I was pleasantly surprised by this interview. I found Dr Thompson very intelligent and interesting to listen to. He clearly has a sharp mind, but I also found him hugely enigmatic to listen to. That his upbringing was so unique was intriguing, and only serves to deepen the enigma. The obvious stereotypes one may wish to pin on Dr Thompson clearly do not fit, and in fact I was left wondering if his stringent clinging to a materialist framework may actually be some form of over compensation for the fact that people (particularly in the hallowed halls of academia) may peg him as a tree hugging new age type because of his rather wondrous background.
Despite his seeming openness, and willingness to acknowledge many of the weak assertions and premature assumptions and positions of the (pseudo) skeptic community, he nevertheless seemed to do a good job of remaining rigidly (and in my opinion, disingenuously) on the skeptical ship. Really reflecting on the interview, he seemed very accommodating and open, however, I really don't feel he wrestled very effectively with the questions. There was a fair amount of conversational sleight of hand and misdirection going on (like when you hear politicians discussing the need for some unpopular and unfair measure they want to implement). I feel actually that Dr Thompson is a very astute diplomat, and was excellent at "seeming" to address the issues, but actually, I don't think he did. He masterfully made it seem like he did, but he didn't.
I know that the accusation of his being somewhat "disingenuous" may seem a little harsh, but the reason I felt that was his side stepping of the QM question Alex posed. It is always oh so tiresome to hear very intelligent people appeal to their ignorance of the inner workings of QM in order to sidestep having to wrestle with the fact that QM definitively amplifies the importance of the subject (observer) to such a huge degree, that it shakes the very bedrock of the materialist notion of a fundamentally existent and out there independently existent material world. To claim ignorance of the workings of the engine, doesn't mean you don't know what it does!!! To say otherwise is always in my opinion, entirely disingenuous. Such a shame, because Dr Thompson is a very likeable guy, with a lot of interesting viewpoints and seems quite sincere.
The fact that he sidestepped completely the clear ramifications of QM experimental data as if until we know more it irrelevant, and his evading really getting into the veridicality of many reported NDE's, other than to repeat again and again they were unconvincing, without giving me a clear idea of why they were unconvincing, leaves me doubting his sincerity as a "seeker" of answers, and leaves me more with the notion that he is like so many others, just another "defender" of the accepted answers.
Very interview though. Thanks.
:)
P.S. I really hope this doesn't come off as harsh. Dr Thompson seems like a very nice guy, and seems sincere, but all I mean asserting his lack of sincerity, is that even among many of my best friends, although they seem sincere and are in their own views sincere, they don't seem to recognise that often they are defending their cherished models before opening up to what the data says about those models, so they find really weak ways to not have to look at the data, or dismiss it. In effect, it is simple self defense, as in some way their own identity is entwined with their world model. So inevitably, a reduction in the importance of the data, doubts about its veracity and the ramifications are brought to bare, and sidestepping central questions by claiming a lack of ability to talk about dangerous topics (dangerous for their arguments) all come out of the woodwork. When defense is of central imprortance, I think sincerity (or openness) must be somewhat sacrificed, as it would impede a truly effective defense.
Also, I think the impression he worked hard to give of himself is of someone occupying a reasonable and middle ground, halfway between die hard pseudo skeptics and those who see the limitations of a materialist paradigm in light of the data. for me, when all is said an done, it is clear he does not occupy middle ground.