one from Jonathan,
Speaker 1: and Jonathan writes in being a member of an older
Speaker 1: generation than yourselves, I've just started listening to podcasts, but
Speaker 1: have become addicted to stuff to blow your mind. I
Speaker 1: was intrigued by your two part podcast on religion and
Speaker 1: technology that was Techno Religion for the Masses Parts one
Speaker 1: and two, and he's he continues in researching a book.
Speaker 1: I came across a very unusual object in the American
Speaker 1: Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. It is basically an astrolabe manufactured
Speaker 1: in the mid sixteenth century in Germany. The gnomon of
Speaker 1: the sundial aspect of the object is a turbaned man,
Speaker 1: indicating either the intention or origin as a timetelling in
Speaker 1: geolocator device for Muslims. It was brought to America in
Speaker 1: the l seventeenth century, probably by a group of German
Speaker 1: Pietist mystics, and later fell into the hands of Benjamin Franklin,
Speaker 1: who founded the American Philosophical Society. One of the most
Speaker 1: intriguing features of the device is an engraving on the
Speaker 1: bottom with two illustrations and a reference to a passage
Speaker 1: in Isaiah where God turns back time. The device purports
Speaker 1: to explain the miracle. When set up as a sun
Speaker 1: dial and filled with water, the refraction of the shadow
Speaker 1: quote throws time backward unquote by the same amount as
Speaker 1: in the Miracle and Isaiah. This was, however, before the
Speaker 1: principle of refraction was, if not known, at least codified
Speaker 1: in Western science. This feature of the device was demonstrated
Speaker 1: in the nineteen seventies. Then he gives a link to
Speaker 1: an article that he actually wrote about this object, which
Speaker 1: he says is referred to it the A. P. S
Speaker 1: as the Schlisser Dial, after the smith whose name was
Speaker 1: on it, and he says keep up the good work
Speaker 1: and adds that he will miss Julie. Well, thank you
Speaker 1: for that email, Jonathan. This is really interesting, indeed, and
Speaker 1: we'll make sure to include a link to that article
Speaker 1: of his on the landing page with this episode Stuff
Speaker 1: to blow your mind dot com U, because certainly in
Speaker 1: that episode we went into the the role of the astrolabe.
Speaker 1: It's this kind of convergence of technology and religion. So
Speaker 1: this is definitely that definitely flows in with what we
Speaker 1: talked about totally. All right, here's one that comes to
Speaker 1: us from from listener art Art rights in and says,
Speaker 1: did I hear Roberts say that he had decided to
Speaker 1: stop eating octopy because of their intelligence? Maybe a little
Speaker 1: bit because they're kind of cute playing with things. I
Speaker 1: can see why one might come to such a conclusion.
Speaker 1: But knowing you are voracious learners and reasonably rational decision makers,
Speaker 1: thank you. I felt I had to write you to
Speaker 1: make sure you had all the octo facts in hand
Speaker 1: to make this protein limiting decision. You are aware that
Speaker 1: octopi are not shay shy about cannibalism. They are very
Speaker 1: territorial and regularly attack and consume fellow octopus is when
Speaker 1: they trustpassed. The truspassers had anittedly are their competition too,
Speaker 1: But honestly, can you still feel bad about eating octopuses
Speaker 1: now they eat each other? You're welcome, enjoy your sushi
Speaker 1: sashimi next time. Thanks again, guys, keep up the great work.
Speaker 1: Best art. So, okay, what was the rationale behind why
Speaker 1: you wouldn't I think this was referring to the episode
Speaker 1: about grizzly bears from outer space? So we were talking
Speaker 1: about different kinds of alien intelligence and how at least
Speaker 1: in my opinion, octopus is display and intelligence that doesn't
Speaker 1: register is human, but that does register is significant and interesting. Yeah,
Speaker 1: thus underlying, you know, some of the problems of thinking
Speaker 1: about alien intelligence because we end up holding it up
Speaker 1: to the model of human intelligence, which you know, even
Speaker 1: life on Earth illustrates that there there may be other
Speaker 1: types of consciousness going on. All right, Well, I mean
Speaker 1: I can see why you would say that. Then, um, wait,
Speaker 1: are you a vegetarian? No? And I'll be the first
Speaker 1: to admit that I'm my My stance on what I
Speaker 1: eat and what I don't eat is kind of hypocritical.
Speaker 1: And I guess a lot of people, you know, a
Speaker 1: lot of people have varying degrees of hypocrisy when it
Speaker 1: comes to this sort of thing. But like, I still
Speaker 1: eat occasionally, will eat pork, even though the pig is
Speaker 1: a pretty smart creature. And you know, who am I
Speaker 1: to say, you go in my belly? But the octopus
Speaker 1: is off limits. But maybe I give the octopi some
Speaker 1: sort of privileged status because it's so different, because it's
Speaker 1: this kind of alien creature. So arts making an ethical
Speaker 1: argument that because octopi are cannibals themselves, that it's okay
Speaker 1: to eat them because they eat each other. That he's
Speaker 1: presenting that as a as a potential reason that I
Speaker 1: could hang onto and use octopus. I would counter that,
Speaker 1: I would present you with the option of would it
Speaker 1: be okay to eat people? Then if they were cannibals
Speaker 1: by this yeah, by this Rationelle, that would be perfectly acceptable,
Speaker 1: provided they are a cannibal. That would eat me. Not necessarily,
Speaker 1: art might be going on a sort of like a
Speaker 1: double qualifier model where they have to be below a
Speaker 1: certain level of problem solving and tell legens or i
Speaker 1: Q threshold, and that have to be evil or cannibalistic.
Speaker 1: I actually, in response to arts email, I went and
Speaker 1: looked into this because I was like, I've never heard
Speaker 1: of this before, but I found an article on Scientific
Speaker 1: American talking about octopus cannibalism, and I just want to
Speaker 1: read this quote from it that I found. It says,
Speaker 1: these amazing, if occasionally gruesome observations revealed that octopus has
Speaker 1: chosen octopus meal even if there were plenty of other,
Speaker 1: less feisty food options, such as muscles. But as the
Speaker 1: authors point out, even the more docile muscles required more
Speaker 1: energy to extract than a smaller octopus might to get
Speaker 1: the same amount of meat. An octopus meat, the scientist's note,
Speaker 1: is higher in protein per ounce than that of muscles. Additionally,
Speaker 1: the octopus predator, after bringing back its prey, sealed off
Speaker 1: its den, opening with rocks. This allowed the eating octopus
Speaker 1: to feed in relative safety and privacy. Another advantage of
Speaker 1: a single large catch over having to crack and carry
Speaker 1: smaller bivalves. So my reaction to this was art, You're
Speaker 1: incredibly correct. This is evil and scary, and this is
Speaker 1: serial killer type behavior. But also I am now even
Speaker 1: more impressed by the intelligence of the octopus than I
Speaker 1: was before. It's smart about what it eats, and it
Speaker 1: knows how to eat in privacy. Yeah, it sounds like
Speaker 1: it has a real like return on investment style approach
Speaker 1: to its eating. Well, you know it, it lives in
Speaker 1: a different economy, and it lives in the economy of
Speaker 1: of of the ocean, you know. So, I mean if we,
Speaker 1: if we evolved to thrive in such a dangerous habitat,
Speaker 1: we would likely be a little more cannibalistic as well.
Speaker 1: So much like you know, the world of Mad Max. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just a it's a different world. It's it's the
Speaker 1: wild West down there, and sometimes you gotta eat your
Speaker 1: own kind. So all right, before we move on from
Speaker 1: arts letter, clearly I don't know, I don't know if
Speaker 1: you guys know, what's the correct plural pronunciation of octopus,
Speaker 1: octopi or octopuses. It's octopi. If you want to sound
Speaker 1: like a jerk, it's octopus. If you just, you know,
Speaker 1: want to sound like a normal person. So is octopi
Speaker 1: is correct? I don't know. Oh, I always say octopuses
Speaker 1: per the James Bond film. Yeah, yeah, I feel like
Speaker 1: this just came up when we wrote a script for
Speaker 1: a video recently about Octopi. Octopuses. Anyways, if anybody out
Speaker 1: there knows, write us and we'll answer it in the
Speaker 1: next listener mail episode. I'm curious. I mean, I'm sure
Speaker 1: we could just google it, but I, in principle refuse
Speaker 1: not on air. I prefer grammatical corrections from a thousand listeners.
Speaker 1: That's how I learned. Um. All right, what else do
Speaker 1: we have from the old mail bot here? Okay? This
Speaker 1: next one is from Brian and it is also in
Speaker 1: response to our Grizzly Bears from outer Space podcast, and
Speaker 1: Brian says, Hey, guys, I listen to your episode on
Speaker 1: grizzly Bears from outer Space, or more specifically, the theorized
Speaker 1: shape and size of any potential aliens we may encounter
Speaker 1: in the future, and I think I have a bit
Speaker 1: of information that will put some of your more worrisome
Speaker 1: listeners at ease. I present to you the rocket equation,
Speaker 1: and then he gives a little equation. It's a d
Speaker 1: V equals V times l N and the parentheses r M.
Speaker 1: It seems to be important that one of the visa
Speaker 1: is capitalized. Yes, that's right. Uh. And so that's my
Speaker 1: input on math, right. Uh. And he explains that. He
Speaker 1: says V is a rockets effective exhaust velocity limited by
Speaker 1: precepts of chemistry and nozzle design. DV is the delta
Speaker 1: V applied to the rocket, which is the controller of
Speaker 1: how high it reaches before it runs out of fuel.
Speaker 1: And r M is the ratio of the rockets initial
Speaker 1: to final mass with fuel and then without. So does
Speaker 1: that make sense? Like as the rocket ascends, it loses
Speaker 1: mass and it becomes easier to propel itself, So it's
Speaker 1: got to have enough fuel on board to carry not
Speaker 1: just the rocket but the fuel. Um. So he continues
Speaker 1: plug in some numbers and you get the same figures
Speaker 1: that had NASA smashing their heads against the wall for
Speaker 1: years in the late fifties. A solid fuel rocket requires
Speaker 1: a nineties six percent fuel by mass composition to impart
Speaker 1: enough delta V to reach Earth's orbit. That's crazy to
Speaker 1: think about. Uh. That was my commic, not Brian's But
Speaker 1: Brian goes on. The important thing to note here is
Speaker 1: that the necessary delta V to leave a planet and
Speaker 1: thus makes space travel possible, is determined by its gravity.
Speaker 1: It's easy to see that if Earth's gravity were just
Speaker 1: a little bit higher, space travel with conventional rockets would
Speaker 1: be all but impossible. Any rocket we built would simply
Speaker 1: be too heavy to reach orbit. This puts Earth at
Speaker 1: the top of the range of planetary masses in which
Speaker 1: the gravity is high enough to hold an atmosphere but
Speaker 1: low enough to allow for space travel. If there were
Speaker 1: any other space farings of realizations out there, and their
Speaker 1: technology is anything like ours, which chemists, physicists, and mathematicians
Speaker 1: suggest it most likely will be at our level, there
Speaker 1: is a virtual certainty that their planets gravity will be
Speaker 1: lower than ours, or else they would be trapped on
Speaker 1: their world, unable to sail to the star ocean. Regardless
Speaker 1: of their size or shape, it is practically guaranteed that
Speaker 1: we not they are one of, if not the physically
Speaker 1: strongest space capable species in our galaxy. Long story short,
Speaker 1: humans are heavy worlders, stay heavy. Yeah, thank you so much, Brian.
Speaker 1: This was a really interesting and informative email, and we did.
Speaker 1: We did acknowledge in the episode that, uh, definitely some
Speaker 1: other space and astrobiology experts had pointed out about the
Speaker 1: study we talked about in that episode that it's sort
Speaker 1: of was, while it was good reasoning, it was reasoning
Speaker 1: in a vacuum, and that once you add in sort
Speaker 1: of all these real world variables to think about, like
Speaker 1: gravity and other things, that might definitely change the parameters
Speaker 1: of the equations that Fergus Simpson used. Yeah, so now
Speaker 1: I'm not as concerned about space trolls. I'm more concerned
Speaker 1: with like space hobbits, space goblins. Pure. Yeah. So, thank
Speaker 1: you Brian for that really interesting email. Yeah, totally, it's
Speaker 1: a good one. Okay. Also, Angelo writes into us from Facebook,
Speaker 1: so keep in mind for future listener mail episodes, you
Speaker 1: can write into us on Twitter or Facebook or at
Speaker 1: the email blow the mind at how stuff works dot com,
Speaker 1: even Tumbler and Tumbler that's right. Yeah, uh, Angelo writes
Speaker 1: really liked both episodes. By the way, the movie Stigmata
Speaker 1: was not so much about a demonic possession, although the
Speaker 1: trailer would lead you to think so, as it did
Speaker 1: lead me to think so. The female character actually gets
Speaker 1: the Stigmata because she had in her possession the rosary
Speaker 1: of a stigmatic priest who died and I guess transferred
Speaker 1: his soul in the rosary. Oh and it also had
Speaker 1: something to do with the Gospel of Thomas. Okay, I
Speaker 1: barely remember that movie, but that, I mean, obviously he's
Speaker 1: seen it. That sounds about right. So so like what
Speaker 1: we're talking about here is like, um St. Francis's rosary
Speaker 1: falls into Patricia Arquette's possession, she's holding onto it, and
Speaker 1: the soul of St. Francis enters her, thus making her
Speaker 1: a stigmatic stewing upon her the wounds of Christ. All right, well,
Speaker 1: that's that sounds plausible for the movie. I never saw
Speaker 1: that movie, though I remember the trailer for it, and
Speaker 1: I think at the time I was offended by it.
Speaker 1: Why it was a different time for me. I was
Speaker 1: gonna say, yeah, right before we did the Stigmata episode,
Speaker 1: I rewatched that trailer and it does seem like she's
Speaker 1: kind of possessed or something. But um, yeah, I feel
Speaker 1: like I might have been in junior high, and you
Speaker 1: know you're in junior high. They're all these changes happening
Speaker 1: with your body wounds are opening up in your hands,
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. So it hits a little close
Speaker 1: to yeah, it was. It was definitely made for adolescence,
Speaker 1: that's for sure, all right. This one comes to us
Speaker 1: from Brooke brook writes in referring to an old episode
Speaker 1: having to do with dinosaurs mating with each other. I
Speaker 1: think it was called tyrannosaur sex. She writes it and says,
Speaker 1: nothing astonishing or a stud here, But today I saw
Speaker 1: two fed Ex trucks backed up to each other, hatch
Speaker 1: to hatch, and the first thing to come to mind
Speaker 1: was cloacal kiss. So um, thanks for that, I guess
Speaker 1: in all seriousness, love the podcast, especially with how much
Speaker 1: of it there is. I've been listening for months and
Speaker 1: I'm still years behind and loving every minute. Thanks for
Speaker 1: all the laughs and learning. So that explains the older episode.
Speaker 1: I'm always a little um surprised and or horrified when
Speaker 1: I hear that listeners have discovered the podcast and are
Speaker 1: starting at the very big working their way up. I mean,
Speaker 1: not because the old episodes are bad, but it's like,
Speaker 1: if you start with the current stuff and work back,
Speaker 1: you'll hopefully, you know, started at its best, you know. Yeah, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I understand that. That's kind of my approach to podcasts.
Speaker 1: That's where when I start them. I know I have
Speaker 1: friends who do that, who go back and listen from
Speaker 1: the very beginning to shows. There's two hundred three d episodes,
Speaker 1: And I went back and listened to the very first
Speaker 1: episode of this show right before joining the programming Infestations. Yeah,
Speaker 1: when it was you and Allison, Alison who still works
Speaker 1: with us here at How Stuff Works. Yeah, yeah, that
Speaker 1: was a good one. I liked it. Yeah. I actually
Speaker 1: ended up looking it up recently because they did the
Speaker 1: whole ten years of iTunes and so we we pumped
Speaker 1: out the very first episode of then Stuff in the
Speaker 1: Science Lab before we actually the same Stuff to Blow
Speaker 1: your Mind. So it's kind of cool to look back
Speaker 1: on it. But now the old episodes are great, but
Speaker 1: you know, you're still there's so much of your time
Speaker 1: with this show is sort of finding what that show is.
Speaker 1: And you know, it wasn't even called Stuff to Blow
Speaker 1: your Mind back then, so that slightly different shows. True,
Speaker 1: was it called stuff to Blow your Mind? During the
Speaker 1: Chloeacle kiss? It was? This was definitely the Stuff to
Speaker 1: Blow your Mind era. That was the chloac Era if
Speaker 1: you will. Is that why Julie has the what is
Speaker 1: it kloeac A Boulevard on her desk? Yeah, I remember correctly, Listener,
Speaker 1: Aaron sent that into her sheet. We each got out
Speaker 1: road sign she got and I got sandworms. Oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that makes sense. Well we've got another one here that
Speaker 1: looks like it's about the stigmata episode. This is another
Speaker 1: Facebook message. This one's from Nick. I was listening to
Speaker 1: your pieces on stigmatics and your special treatment of the
Speaker 1: subject material is anti intellectual. There is absolutely no difference
Speaker 1: between the founding of these beliefs and modern comics. He
Speaker 1: means comic books, not stand up comedians. Stuff you should
Speaker 1: know that's not us. Uh. There is no one single
Speaker 1: account of Jesus written by anyone who could have known him.
Speaker 1: If you know something I do not, please do an
Speaker 1: episode and inform me. I am not arguing to be
Speaker 1: anti theist, but show this subject no more reverence than
Speaker 1: facts in a DC comic. I don't get thinking like this.
Speaker 1: I mean it seems to me that whether or not
Speaker 1: you believe the mythology is like literally true, wouldn't it
Speaker 1: be interesting to learn about where it came from and
Speaker 1: the story behind it. Yeah, I mean I think I
Speaker 1: think I actually responded. There was there was a back
Speaker 1: and forth actually on Facebook. Yeah, and but I mean
Speaker 1: one of my responses was, like, we'd love to do
Speaker 1: stuff on characters in d C comics just as much
Speaker 1: fun and learned just as much by looking at the
Speaker 1: comic book characters, looking at superhero powers and applying real
Speaker 1: world physics and you know, real science to that. I've
Speaker 1: actually done a podcast like that on the other podcast
Speaker 1: I do at how stuff works for thinking. We did
Speaker 1: an episode a while back where we basically looked at
Speaker 1: all the X Men and said, Okay, what rating of
Speaker 1: plausibility do we give to all their powers? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, like I can I can understand where he's
Speaker 1: coming from here, and that like he listens to the
Speaker 1: show as a science podcast and expects a certain amount
Speaker 1: of I guess, as he put it, intellectualism. Um. But
Speaker 1: but yeah, I think that what we try to do
Speaker 1: is is, you know, bring a connection between things like
Speaker 1: pop culture or or other you know, beliefs, whether it's
Speaker 1: stigmata or for instance, like when we were talking earlier
Speaker 1: in the other podcast about people cutting off literally sting
Speaker 1: off their nose, despite their face, because of the term
Speaker 1: despite your face. It just seems to me like we
Speaker 1: we sat down and we looked at the stigmata as
Speaker 1: a actual occurrence, what could possibly have caused it, whether
Speaker 1: it was disease, self mutilation, uh, psychosomatic situations, what have you. Uh,
Speaker 1: And yeah, let's do it. We should for for Nick,
Speaker 1: I think we should do something on DC comics. I'd
Speaker 1: be happy with anything. Yeah, totally. I mean, yeah, Ultimately,
Speaker 1: we approached stigmata, even though at the heart you have
Speaker 1: a purported supernatural event, approached it from a scientific standpoint,
Speaker 1: psychological standpoint, you know, and also just looking at just
Speaker 1: the way we think about these things from you know,
Speaker 1: a mythic standpoint, how it factors into worldview, and that's
Speaker 1: that's all part of what we do here. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: you know, to say too, I think that he was
Speaker 1: disappointed that we uh respected stigmata objectively within the episod,
Speaker 1: so that we didn't outright say this is all lies. Uh,
Speaker 1: that that wasn't in the title. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I do appreciate the feedback, Nick, Definitely. It
Speaker 1: stirred some interesting back and forth on Facebook, and we
Speaker 1: love to discuss these topics with you. So even if
Speaker 1: it's if the topic, even if the discussion is based,
Speaker 1: you know, around criticism, and believe it or not, the
Speaker 1: three of us do you know, legitimately read these and
Speaker 1: talk about them amongst ourselves and sometimes we'll respond on Facebook.
Speaker 1: Sometimes we'll we'll bring it here on the listener mail
Speaker 1: episode talk to you about it directly. In fact, we're
Speaker 1: gonna kick this hornet's nest right again by going back
Speaker 1: to the podcasts that we did about the intersections of
Speaker 1: religion and technology, so so bring on the criticism of
Speaker 1: supernatural topics. So this seems to be the common intersection
Speaker 1: here though, right is when we add religion plus science,
Speaker 1: we stir hornets. And I mean, obviously that's a that's
Speaker 1: a thing people on the internet opinions about. But I'll think, yeah,
Speaker 1: people have you see, you see criticism from people on
Speaker 1: the atheistic side of things. You see more religious folk
Speaker 1: criticizing sometimes, and it just kind of kind of varies.
Speaker 1: But I mean, ultimately that's because there's a lot to
Speaker 1: discuss there, you know. Yeah, And that seems to be
Speaker 1: like the fact that you're saying that it comes from
Speaker 1: from all angles. It means that they're like, we're coming
Speaker 1: close to having a dialogue, which is pretty awesome considering
Speaker 1: that this podcast is broadcast a mass audience. Mass audience,
Speaker 1: not mass. It's like everybody past, okay, Well, anyway, we
Speaker 1: have a couple of fairly long ones, but I do
Speaker 1: want to read them because they're really great listener mail.
Speaker 1: So these are from Gillian or Jillian. How do you
Speaker 1: pronounced that name? I think it depends because the way
Speaker 1: that I always heard Jillian Anderson, which I believe, is
Speaker 1: that she pronounces it, but then the woman from community
Speaker 1: it's spelled the same. Hers pronounced Gillian. Well, I love Scully,
Speaker 1: so I'm gonna say Jillian. So Jillian writes in to
Speaker 1: tell us, I've been following your podcasts for a few
Speaker 1: years now, enjoying the eclectic mix of weird subjects. But
Speaker 1: I listened with heightened enthusiasm to your recent podcast on
Speaker 1: religion and technology. This is a subject that has been
Speaker 1: of great interest to me for some time, perhaps because
Speaker 1: as an atheist, religion is a fascinating anomaly to one
Speaker 1: not participating, and was the focus of my dissertation at
Speaker 1: Glasgow School of Art two years ago. She might be
Speaker 1: at Gillian then, like in Scottish pronunciation, maybe there's a
Speaker 1: hard g Oh, Okay, it could be it's not Glascow,
Speaker 1: you're correct or Glasco. However you say it anyway, does
Speaker 1: it Lionel Alasco good? Jillian continues, Uh, My research was long,
Speaker 1: extensive and really enjoyable. This is, after all a complex
Speaker 1: area that requires an understanding of many quirks and areas
Speaker 1: of human behavior. But where your podcast focused mostly on
Speaker 1: the historical use of religious technology, my area of inquiry
Speaker 1: focused on cyberspace. Humans have always sought to consecrate whatever
Speaker 1: space it is that we're currently occupying or entering. Buzz
Speaker 1: Aldrin is reported to have taken self administered communion when
Speaker 1: first walking on the moon. I think, actually, yeah, I
Speaker 1: thought about mentioning this in the podcast, but we didn't
Speaker 1: have time for it, I think. But anyway, she goes
Speaker 1: on to say, and we're doing the same thing with
Speaker 1: cyberspace characterized as a purely mined space, cyberspace does offer
Speaker 1: a new intriguing platform for spiritual exploration. I love that
Speaker 1: you included prayer wheels in your exploration of technology. Buddhism
Speaker 1: is one of the established religions that is integrating most
Speaker 1: enthusiastically with technology and cyberspace. You can, in fact, turn
Speaker 1: your computer's hard drive into a prayer wheel by saving
Speaker 1: an image of the Sanskrit. And I apologize if I'm
Speaker 1: not pronouncing this right. Oh mamane, pod me home, allowing
Speaker 1: for thousands more revolutions per minute than a hand can deliver.
Speaker 1: The question you raised about where the use of techno
Speaker 1: logical prayer wheels becomes problematic as an interesting one. And
Speaker 1: there I think we asked the question of like, can
Speaker 1: you just write a computer program that simulates the turning
Speaker 1: of a wheel without even having a picture if it's
Speaker 1: just like a you know, a program that executes in
Speaker 1: the background on a computer. She She goes on. She says,
Speaker 1: as prayer and prana is both unquantifiable and unverifiable, we
Speaker 1: can't see if it is indeed more effective. Rather, what
Speaker 1: is important is the intention of the believer, the desire
Speaker 1: to do as much good as possible and to bring
Speaker 1: their faith into every area of their life. Physical prayer
Speaker 1: wheels can be said to act as advertising for Buddhism
Speaker 1: or one's faith and a moving gift image of one
Speaker 1: on your blog or website does the same thing and
Speaker 1: encouraging faith. There was even a Tibetan Buddhism blessing in
Speaker 1: cyberspace delivered in the early nineties where four months prayed
Speaker 1: in front of a laptop, sanctifying the space. Cornell University
Speaker 1: has been part of a project to make three D
Speaker 1: mendala's existing digitally in cyberspace, and these can be navigated
Speaker 1: by camera within the program. The Dalai Lama enthusiastically tried
Speaker 1: this out and laughed when he drove the camera into
Speaker 1: a digital statue of the Buddha. It seems like the
Speaker 1: appropriate response, right. Uh. The reason for Buddhism's acceptance of
Speaker 1: cyberspace is providing legitimate space for spiritual engagement, maybe because
Speaker 1: of their dualistic understanding of reality, with consciousness and matter
Speaker 1: being separate. Take a trip to second life and you'll
Speaker 1: also encounter Christian churches. I thought this was really actually
Speaker 1: one of these, really well, I was in a physical church,
Speaker 1: but then the individual giving the sermon um gave it
Speaker 1: in second life and we got to view this on
Speaker 1: the screen. It was interesting, lassinating, that's really cool. But yeah,
Speaker 1: so she says that you'll encounter Christian churches, Jewish synagogues,
Speaker 1: and Hindu temples available to visit, some with instructions on
Speaker 1: clothing for one's avatar. Before entering. You can also engage
Speaker 1: your avatar and meditation and yoga practices on second life.
Speaker 1: This asks some very interesting questions about the validity of
Speaker 1: experience online, as I assume that while my avatar is meditating,
Speaker 1: I cannot be one can even receive virtual communion on
Speaker 1: second life. This seems ludicrous at first, but when we
Speaker 1: consider that transubstantiation is purely metaphorical, allowing us to become
Speaker 1: closer to our Godhead and Avatar acting as a digitally
Speaker 1: mediated metaphor for our mind, imbibing a metaphor for Christ
Speaker 1: isn't too hard to understand. It all asks some very
Speaker 1: difficult questions about embodiment, what it means to be human,
Speaker 1: and the nature of mind slash consciousness. This really is
Speaker 1: a fascinating and complex issue, mostly because religion is an
Speaker 1: innate human drive, and in examining how we engage with
Speaker 1: religion and cyberspace, we can use it almost as a
Speaker 1: litmus test to assess how we feel about the validity
Speaker 1: of experiences online. And then she actually attached her dissertation,
Speaker 1: which I haven't had a chance to read yet, but
Speaker 1: I would really like to get into and and maybe
Speaker 1: at some point we could get a chance to share
Speaker 1: that with our listeners if if she's interested. Yeah, most
Speaker 1: I don't know how it works at her university, but
Speaker 1: most universities published dissertations now as open access documents, so
Speaker 1: perhaps we can get a u r L from Jillian
Speaker 1: and share it with everybody. Yeah, and anyway, she finishes up.
Speaker 1: But thanks if you made it to the end of
Speaker 1: this long ramble. I just get so excited when I
Speaker 1: encounter someone discussing the subject. Much love from the West
Speaker 1: of Scotland. Thanks for all the great work and keep
Speaker 1: it up. You're too kind, Jillian, and your email was awesome.
Speaker 1: I love to this. Yeah, so many, uh so many
Speaker 1: wonderful things. So the mention of Mandala's and you know,
Speaker 1: the virtual spaces of Mendala's I'd love to do an
Speaker 1: episode just on Mandalas at some point in the future.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think Julian, you should take this subject
Speaker 1: and do an entire podcast series of your own about it. Yeah. Oh,
Speaker 1: it certainly sounds like something large enough that you could
Speaker 1: you could do a whole series on it. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: Robert and I were just originally planning doing one episode
Speaker 1: about technology and religion, but then we got into it
Speaker 1: and realized we've been talking for like two and a
Speaker 1: half hour. I remember, I remember, because you win the
Speaker 1: studio and didn't come out for a really long time,
Speaker 1: and I and I thought, what happened? Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it's the topic and we just only in it, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a there's a lot there, so yeah, it could
Speaker 1: easily be a podcast onto itself. So wait, before we
Speaker 1: move on. Transubstantiation is purely metaphorical. That's well, I understanding
Speaker 1: that depends I think. Okay, okay, so yeah, the idea there,
Speaker 1: if you're not familiar, is that I think, in uh,
Speaker 1: in the mass, if people in the Christian Mass are receiving, yeah,
Speaker 1: the bread and the wine. Transubstantiation is the belief that
Speaker 1: the bread and wine is becomes the body of in
Speaker 1: blood of Christ when it's at what point I don't
Speaker 1: maybe when it's blessed by the priest. I'm not quite sure,
Speaker 1: but anyway, I think so some people would probably take
Speaker 1: that literally and say, yes, in some sense, now it
Speaker 1: is literally. Actually the body and Blood of Jesus and
Speaker 1: then others I think would take a more metaphorical approach
Speaker 1: to it. You know that that email was so good.
Speaker 1: We actually have another one from Jillian here, she says,
Speaker 1: I'd like to point your attention to another interest in
Speaker 1: comparison you mentioned UFOs. I'd just like to point out
Speaker 1: that Young postulated that UFOs are now filling the role
Speaker 1: of heavenly, omniscient and powerful beings left by traditional godheads
Speaker 1: that have been eradicated as their scientific knowledge has grown.
Speaker 1: They fit the same circular mandalage shape as recognized by Young,
Speaker 1: as well as the likes of Joseph Campbell and J. G. Frasier.
Speaker 1: Artists Susan Hiller explored this in her compelling piece Witness,
Speaker 1: in which small saucer shaped speakers were suspended on chords
Speaker 1: from the ceiling in a large rectangle with a space
Speaker 1: left for navigating in the shape of a crucifix. From
Speaker 1: the speakers, the viewer could listen closely to whispered confession
Speaker 1: like reports of individuals who claimed to have encountered UFOs.
Speaker 1: Adding another layer, the work was displayed in a church
Speaker 1: in England, alluding to the fact that where once we
Speaker 1: saw angels, we now see advanced scientific beings. Of course,
Speaker 1: you argues that this being we see in a UFO
Speaker 1: is just a projection from our unconscious mind, revealing a
Speaker 1: desire for what he calls individuation at seeking of holness,
Speaker 1: to be close to an aspirational figure, and this desire
Speaker 1: manifest in the circular mendola shape as seen in Halo's
Speaker 1: ghostly Orbs, Navajo sand designs, et cetera. Anyway, thanks for reading. Again,
Speaker 1: I promise this is the last one. Again, it doesn't
Speaker 1: have to be. These are so great. Yeah, they're quite good.
Speaker 1: In fact, you know, I'd like to hear a podcast
Speaker 1: from Jillian now also, Like I'm fascinated about what her
Speaker 1: dissertation might be about this. This is a really interesting stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I think she's referring to the part in the
Speaker 1: second part of the of the Techno Religion podcast where
Speaker 1: we talked about the UFO cults like Railianism, which you know,
Speaker 1: they might not want to be a called a UFO
Speaker 1: coult actually, but what you know, they're they're a religion
Speaker 1: that incorporates the technology of supposed encounters with alien beings,
Speaker 1: where in fact it's it's a quite literal replacement of
Speaker 1: God in in the writings of Royal Their their leader right,
Speaker 1: because he tells the story of how the Aliens went
Speaker 1: through the Bible with him and said, okay, this part
Speaker 1: here where it says God did that. Actually what happened
Speaker 1: is the Aliens used a nuclear powered radio to do X,
Speaker 1: Y and Z. Yeah. That the whole bit with Raliens
Speaker 1: was it was really interesting, especially when you got into
Speaker 1: the specifics of of like what Satan was doing as
Speaker 1: a like cloning engineer. I can't remember there's like Satan
Speaker 1: and Lucifer in the in the Alien take is that
Speaker 1: one the two separate entities, one worked on on Earth
Speaker 1: in the cloning facility and the other one was an
Speaker 1: anti Earth activist on the home planet. It's wonderful stuff.
Speaker 1: Here's one that we actually got about our podcast about
Speaker 1: the science of incidence, the one Robert and I did
Speaker 1: there about methods of analyzing coincidences to see whether they're
Speaker 1: actually statistically interesting or not. So Zara writes in and says, Hi,
Speaker 1: guys love the show. I just finished listening to the
Speaker 1: episode about coincidence and it was one of my favorites.
Speaker 1: I'm always trying to tell people about the law of
Speaker 1: large numbers. But then I'm a math person. Well, congratulations
Speaker 1: on that, Zarah. I am not, but I wish it were.
Speaker 1: She goes on. I especially liked the bit about only
Speaker 1: needing a group of twenty three people to find two
Speaker 1: that have the same birthday. I shared it with my
Speaker 1: fiance as soon as I heard it, and he laughed
Speaker 1: at me and told me I'm a geek. Guilty as charged.
Speaker 1: Don't we have a brain Stuff episode about this? I
Speaker 1: believe you do, Ben does. Yeah, so if you check
Speaker 1: out our YouTube channel for for brain Stuff, which is
Speaker 1: one of the shows that Joe and I write for
Speaker 1: brain Stuff listeners outside of this show, and uh but yeah,
Speaker 1: Ben Boland did an episode on that very topic. Yeah, anyway,
Speaker 1: Zara goes on. She says, anyways, I wanted to share
Speaker 1: my own coincidence the day I was born May sixteenth.
Speaker 1: What a coincidence? You want to know? A coincidence? Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the day I was born. That's my birthday. Wow.
Speaker 1: So I was born on I mean July sixteen, and
Speaker 1: I was born in October sixteen. What we're all sixteen?
Speaker 1: How does the police sang? Anyway? Sarah too, Yeah, So,
Speaker 1: so Zara was born on May sixteenth. What a coincidence?
Speaker 1: She says. My dad was wearing a T shirt from
Speaker 1: an old radio station in California, k m E L
Speaker 1: one oh six. His best friend worked at the station
Speaker 1: before I was born. Well, wouldn't you know it? I
Speaker 1: was born at one oh six in the morning. The
Speaker 1: only thing that would have made it better is if
Speaker 1: it had been an A M station. But no coincidence
Speaker 1: is perfect. How true that is, Sarah, She says, thanks
Speaker 1: for keeping us all educated and entertained. You're welcome. Thank
Speaker 1: you for writing in. Yeah, that that's a well, thank
Speaker 1: you for that feedback. It also brings to mind we
Speaker 1: did receive an email that we didn't read, but it
Speaker 1: had to do with where like the coincidence and the
Speaker 1: numerology of our placement in iTunes ranking in relation to
Speaker 1: Glenn Beck's podcast, so that I didn't quite I didn't
Speaker 1: completely understand it, and we need some clarifications on the
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are invisible threads between us and Glenn Beck, though, yeah,
Speaker 1: not that I was aware that he had a podcast
Speaker 1: until just now. Okay, so this one is from Dave,
Speaker 1: who wrote a message to us through Facebook again, where
Speaker 1: Blow the Mind on Facebook? Follow us there by the way.
Speaker 1: We don't just post our own stuff there. We share
Speaker 1: a lot of content that we find throughout the day
Speaker 1: as we're doing research, kinds of weird science, weird links. Yeah, monsters,
Speaker 1: monsters definitely are in there. Uh so, Dave says, Hi, guys,
Speaker 1: you probably don't have time to reply or maybe even
Speaker 1: read this an entire in its entirety, Boy, Dave, are
Speaker 1: you in for a surprise. Nonetheless, I've out I should
Speaker 1: send you both a message just to let you know
Speaker 1: how much I love your podcast. I've been an avid
Speaker 1: podcast listener for a few years when I stumbled across yours.
Speaker 1: Until then, I've been listening to s gu and The
Speaker 1: Reality Check. When I started listening to Stuff to Blow
Speaker 1: Your Mind, I was impressed with the format of the
Speaker 1: show and the sharing of science was done in a fun,
Speaker 1: never belittling way. I really enjoyed the report between both
Speaker 1: of you and look forward to my time so I
Speaker 1: can listen to a few Stuff to Blow your Mind episodes.
Speaker 1: I'm currently going through your backlog and I'm about halfway
Speaker 1: through a little more than the Seven Dead Leads. This
Speaker 1: is a series that you did with Julia. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: did one on each of the seven Deadly Sins. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I just felt compelled to drop you this message just
Speaker 1: to let you know that I really enjoy and appreciate
Speaker 1: the show and wanted to thank you both and everyone
Speaker 1: else involved. That's us Joe for putting together such a
Speaker 1: great show on a regular basis. Thanks, and then he
Speaker 1: typed out smile emoticon like that. It's clever. Yeah, thanks Dave,
Speaker 1: thanks for writing in. Uh and you have sounds like
Speaker 1: another individual making their way through the back catalog of
Speaker 1: episodes and you'll find all of those episodes that stuff
Speaker 1: to blow your mind. Dot com if you ever want
Speaker 1: to just check out, you know, go to search there
Speaker 1: and just see what we have. All the podcasts, all
Speaker 1: the blog posts, all the videos everything. It's you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not just saying this because I'm on the show now,
Speaker 1: Like when you actually go and engage with with that site, Like,
Speaker 1: there's just a tremendous wealth of material that Robert and
Speaker 1: his various coasts over the years have produced. It's pretty awesome. Yeah, Okay,
Speaker 1: We've got just a couple more for you guys. This
Speaker 1: one is from sa Shank Sa Shank writes and says, hey, guys,
Speaker 1: just heard your podcast this morning. Lovely stuff about the
Speaker 1: intersection of technology and religion. More about Techno Religion podcast
Speaker 1: Sashank says, I had a few thoughts I wanted to
Speaker 1: share when I thought about technology and religion. The first
Speaker 1: thing that came to mind was how many modern cult
Speaker 1: like religious movements were centered around technological profits. I speak primarily,
Speaker 1: of course, about the mighty Apple. I'm sure you'd agree
Speaker 1: that Apple fandom is rather religious about their allegiance, and
Speaker 1: it was Steve Jobs who really inspired this cult following.
Speaker 1: I've thought about this quite often, and my guest was
Speaker 1: that Jobs really fulfilled all the criteria we look for
Speaker 1: in someone to worship slash follow When we seek religious leaders,
Speaker 1: we look for someone who has a hold over the
Speaker 1: masses and unites people based on a belief or ideology.
Speaker 1: Someone who disseminates information, communication and social media, someone who
Speaker 1: tells us a prescribed way to do things, and someone
Speaker 1: who can empower people by giving them the tools to
Speaker 1: do said things, many of which you guys mentioned with
Speaker 1: brilliant examples, and Jobs seemed to put his products in
Speaker 1: this light. He made it clear that the technology he
Speaker 1: was selling wasn't simply a tool, it was a way
Speaker 1: of life. Today, Apple fans lament the death of jobs,
Speaker 1: jobs while still performing their annual rituals of watching w
Speaker 1: w d C, lining up for iPhones, and submitting almost
Speaker 1: fanatically to the Apple doctrine. And I think that is
Speaker 1: something we often crave for His humans to be given direction,
Speaker 1: purpose prescribed rituals to perform in return for affiliation, belonging
Speaker 1: to a unified cult with a shared ideology, and of
Speaker 1: course that edge over the other guys. And then Sashank
Speaker 1: links to a couple of articles covering phenomena similar to
Speaker 1: what he's been describing here. Once again, thanks for the
Speaker 1: great podcast, guys, totally helps me wake up every day. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for that email, Sashank. So, do
Speaker 1: you guys remember the Big Brother commercial that Apple did
Speaker 1: in the eighties. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is what his
Speaker 1: his letters making me think of, is that it was
Speaker 1: sort of prescient in its own way. I feel like
Speaker 1: they might have done like a parody version of that.
Speaker 1: There's been a number of over the years, and that
Speaker 1: there was one on Futurama. Okay, okay, yeah, but certainly yeah,
Speaker 1: the um And there was a book that I read
Speaker 1: in the nineties called micro Surfs. It was about sort
Speaker 1: of Silicon Valleys startups and and and some of the
Speaker 1: people who worked out there, and and their relationship to
Speaker 1: Steve Jobs was very much described the way that he
Speaker 1: was describing it as he was almost like an entity. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I thought it was funny how in the email it
Speaker 1: suddenly it wasn't Steve Jobs every time it became jobs,
Speaker 1: like jobs is the name of like a Babylonian deity.
Speaker 1: You've got bail, and you've got and you've got jobs, jobs, jobs,
Speaker 1: the what the you know, the the winged lion. Now
Speaker 1: I'm picturing they have the winged lion with with Steve
Speaker 1: Jobs with a bite out of the side of it
Speaker 1: and a single leaf. All right, and here's our last
Speaker 1: bit of listener mail. This one comes in from Facebook
Speaker 1: listener Good Vibes, Good Vibes Rights. I'm curious to know
Speaker 1: your thoughts in the existence or non existence of extraterrestrials,
Speaker 1: given thoughts and theories proposed by Eric van Duncan and
Speaker 1: other supporters of their existence, do you think it is
Speaker 1: plausible that they do exist? I'm really at at a
Speaker 1: loss here I personally want to believe, but the only
Speaker 1: evidence I have to go on his theory put forth
Speaker 1: in photos and videos which may be real or not. Well.
Speaker 1: Robert actually recorded an episode of brain Stuff, our video
Speaker 1: series I mentioned earlier that I wrote the script for
Speaker 1: along with I Believe You You, was with Christen Conger
Speaker 1: about this very topic about whether aliens exist or not.
Speaker 1: Was it the Drake equation? Maybe? I'd only vaguely remember.
Speaker 1: It's been over a year since we did it. I
Speaker 1: don't believe the Drake equation came into it, but we
Speaker 1: did talk about, you know, the possibility of extra trustrial life, uh,
Speaker 1: and specifically the Goldilocks zone concept of that, you know,
Speaker 1: there's this particular zone in between a star and and
Speaker 1: where a planet resides in order for the atmosphere to
Speaker 1: potentially host life. So yes or no? Extraterrestrials? Oh? I
Speaker 1: definitely think yes, definitely intelligent space faring. Yeah. Have they
Speaker 1: visited Earth? No? Okay? Will they visit Earth? Yes, but
Speaker 1: not in our understanding of time? All right? How about you? Oh? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's I mean, well, it's kind of presumptuous
Speaker 1: to say either way, because we we don't there are
Speaker 1: so many probabilities involved that we just don't even have
Speaker 1: a number four, Like, what is the probability that a
Speaker 1: biogenesis occurs on a on a habitable planet. I don't
Speaker 1: know what that, you know. I mean, it might be
Speaker 1: near one, or it might be one in ten trillion.
Speaker 1: I just don't know, And I think even scientists don't
Speaker 1: necessarily know the answer to that. But my hunch is that, yes,
Speaker 1: there's plenty of life out there in the universe, but
Speaker 1: we may very well never encounter it ever. Okay, my
Speaker 1: take is that domight fake kind of varies. Like there
Speaker 1: was a time in um junior high where I was
Speaker 1: scared to death of alien abduction. Yeah, it's pretty like
Speaker 1: this unsolved mysteries had had gotten into my head. We're
Speaker 1: talking about like early nineties. Yeah, yeah, and I was
Speaker 1: just you just look up into the night sky and
Speaker 1: they would just suck you up, you know. Um. So
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm there's definitely a strong uh uh
Speaker 1: tendency in myself now to just dismiss extraterrestrials. But I
Speaker 1: sometimes wonder if a part of that is was like
Speaker 1: a defensive mechanism to that fear I used to have
Speaker 1: so I found a reason to eradicate that fear through uh,
Speaker 1: through you know, logic and common sense. But but I
Speaker 1: still I still think there is life out there somewhere.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I'm I'm not sure it's necessarily space
Speaker 1: faring now or that ever will be. But sometimes I
Speaker 1: do sort of think that lay there in bed at
Speaker 1: night and I sort of imagine some sort of a
Speaker 1: slime mold on another world. Yeah, yeah, that, Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: where I fall, certainly. And I guess I would say
Speaker 1: too that this seems like the perfect stuff to blow
Speaker 1: your mind question to me, because this show is all
Speaker 1: about sort of the wonder and awe. I think that
Speaker 1: like science brings to us as people, you know, and
Speaker 1: and that's what this says to me as well, too.
Speaker 1: Is trying to use science or just your imagination to
Speaker 1: theorize whether extraterrestrial life exists or not is one of
Speaker 1: those wondrous moments that I think this show is great for. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't remember where this quote comes from.
Speaker 1: Somebody said this and I heard it. It's that when
Speaker 1: you think about extraterrestrial life, either there is extraterrestrial life
Speaker 1: or there isn't and no matter which option is true,
Speaker 1: that's mind blowing, right, Like the fact that we're alone
Speaker 1: in the universe is scary and awe inspiring, and the
Speaker 1: fact that there's other life out there is scary and
Speaker 1: awe inspiring. Totally scary and inspiring. That's what we go
Speaker 1: for here. So hey, we want to thank the robot
Speaker 1: for a coming online, not destroying anybody. Um really just
Speaker 1: pleased that that machine is up in morning? Is Let's yeah? Okay,
Speaker 1: well we better wrap we better wrap it up. Um Hey.
Speaker 1: If you want to learn more about our podcast, check
Speaker 1: out old episodes, whatever, head over to stuff to bow
Speaker 1: your mind dot com. That is the mothership. That's where
Speaker 1: we'll find all the episodes, all the podcast, all the videos,
Speaker 1: all the content links out to some of those social
Speaker 1: media accounts as well. You can find us on Facebook, Twitter,
Speaker 1: and Tumbler. And if you wanted to write us an
Speaker 1: email that will be featured in a future episode listener
Speaker 1: mail episode, Arnie might just spit out your your your
Speaker 1: message to us right to us at blow the Mind
Speaker 1: at how stuff works dot com for more on this
Speaker 1: and thousands of other topics. Does it how stuff works
Speaker 1: dot com