Latest / INSPIRE STORY / #0117 _STORY INSPIRE: Decisions that transforman, with Julia Mossbridge

Transcript

#0117 _STORY INSPIRE: Decisions that transforman, with Julia Mossbridge · INSPIRE STORY

0:04
Speaker 1: The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast
0:08
by night, all day. Hello, Julia. Hello, Joe.
0:14
Speaker 2: Pleasure to meet you.
0:16
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm very excited.
0:17
Speaker 2: So you said you had questions for me?
0:18
Speaker 1: Yeah.
0:19
Speaker 2: We can start with your questions.
0:20
Speaker 1: Excellent.
0:22
Speaker 2: First of all, tell everybody what you do.
0:23
Speaker 1: Okay, let me just change the angle of this.
0:25
Speaker 2: Just so folks just tune in right now. Who is
0:28
this young man?
0:30
Speaker 1: Thank you. What do you do? I'm a year younger
0:31
than you.
0:32
Speaker 2: A year younger than you're young.
0:35
Speaker 1: Nice. What do I do? I was trained as a scientist,
0:41
cognitive neuroscience and computer science, and did some AI stuff,
0:46
did some stuff with the human brain in terms of
0:48
trying to understand how time works in the human brain.
0:52
And then I got really interested in how funky time
0:55
works in the human brain, like precognition. Hmm. Which is,
0:59
of course, predicting future events in ways that we don't
1:02
normally think about.
1:02
Speaker 2: That's how I found out about it.
1:04
Speaker 1: That's you as the Popular Mechanics article.
1:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, I believe so.
1:06
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:07
Speaker 2: And then a bunch of other stuff that I looked at.
1:09
Speaker 1: And then a bunch of other stuff, yeah.
1:10
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:10
Speaker 1: And then I got interested in just the idea of
1:12
what we call exceptional human performance. So I actually don't
1:16
think it's that exceptional. I think people have these capacities
1:19
and they've been dampened down. And they're in us. And
1:23
they can be developed. And some people have them just
1:25
sort of naturally developed. I'm a person who has some
1:28
of them just naturally, not all of them. But there
1:30
are people all over who have these different gifts. And
1:33
how does that work? And so that became a question
1:35
that was interesting to me.
1:36
Speaker 2: Well, it's always interesting when this question is asked by
1:40
an actual scientist. So you approach it by let's try
1:43
to gather data. Let's try to find out what we
1:45
can actually show. Because so many people have feelings that
1:50
there's something else. Like you have intuition. You have thoughts.
1:54
some sort of pre-knowledge of events and some feeling of something.
1:59
You're thinking of someone and they call you. Is that real?
2:03
That kind of stuff has always puzzled people. So it's
2:07
always fascinating when someone like yourself actually spends a lot
2:11
of time studying it and trying to gather data and
2:14
trying to show what's real and what's not and what
2:16
you can actually show.
2:16
Speaker 1: I agree it's fascinating. I'm not sure it matters. So,
2:21
I mean, my experience has been That sort of regardless
2:26
of how much time I spend studying it and how
2:27
much I see it and how much I can test
2:30
different controls to make sure it's not this, that, or
2:32
the other thing and that it really is getting information
2:34
from the future or it really is telepathy, people still
2:39
kind of don't, in the science world, tend to just
2:43
ignore it. Or it actually is actively suppressed. I mean,
2:46
there's some papers that I've published that just won't get
2:49
listed in Google Scholar, even though they're in peer-reviewed journals
2:51
with other articles listed. that do get listed in Google Scholar.
2:55
So it's frustrating and who cares because it's just an
2:59
academic complaining. But I'm also not an academic. I also
3:02
want to build things. I'm into making stuff. So I
3:05
got my PhD at these tier one research institutions like Northwestern.
3:09
I got my master's at UCA San Francisco. I did
3:12
my postdoc at Northwestern. So fancy dancy institutions. So I
3:18
learned a lot about how to think and how to
3:20
write and how to do these kind of experiments. And
3:22
I know what I'm seeing. And I keep seeing it.
3:24
And other people who study the same stuff keep seeing it.
3:28
But it is inside of me or there's something inside
3:33
of me that wants to create things with this. Okay.
3:35
So this is happening. People have these capacities. They're actually useful.
3:40
What can we do with them? And it turns out
3:42
you can do a lot. with them if you feel
3:48
like you are allowed to have them, if it doesn't
3:50
feel like it's verboten, if it doesn't feel like shameful,
3:54
which is part of the cultural piece.
3:55
Speaker 2: Or foolish.
3:56
Speaker 1: Or foolish, which is part of the questions I wanted
3:58
to ask you.
3:58
Speaker 2: Okay.
4:00
Speaker 1: So what I notice when you talk with people is
4:04
you're like, you seem like a tough guy, but you're
4:08
really sensitive. Like you're an incredible, obviously an incredible listener.
4:12
And you learn all these things. And you're putting together,
4:17
just this is my impression, you're putting together a kind
4:22
of a map of the world, like a map of
4:24
knowledge of the world through all these different people's eyes.
4:28
And my question for you is, how do you see
4:31
culture shifting? Because I think you're really sensitive to it.
4:35
And I think you're kind of like one of these
4:37
signal fish that are at the, you notice what's happening
4:40
in the environment and you're going to guide a school
4:43
of fish accordingly. So do you think that the culture
4:48
is shifting towards sort of better use of these– I
4:56
guess exceptional or these natural capacities that we already have?
5:01
Or do you think that we're shifting away from it
5:03
and we're going to run away in fear?
5:06
Speaker 2: That's a good question. OK. So I think that because
5:13
of conversations– like the ones that you've had and the
5:16
ones that I've had, the ones that are available online,
5:19
I think people get a much deeper understanding of so
5:24
many different topics and so many different things than has
5:27
ever been available through whatever you want to call the
5:30
mainstream media. And when you have these inherent prejudices in
5:37
higher learning, whether it's people that don't want to be
5:41
foolish or So they don't want to entertain certain notions
5:44
or they don't want to accept certain things because it
5:47
goes against things that they've taught and things they wrote about.
5:51
We have a problem of ego and ego becoming a
5:56
wall to gathering more information or getting a better detailed
6:01
map of the landscape. And I think there's way more
6:05
people that are pondering these ideas. And having these conversations
6:12
and thinking about these things than has ever been before.
6:15
And I think that's one of the really beautiful things
6:19
about the internet. The internet has made much more information
6:22
available and many more people are thinking about these things
6:28
in ways that– If you were in an environment where
6:34
your career depended upon you following certain lines and certain narratives,
6:38
you wouldn't pursue that because that would be detrimental to
6:42
your own personal interest. Like if you wanted to get
6:45
ahead in academia and all of a sudden you're talking
6:47
about psychics and premonition and people are like, oh, Julie
6:51
is a fucking loon. But you're courageous and you– see
6:57
value in these things. And because you can come on
7:01
here and talk about it instead of just addressing a
7:04
class or selling a book, that's going to reach a
7:06
few thousand people. We can have a conversation where 10
7:10
million people are going to listen. And so then those
7:13
10 million people are going to go to work and
7:15
they're going to tell their friends at work, like, Hey,
7:17
this is, you know, you know how that feeling that
7:20
you get, or sometimes, you know, something's going to happen
7:22
and it happens like that might be real. And there
7:25
was this lady. She was on the Joe Rogan podcast.
7:28
And so that opens up people to this idea that
7:31
you don't have to worry about being a fool because
7:36
that's what a lot of people are worried about. It
7:39
was a big hurdle talking about aliens, UFOs. Like all
7:44
my life, all my life, I've always been fascinated by
7:48
UFOs and aliens. But I don't mind being a fool.
7:51
Like I was fascinated by Bigfoot forever. Kind of abandoned
7:55
that for the most part. But I like weird stuff.
7:59
I'm interested in it. And I don't– I'm not a
8:01
person that needs to be taken seriously. It's not my job.
8:03
I'm literally a comedian. Like you can make fun of me.
8:06
I'll make fun of me. It's fine. I don't– it
8:09
doesn't– my future doesn't rely on people taking me seriously.
8:13
So I think having that ability to have conversations– about
8:20
all kinds of different things has really changed the way
8:23
the entire world is discussing just reality. Like everything about
8:30
reality from quantum computing to alien life to international politics
8:39
to the way human beings misrepresent each other purposefully for
8:43
their own gains. Like what is all this? Like and
8:47
why– Why has it taken so long to have so
8:50
many discussions about this? So I think that's– if I
8:54
have a purpose in this world, it's like I'm an
8:57
antenna for that.
8:59
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm just clapping because it's such a great purpose
9:02
because the reason I fell in love with science was
9:06
it's about discovery. It's about not knowing. It's about being foolish.
9:11
I had this– I was just thinking today I had
9:13
this amazing high school biology teacher. who had us go
9:18
outside and he gave us these little note cards. And
9:20
he said, on one side of the note card, I
9:22
want you to write a question about your environment. Look around,
9:24
you know, the plants or whatever. Pick something, the dirt, whatever.
9:28
And write a question you think Einstein would ask about this.
9:31
And then he said, okay, now flip it over and
9:33
I want you to write a question that like a
9:35
two-year-old would ask if a two-year-old could, you know, write.
9:38
And my favorite side was the two-year-old. And at the
9:40
end he said, now Einstein was more like the two-year-old.
9:44
He said Einstein was full of wonder and confusion and uncertainty.
9:50
And he just asked questions and imagined things. And that's
9:54
how I want you all to learn to be. And
9:55
I was just like, yes.
9:57
Speaker 2: That's a good teacher.
9:58
Speaker 1: That's an amazing teacher. And so then I went to
10:02
graduate school and I went in the world of academia.
10:04
And I was like, there's all this pressure to, you know,
10:08
you write your grant after you've done about, three-quarters of
10:12
the work so that as soon as you get the grant,
10:14
then you can publish the papers that go with the grant.
10:17
So you're not really discovering anything. You're kind of talking about,
10:19
here's what I already know, but I'm acting like I
10:20
haven't looked at it yet. And there's pressure to follow,
10:25
as you said, follow the line of thinking for both
10:29
funding and for your career. And I was told very
10:34
nicely by wonderful people who wanted to support me that
10:38
if I took the stuff about psychic stuff off my resume,
10:40
I would have a perfectly good resume for academia. And
10:44
I was like, are you crazy? This is the stuff
10:46
that's actually interesting? Why would I want to take it off?
10:49
But that's what took me away from academia and made
10:51
me realize I had to put one foot in building things.
10:54
I could leave a foot in academia, but I had
10:57
to bilge it because academia is so slow. They can
11:00
learn something And then 10 years later, they're like, do
11:03
you think it's true? And then 20 years later, they're like,
11:05
maybe we can make something with it. And it's like,
11:09
but at the same time, you have to be careful.
11:11
You don't get to just say, well, I just know
11:13
people are psychic and therefore, you know, screw it. So yeah,
11:19
there's this dance. There's this dance there. But when you
11:22
were saying this thing about people afraid to be foolish,
11:27
I wonder how much it helps me to come from
11:30
a family of Very foolish, eccentric people.
11:34
Speaker 2: I'm sure it helps a lot.
11:35
Speaker 1: Because I'm not afraid to be foolish. In fact, I
11:38
just know that I am.
11:39
Speaker 2: Well, I think intelligent, kind people don't mind talking to
11:44
people that occasionally say foolish things or things that could
11:50
be perceived as foolish because they're willing to take chances
11:53
and look at these obscure topics and strange phenomenon and
11:58
just– and not– Not worry about the stigma that's attached
12:03
to these subjects that keeps supposedly intelligent or serious people,
12:08
people that want to be considered as serious people.
12:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
12:10
Speaker 2: From discussing.
12:11
Speaker 1: Well, like when you said the thing about Bigfoot.
12:15
Speaker 2: Yeah.
12:15
Speaker 1: And I laughed a little bit. That was like a
12:18
reflex laugh from academia.
12:20
Speaker 2: Well, it's a fun one. Bigfoot's a fun one.
12:22
Speaker 1: It is. And I have– friends who study Bigfoot and
12:25
other cryptids and, and in a, in a scholarly way. And,
12:29
and I had to learn not to laugh. Like, it's
12:31
like we have our little discomfort and then we laugh because, Oh,
12:35
I want to be taken seriously and stuff. But, you know, interestingly,
12:39
the UFO whole world got accepted into the mainstream land
12:45
of things that possibly exist before the psychic world. But
12:48
the psychic world has been studied like by the intelligence community,
12:52
et cetera, since, openly since like the 50s right whereas
12:57
the UFO world was supposed to be oh we don't
12:58
care about that and then only recently has come to
13:00
the fore so it's really interesting to see this balance
13:02
they're both related and they're both have their own processes
13:06
of disclosure but it's just interesting the culturally it's interesting
13:10
to see this instinct to be right as you called
13:15
it and I feel like that's I was there's the
13:18
PBS convention is in town right now in the hotel
13:22
where I'm staying And I got to say, I think
13:26
that's still largely a very left-leaning organization. And I was
13:30
raised up in a really left-leaning household. But the thing
13:33
that really pisses me off about the left is this
13:37
wanting to be smart and proving that you're smart. And
13:42
the thing that pisses me off about the right is
13:44
wanting to be right. And I feel like both of
13:48
those things fail.
13:49
Speaker 2: Yes.
13:50
Speaker 1: I mean— Neither of them allows us to just discover, okay,
13:53
what's next? Like how can we actually solve the problems
13:57
that are going on instead of just wanting our team
13:59
to win? And so it's interesting to me how the
14:03
cultural change with science also relates to our politics.
14:08
Speaker 2: Yeah, I grew up in a very left-leaning household as well.
14:11
My parents are still very left. And I think that
14:15
there is a real problem with ideologies where– Especially in
14:22
this country where we're so polarized, we have a right
14:24
and a left. And I think most people are kind
14:26
of in the middle somewhere. And I'm certainly in the middle.
14:29
I'm probably like middle left. That's where I kind of
14:32
see myself. But if you like read about me, I'm
14:34
like far right somehow or another, which.
14:36
Speaker 1: Is very weird.
14:36
Speaker 2: I know.
14:36
Speaker 1: It's interesting. I'm now independent. I'm officially independent because I'm
14:40
like screw it. I don't– I do think most people
14:44
are in the center. And I think we need to
14:47
get clarity here. On that you get to say something
14:51
that's different from what either side is saying.
14:53
Speaker 2: Yeah, the problem with either side is you have to
14:56
accept– if you're going to accept– if you're going to
14:58
join one of their– I had a bit about it
15:00
in my last comedy special. That if you're going to
15:02
join their team, you have to believe all the things.
15:06
Speaker 1: Right. And you have to kind of display them, like
15:09
you're performing.
15:11
Speaker 2: Very good point. Right?
15:12
Speaker 1: You have to say all the right words. And if
15:14
you say the wrong words, you're canceled. And that happens
15:16
on both sides. 100%.
15:17
Speaker 2: And, you know, the right was always complaining about the
15:19
left doing it, but now the right's doing it. They're
15:21
canceling each other about all kinds of stupid things. And
15:23
it's just a— it is a— it' s— you know, Marc Andreessen's talked about this,
15:28
that they display all of the behavior that you get
15:32
from cults. It's the same thing. Totally.
15:35
Speaker 1: Totally.
15:35
Speaker 2: Excommunication.
15:36
Speaker 1: Yeah.
15:38
Speaker 2: Extreme following of doctrine with no deviation whatsoever. Everyone's very
15:43
performative that they are more in line with the doctrine
15:47
than you are. Ew.
15:50
Speaker 1: Yeah. And by the way, academia is a lot like that.
15:52
Speaker 2: Oh, it's very much like that. That's very disturbing.
15:55
Speaker 1: It is disturbing because these people, you're supposed to be
15:58
open-minded because how are you going to get to truth?
16:00
I mean, the idea is to get to truth, right?
16:02
Speaker 2: Yes.
16:02
Speaker 1: How are you going to get to truth? If you've decided, well,
16:05
that person is asking this question, that's an inappropriate question.
16:08
Speaker 2: Yeah. And it's also– there's this thing about people being
16:12
gatekeepers of information. So like if you're an expert in
16:16
a very particular subject and someone disagrees with that, people
16:20
are like, I am a PhD in this subject. Let
16:22
me tell you about this and I know what's going on.
16:24
Fuck that.
16:25
Speaker 1: It's so irritating. And actually that bothers me when I
16:28
go on shows and people say, oh, but you're a
16:29
scientist and you study this. And it's like, yeah, but
16:32
could we not revere me for that reason? Could we
16:34
instead ask the question like, does she do good work?
16:37
Does she have interesting thoughts? Does this seem reasonable? Does
16:42
it seem like she's moving towards the good? Those are
16:45
really the standards regardless of your degree. And so- It
16:50
worries me that we put so much reverence in scientists
16:53
or whatever, or experts. And I also see that there
16:57
can be this problem where you go, oh, experts are
16:59
all full of shit. And then you have to get
17:01
like brain surgery and you're like, I would like a
17:03
really good neurosurgeon.
17:04
Speaker 2: So there's kind of both. Oh, 100 percent. There's both.
17:10
I think the problem is human ego. And the problem
17:13
is that even people that have like deeply studied subjects,
17:16
the wanting– the reverence and wanting people to defer to
17:23
you wholly with no questions whatsoever, like as if you
17:26
have the entire database on whatever this thing is. This
17:29
thing is settled. This is settled science. We know everything
17:32
about it. And that doesn't seem to be the case
17:35
very often. There's very few things that seem to be
17:37
completely settled. And it's much more interesting to me when
17:42
I talk to someone that their perspective is I'm a
17:45
person that has spent an inordinate amount of time going
17:49
over this stuff. And this is what I know. I
17:51
might not know all of it, but this, this is,
17:53
this is what we know. And this is why we
17:55
think this is what it is. And this is, so
17:57
instead of like having this ego and I see it, God,
18:02
I see it from so many, it's a very male
18:04
thing too. It's a very male ego thing to be
18:07
like the, you know, the dominant force of the narrative,
18:14
you know, that they're the enforcer of the narrative and,
18:17
you know, very, dismissive and very rude and saying, you know,
18:24
just insulting things about anybody that deviates from it instead
18:28
of just saying, this is why I think this is
18:32
the case. And this is what we've learned over the years.
18:35
And this is, but having humility when you're dealing with,
18:39
especially when you're dealing with something like cognitive, like anything
18:44
involving consciousness or anything involving the human mind, it's so complex.
18:49
There's so much going on and it's so biologically variable.
18:53
There's so many different people that have different ways of
18:56
thinking and their mind works differently. One of the more
19:00
illuminating things about doing this podcast is having so many
19:04
different people in here and so many different conversations, so
19:07
many unique and fascinating people, but they're all different.
19:10
Speaker 1: Yeah.
19:11
Speaker 3: Yeah.
19:11
Speaker 1: You're like, you're like, Tasting from all the different flavors
19:15
of humanity. And it's a delight to listen to. But
19:18
I sort of want to know what it's like to
19:21
be in your brain as you start to– it's like
19:23
you're a sponge and you're soaking in all these points
19:25
of view. So the model that you're building, I just–
19:28
I wonder a lot about what it's like to be
19:29
different people. And I imagine the model that you're building
19:32
of the world is really well-informed. Hey, Jamie, could you
19:35
turn down my– Oh.
19:36
Speaker 2: You could do it. There's a little thing right there.
19:38
Speaker 1: Oh.
19:40
Speaker 2: We're like professionals.
19:42
Speaker 1: It's like you have a whole show. But yeah, I
19:47
think the model that you're building could be put to.
19:50
some really powerful use. So I'm here to convince you
19:53
to run for president.
19:54
Speaker 2: Oh, God. Trying to get me killed, Julia? How dare you? No,
19:57
I'm not interested in any job, in any government whatsoever.
20:01
Speaker 1: I like doing this. Okay, I get it. But what
20:05
you said about– it's a really male thing. I think
20:07
it's better said to say– It's a really insecure male thing.
20:13
Speaker 2: Yes.
20:14
Speaker 1: It's an insecurity thing that happens more probably to men
20:17
because there's such a standard of you're supposed to be alpha.
20:19
Everyone's supposed to be alpha.
20:20
Speaker 2: Right.
20:21
Speaker 1: And for women, there's not that standard. Right. And so
20:25
there's more insecurity because everyone can't be alpha. And what
20:28
the heck is alpha? And so I feel like I
20:34
have a desire for someone who has a sense of
20:38
their own. Like it's secure in their own masculinity and
20:42
their own femininity, which I think you have both. I
20:45
hope you don't mind me calling you out on that.
20:48
I know that you have this reputation of being like
20:50
a total guy guy. But you have this– I mean
20:54
because you're a deep listener, that's already a feminine trait.
20:58
Speaker 2: Is it really?
20:58
Speaker 1: Yeah. Oh, yeah. OK. Yeah.
21:01
Speaker 2: I didn't know that. I never thought of listening as
21:03
being masculine or feminine.
21:05
Speaker 1: Listening is a deeply feminine trait because you have to
21:08
be relatively humble to want to listen.
21:10
Speaker 2: And humility is a feminine trait?
21:13
Speaker 1: No, it's just I don't think of it as a
21:15
feminine trait.
21:15
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think listening is a feminine trait.
21:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe I'm wrong.
21:19
Speaker 2: I think it's a kind.
21:20
Speaker 1: Women are generally better listeners.
21:22
Speaker 2: Really?
21:23
Speaker 1: Yeah. It depends on if you're in a relationship with
21:26
them or not.
21:26
Speaker 2: It depends on who you're talking to. I don't know
21:30
if that's true. I don't know if that's true.
21:32
Speaker 1: Let me see where I'm getting that.
21:33
Speaker 2: I think curious people, genuinely curious people are better listeners.
21:37
That's what I think. And I don't think women or
21:40
men are genuinely more curious.
21:43
Speaker 1: You're right. And I think that there's a thing if
21:47
you're always trying to prove that you're alpha, and I
21:50
think men are more susceptible to that, where you could
21:53
not be a good listener because you want to make
21:55
sure you say the right thing.
21:56
Speaker 2: That's an insecurity thing.
21:57
Speaker 1: And then I think there's more insecurity among men because
22:00
of those standards that are ridiculous. And so maybe that's
22:03
what I'm talking about. But you're definitely right. I can
22:05
definitely think of men and women who are both crappy listeners.
22:09
Speaker 2: And good listeners.
22:10
Speaker 1: So it's about the insecurity. It's about the emotional maturity.
22:13
Speaker 2: I think it's also a learned thing that people have
22:17
this desire– To show everyone how intelligent they are and
22:22
how dominant they are in any particular subject. And it's
22:25
one of the most infuriating things about having conversations where
22:27
people aren't really talking to you. They're just trying to
22:30
win whatever little verbal game you're playing. They're trying to
22:35
one-up you and they're trying to.
22:37
Speaker 1: I've seen that. Yeah.
22:39
Speaker 2: It's gross.
22:40
Speaker 1: And also just like it makes you want to leave. Yeah.
22:42
Speaker 2: It's not fun. It's not a fun conversation. Like I
22:45
love talking to people way smarter than me. It's fun.
22:49
I can't be the smartest person. I'm friends with Elon.
22:52
I'm definitely not the smartest person.
22:54
Speaker 1: I know that.
22:55
Speaker 2: I'm friends with a lot of people that are fucking
22:57
way smarter than me. So I'm just curious. And I
23:00
think the world would be a lot better place if
23:03
more people were curious. And if you embraced it and
23:08
just squash that insecurity that makes you want to puff
23:13
your chest up and.
23:15
Speaker 1: See, I don't think you can squash it. I also
23:18
think the world would be a better place if more
23:19
people were curious. But I think the solution is– I
23:22
don't think squashing anything works. Like I think you have
23:28
to work through it.
23:29
Speaker 2: That's a better way to say it than squashing it, right?
23:32
Speaker 1: Squashing it just means it's going to come up later
23:34
as garbage.
23:35
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, you said it better. Yeah. It's really just
23:39
addressing why you're insecure. And for a lot of men,
23:43
there's– There's just physical insecurity. And the physical insecurity is
23:47
a real problem. But some of my favorite people are
23:50
martial artists. And one of the reasons why is because
23:53
they're the least insecure. Everyone's insecure in some way. But
23:58
martial artists are dealing with that insecurity literally on a
24:02
daily basis. So like say jiu-jitsu for instance. If you're
24:06
training jiu-jitsu– If you go from white belt to black belt,
24:09
you have to get humiliated thousands of times. You have
24:13
to get– there's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
24:16
If you're a white belt and you train with a
24:18
black belt, you're going to get humiliated or dominated. You're
24:22
going to lose. You have no chance. And so by
24:25
learning over and over and over and over again that
24:28
you're not really special and it's really just about the
24:30
time you put in and then about getting better and
24:33
having the ability to objectively assess– Your position, who you
24:38
are in this room of people that are trying to
24:41
strangle each other, who you are in the world itself.
24:44
And I think a lot of people don't ever address that.
24:47
And so they run around trying to posture and pretend
24:52
they're something they're not, pretend they're smarter than they are.
24:55
They're more of an expert, a subject. They're the one
24:57
who should talk. You should listen. There's a lot of that.
25:01
Whenever people say, just shut up and listen, I'm like,
25:04
that's not– I'm not going to do that and I
25:07
don't want to talk to anybody that wants to. I
25:08
don't ever want anybody to do that if I'm talking.
25:10
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, because then you're not having a conversation. That
25:13
person doesn't exist.
25:14
Speaker 2: Exactly.
25:14
Speaker 1: You've just decided that person doesn't exist.
25:16
Speaker 2: They don't matter. You've asserted dominance in the dumbest way possible,
25:20
which is intellectual dominance.
25:23
Speaker 1: Yes. That is the dumbest way possible.
25:26
Speaker 2: Sure.
25:26
Speaker 1: And the funny thing is culturally we kind of think
25:29
that it's the smartest way possible.
25:31
Speaker 2: It's just a bunch of fools.
25:32
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, yeah, yeah.
25:34
Speaker 2: Fools with a lot of information. Okay.
25:36
Speaker 1: But let's talk about what a better world would be.
25:40
So in a better world, if you're going to assert dominance,
25:44
you would– like the martial art. What I love about
25:46
martial art is first of all, it's all mental, almost
25:50
all mental. And then second. it's very similar to what
25:54
happens when you go through and get your PhD. You
25:56
get beaten down and you realize you're not the smartest
25:59
person in the room and you're hanging out with all
26:01
these other super smart people. And then you've got to
26:04
learn to be like, okay, that's not what matters. So
26:06
that's the good part of going nuts with school. But
26:11
there's this false information that reminds me of when I
26:16
was at UCSF and I went to go see this
26:18
talk by this famous scientist. I think he won a
26:20
Nobel Prize. I forget his name. But he was an asshole.
26:25
And he gave his brilliant talk, but I couldn't pay
26:28
attention to it because he was an asshole. He was
26:30
being rude to people who asked questions. He was just dickish.
26:35
I mean, I don't know how else to say it.
26:36
Just like arrogant. Yeah. And I walked out and someone
26:40
said to me, one of my mentors said to me,
26:43
you know, you have to learn to separate the personality
26:46
from the information that they're giving. And I said, you know, no,
26:50
I don't. He's giving me all the information in his personality.
26:55
I don't need to learn to listen to that. I
26:58
need to learn to say, unlike all of you all,
27:01
I need to learn to say, I'm not going to
27:04
hang out with people and put myself in the presence
27:06
of people who are rude like that. That's more important
27:09
than their amazing intellect. Somehow, we got to a place
27:15
culturally where we think you can be really mean or
27:20
dismissive or rude and arrogant and that's fine because you're
27:27
winning and I feel like a better world would acknowledge
27:31
that what's more important is love which is this connection
27:37
where you actually acknowledge there's someone else there even if
27:39
you like think they're an asshole but still yeah you
27:43
know like I wasn't practicing love I wasn't accepting him
27:46
who he was but I was in a place where
27:49
the environment wanted me to just ignore sort of the
27:53
information I was getting about who this guy was and
27:56
just say, no, all that matters is his intelligence.
27:58
Speaker 2: Yeah. So sometimes you can learn a lot from people
28:03
that are gross, you know, and it's valuable to be
28:07
able to put their personality aside and listen to the
28:10
actual information. But still in that moment, though, I don't
28:14
want to.
28:15
Speaker 1: Well, in that moment, in that moment, I was like
28:17
24 and And I was a woman in a field
28:20
where there are a lot of guys and I was
28:23
feeling like I have to have boundaries, you know, I
28:28
have to learn to have boundaries. And then later when I'm,
28:30
you know, like now I'm post-menopausal and you know how
28:33
post-menopausal women are, we have much more confidence.
28:38
Speaker 2: But you're not playing that game anymore.
28:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, right. Exactly. It's just like, now I'm like,
28:43
I can listen to, you know, some asshole listen to
28:46
what he's saying. But at the time it's like, no, like,
28:48
I have to stand up for something that I think
28:50
is important.
28:50
Speaker 2: Right.
28:51
Speaker 1: You know? I'm not saying I'm better than. I'm saying
28:55
I had that experience that made me see that there
28:58
was this level of like sort of import placed on
29:03
the intellect. And that had always been the case. My
29:06
family had always placed all this level of import on
29:08
the intellect. And I just kind of walked out of that.
29:12
Speaker 2: Well, it has to be balanced. Like I think putting
29:15
all of the– emphasis on the intellect itself and ignoring
29:20
the personality is kind of like the messenger is important.
29:25
Like the message is important, but the, the messenger sucks that, that,
29:29
you know, if, if someone was yelling out the most
29:33
amazing information in the world, but they were singing it
29:36
like a Slayer song, I don't know if that's a
29:39
bad example, but you know what I mean? Like, you know,
29:40
those death metal bands where they just scream and you're like, oh, geez,
29:44
I got to get out of here. It's not my thing.
29:46
Speaker 1: Right.
29:46
Speaker 2: But it could be like the most interesting information. But
29:49
the messenger sucks. It's not fun to listen to. It's
29:52
not exciting. Or the messenger's arrogant or the messenger's rude or.
29:58
It ruins the message.
29:59
Speaker 1: Yeah, you need both.
30:00
Speaker 2: Human beings need to communicate. And in order to communicate,
30:03
we need to establish that we're just two people. And
30:08
if you have some information that I don't have, I
30:10
want to hear it. I don't want to like, oh,
30:12
she's saying too many smart things. I want to say
30:14
something smart to show I'm smarter than her. Well, hold
30:16
on there. There's a lot of that. And that's a
30:20
lot of that in academia because that is their entire identity.
30:23
Speaker 1: It's a chess game.
30:24
Speaker 2: Yes.
30:25
Speaker 1: Yeah.
30:25
Speaker 2: But it's a chess game with pieces that are stunted.
30:28
Like they're not allowed to freely move. No kidding.
30:31
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is a cult. I mean that's the cult part.
30:33
That's where you leave and people feel sorry for you.
30:36
And you're like, I have my freedom. I'm so excited.
30:38
And they're like, I'm so sorry for you.
30:41
Speaker 2: It's social hierarchies. It's gross. And I mean I think
30:46
that's going to exist whenever there's ego, whenever there's these–
30:52
the human dynamics of these– bizarre creatures that we are.
30:56
We're territorial apes with weapons. We're weird. And we're always
31:01
establishing some kind of dominance, whether it's intellectual dominance or
31:05
wealth dominance or social hierarchy dominance. People love that stuff.
31:11
They love it.
31:13
Speaker 1: Do we?
31:15
Speaker 2: They love to play it. They love to pretend.
31:17
Speaker 1: We love to pretend it. But do we really.
31:20
Speaker 2: Well, that's why people name drop. That's why people want
31:22
to have the fanciest cars and the nicest watches.
31:26
Speaker 1: I know, but is that really making them happy?
31:28
Speaker 2: No, it's not.
31:29
Speaker 1: So I don't know that people love it. I think
31:31
people do it because they think it's going to make
31:33
them happy. But I don't think they love it.
31:34
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's something to that. There's probably something that some
31:38
sociopaths feel if they show up with a million-dollar watch
31:42
and a million-dollar car and they pull up in front
31:45
of a giant house that's bigger than anybody. It's like, wow,
31:47
look at me. I did it. But I think– yeah.
31:50
But that's rare.
31:51
Speaker 1: I think that's rare.
31:52
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think it's not lasting either. And then there's
31:54
also a bunch of people that are on fucking pills.
31:57
They don't even know what they like. They're just running
31:59
around in the fog of pharmaceutical cloud.
32:01
Speaker 1: But that's the way they're dealing with it. So it's
32:04
like– I guess if we see it as like there's
32:06
this big problem, which is that– I call this the
32:09
human problem. No one knows how to be with themselves
32:12
or others in any kind of harmony. Right. Harmony.
32:15
Speaker 2: That's a good word.
32:16
Speaker 1: We don't know how to get to harmony. Right. right?
32:19
And so one way is for drugs, and one way
32:22
is prayer, and one way is the big car and
32:26
the dominance, and one way is, you know, being addicted
32:30
to your phone. I mean, you know, none of them work. Right.
32:34
But all of, I mean, that's not true. I think
32:36
prayer works. But I think the only one that works
32:40
is love, and I think that's what prayer is about.
32:41
But earnest prayer. But We have to try. I mean,
32:47
we're built to try to get to harmony, apparently, because
32:51
we keep trying. And so part of me wants to say,
32:54
I'm of two minds. Part of me just says, like,
32:58
we're trying the best we can and we have all
32:59
these faults. And then there's a part of me that says,
33:02
and we can do better.
33:04
Speaker 2: Well, we definitely can. And I think that's one of
33:05
the reasons why people hunger for conversations, because we're all
33:08
trying to figure out how to do better. The human
33:11
mind is one of the most extraordinary things that's ever
33:15
been studied and yet there's no guidebook on how to
33:17
use it.
33:18
Speaker 1: Because we still don't know. Do you know how much
33:20
we don't know? We know about as much about the
33:22
human mind now as we knew in 1991 when I
33:26
first went to graduate school. I mean, in neuroscience. I mean,
33:30
the brain, we know a lot more about the brain.
33:32
We still don't know that much about it. We're still
33:34
missing some basic pieces of like things like what's the
33:37
neural code? How do these neurons actually communicate? How do
33:41
we actually learn? How do we actually represent things in memory?
33:44
But we know more. But in terms of the mind, wow,
33:49
we're just beginning. I mean, I guess I'm differentiating the
33:52
brain and the mind. Like the brain is this like
33:53
physical chunk of stuff that's related to the mind. But
33:57
the mind is what we are doing. Right. Thinking, feeling, emoting, wondering,
34:05
all that stuff is mind stuff. And that's Super mysterious.
34:10
Speaker 2: And super difficult to manage for almost everybody. And again,
34:15
no guidebook. You're giving the most complex instrument known to man,
34:20
which is the human mind. And everybody's like, figure it out.
34:23
And you're like, fuck, maybe I'll become a Mooney. Maybe
34:26
I'll go into Scientology. What do I do? I have
34:28
to do something. I have to do something. Someone knows.
34:30
I know. I'm the one who knows. Follow that guy.
34:34
You know, that's what we do.
34:35
Speaker 1: Do these 10 things and you'll be okay. Yes. That's
34:38
how cults get started. I'll do those 10 things because
34:39
we're so nervous. We can't figure it out.
34:41
Speaker 2: Exactly.
34:42
Speaker 1: Yeah.
34:43
Speaker 3: Yeah.
34:44
Speaker 1: Have you ever seen a baby be born?
34:46
Speaker 3: Sure.
34:47
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. So have I. My own, but also I
34:50
was a doula for a couple of friends who were babies. Oh, wow.
34:54
You know, everyone should just see a baby be born.
34:57
Speaker 2: It's very psychedelic.
34:58
Speaker 1: It's psychedelic and it's also– it puts you in that
35:01
liminal space where it's like you've seen beyond the veil.
35:05
You've seen the borderland between life and death. And it
35:08
feels to me like that experience, which is much more
35:12
rare for people to have now. Most people can avoid
35:16
seeing a baby being born. But that experience is– and
35:21
also seeing someone die. That experience– I think helps train
35:26
us in– it is the instruction book for the human mind.
35:30
I don't know why I'm saying that. I look at you.
35:32
You're wrinkling your brow and I'm like, also, why am
35:35
I saying that?
35:35
Speaker 2: No, I'm only wrinkling my brow because I'm listening. I
35:38
have the face of someone who's always upset, but it's
35:41
not true.
35:43
Speaker 1: No, I don't know why I said that. Like, I've
35:45
never had that thought before. But I guess I was
35:47
looking at this little, like, you've got this little, like,
35:50
idle thing.
35:51
Speaker 2: Oh, that is a death whistle. That's an Aztec death whistle.
35:54
Don't do it. Last time we did it, the pandemic started. Yeah,
35:57
I got rid of it close enough.
35:59
Speaker 1: Okay.
36:00
Speaker 2: Yeah, and with the hentavirus thing going on, don't blow it.
36:03
Speaker 1: Okay.
36:04
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is a meme online because my friend Brian
36:07
Cowan was in the podcast studio and he blew this
36:09
Aztec death whistle, like, literally everywhere. It was like a
36:12
week before the fucking pandemic kicked off. It was way
36:15
too close. And the meme was Brian Callen kicking off
36:19
the pandemic with the Aztec death whistle.
36:21
Speaker 1: OK, well, I didn't blow it. I saved everybody.
36:25
Speaker 2: Do you know what Aztec death whistles are?
36:27
Speaker 1: I imagine it's really scary.
36:28
Speaker 2: It sounds horrible. And they would play them at night
36:31
while their enemy was like camped at night. And so
36:36
they would haunt them so they couldn't sleep. They would
36:39
stand on the mountaintops and make that noise.
36:43
Speaker 1: Wow.
36:43
Speaker 2: And it's very high pitched and it carries.
36:45
Speaker 1: Like a crying baby.
36:46
Speaker 2: Well, no, it's very, it's like demons. It sounds like demons.
36:49
Like people screaming. And you just think, this is the
36:52
last day of my life. Here's what it sounds like.
36:54
Speaker 4: Aztec soldiers will blow while charging into battle and during
36:57
human sacrifices. But how does a whistle make that horrifying sound?
37:01
When air is blown into the tube, the airflow splits
37:04
into a big and small chamber, each making a different
37:07
noise you're about to hear. Click here to see me
37:12
try the world's loudest.
37:13
Speaker 1: Did that guy survive this video?
37:15
Speaker 2: I don't know. He might not even be real in
37:17
this world. That might be AI.
37:19
Speaker 1: Well, that's true. So no wonder I was thinking about
37:22
like the veil between life and death. Cause I was
37:24
looking at that thing and there's something that is like
37:27
a reset, you know, when you, um, when you see
37:32
a baby be born or you see someone die, it's
37:35
like a, um, it's like you get to what matters
37:40
and it's, And it's not whatever the dominance thing and
37:44
it's not the insecurity thing and it's not the– it's
37:48
not any of that.
37:49
Speaker 2: Yeah.
37:50
Speaker 1: You know? So I think that's the instruction book. And
37:53
so we're sort of given these little resets that allow
37:57
us to get in touch with what really matters. But
37:59
the more we get away from them in the modern world,
38:04
maybe the fewer instructions we have. I don't know. Never
38:09
had that thought before. Yeah.
38:11
Speaker 2: I think it would benefit almost everyone to do something
38:16
that takes you out of your own thoughts. And I
38:21
think that physically difficult things are the very best at that.
38:25
Like yoga is one of the very best things at
38:27
that because it's very physically difficult to do. It requires
38:33
a lot of willpower and concentration while you're doing it.
38:37
You're balancing yourself. You're sweating. You're straining. And because it's
38:42
so difficult, you can't think of anything else other than
38:45
it while you're doing it. And I think that cleans
38:47
your mind out and that it purges you of all
38:53
this weirdness that's inside of you that is constantly battling
38:58
with everything around you and allows you to just be. Yeah.
39:01
Just exist.
39:02
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yoga. I mean childbirth is very physical. Dying is
39:06
very physical. Yeah.
39:07
Speaker 2: But the thing is you can't voluntarily do that every day.
39:09
Speaker 1: No, you can't.
39:10
Speaker 3: You know what I mean?
39:10
Speaker 2: You can't.
39:11
Speaker 1: But I do sort of think like childbirth for women
39:13
who go through it or are lucky enough to go
39:15
through it is kind of like boot camp for men.
39:19
I mean it really pushes you to your limit and
39:25
then puts you in an altered state.
39:28
Speaker 2: Where oh for sure you just had a human come
39:30
out of your body now it's alive and you love
39:33
it more than anything.
39:34
Speaker 1: Yeah and it brings this like incredible i'm looking at
39:36
this ufo guy behind you it brings this incredible self-transcendent
39:39
experience of like whoa right this is not about me
39:43
you know and so yeah same with people who play
39:47
team sports, I was never one of them. But I
39:48
hear that that experience happens.
39:51
Speaker 2: Yes.
39:52
Speaker 1: Or like when you're practicing a musical instrument.
39:54
Speaker 2: Well, I think anything difficult. I think when I was
39:57
talking about martial arts, martial arts will help you in
40:01
that regard. But I think kind of anything that's hard
40:03
to do gets you out of your head and helps you.
40:06
And just getting an understanding that Whatever you're doing in life,
40:13
if you concentrate on it and focus on it and
40:16
you'll get better at it and that gives you confidence
40:19
and an understanding of kind of how the world works.
40:22
And then you could also apply that to being a person.
40:25
You're not the same person you were when you were
40:27
20 years old, right?
40:28
Speaker 1: Why?
40:28
Speaker 2: Because you're better at being a person because you've lived
40:31
a lot. You've had a lot of experiences. You made
40:34
a lot of mistakes and you're constantly practicing and learning.
40:39
And I think other things that you can do other
40:41
than just being a person will enhance your ability to
40:44
be a person.
40:45
Speaker 1: Yeah. Being a person who is applying yourself to something.
40:49
Speaker 2: Yes. My martial arts instructor had this thing that he
40:51
told me when I was very young. He said that
40:53
martial arts are a vehicle for developing your human potential.
40:58
Speaker 1: Yeah.
40:59
Speaker 2: But I think that could be guitar playing. That could
41:02
be tennis.
41:03
Speaker 1: When I used to teach remote viewing, we used to
41:04
call it a mental martial art. It's anything that's hard.
41:10
on which you have to concentrate that puts you in
41:12
that space of flow. And the flow means that, you know,
41:16
you know, that Holly chicks at Mahali idea. I don't
41:19
know if I pronounced his name right, but this idea
41:21
of timelessness and you're just sort of having to surf
41:25
whatever's happening. And that could happen. It could happen in
41:30
any field, right? Whatever, whenever you have to apply your
41:35
whole self to something, then what's a, It's so ironic
41:38
because you apply your whole self to something and then
41:41
what that allows to happen is that you become selfless.
41:44
You're almost like a tube. Right.
41:46
Speaker 2: You're not thinking about you anymore. You're thinking about the thing.
41:49
Speaker 1: Yeah, and there's neuroscience to back that up, right? Yeah.
41:52
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think anything difficult, I feel that when I
41:57
practice archery. I feel that when I play pool. I
42:00
feel that when I work out. Anything difficult where you
42:03
lose yourself emotionally. But in doing that, you have a
42:07
better understanding of yourself, which is odd.
42:11
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's almost like you come into consciousness more. Yeah.
42:15
Speaker 2: I'm really fascinated by the remote viewing and I want
42:17
to get to that. But I want to start with
42:18
like how did you begin studying this stuff? So you're
42:24
involved in neuroscience. You're trying to pick which lane you're
42:30
going to really pursue all your interests in. How did
42:33
you get involved in? This idea of premonition and psychic
42:37
ability and that there's a real something there.
42:41
Speaker 1: Yeah. I sort of hid it from my– I hid
42:46
my agenda from myself. Really?
42:48
Speaker 2: Yeah.
42:49
Speaker 1: I discovered later in life.
42:51
Speaker 2: Yeah.
42:52
Speaker 1: Because when I was a kid, my first precognitive dream
42:56
that I remember was when I was seven. And it
43:00
was very clear. I dreamt that my friend, I knew
43:04
which friend, Yishan, would, what would happen? She would lose
43:08
her watch. Where would it happen? On the playground. And
43:10
then the next day that happened. It was very specific.
43:13
You know, it wasn't like you don't have to be
43:15
metaphorical about it. What does it mean? It meant that
43:17
Yishan lost her watch on the playground the next day.
43:20
Speaker 2: Right, right.
43:21
Speaker 1: And so.
43:22
Speaker 2: Did you tell your parents?
43:23
Speaker 1: Yeah. And they said, my mom, so my very eccentric family.
43:31
We'd always talk about dreams at the breakfast table. My
43:33
mom was a therapist and a learning disability specialist. My
43:37
dad was a physicist. My sister's an artist. And we
43:40
would all talk about dreams. And so I would– I
43:43
mentioned this. And my dad, the physicist, says, well, that's
43:47
a coincidence. And my mom, the therapist, says you should
43:50
get a dream journal and write them down. And so
43:52
I did that.
43:54
Speaker 2: Your dad just dismissed it as a coincidence?
43:57
Speaker 1: You know, he– He has come around.
43:59
Speaker 2: That's a very specific coincidence.
44:02
Speaker 1: It's three factors. And I always like to say if
44:05
you have two or more factors, it's likely precognitive.
44:07
Speaker 2: But just the one. Lost the watch. And then she
44:10
loses her watch.
44:11
Speaker 1: But she did just get her watch. We were seven
44:14
years old. She got her watch from her father. You
44:17
could predict that as someone who's good at figuring out
44:19
what kids do is that they might lose the.
44:21
Speaker 2: Watch, right?
44:21
Speaker 1: So that could be a coincidence. You have to think
44:24
about all the possible things that could happen to a
44:25
seven-year-old on the watch that they just got. Losing it
44:28
is up there.
44:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you thought about it the day before she
44:31
lost it.
44:31
Speaker 1: I dreamt it the day before she lost it. Yeah. Yeah.
44:35
So he did dismiss it as a coincidence. But we
44:37
also had ball lightning and like weird orbs in our house.
44:39
And he also dismissed that as not actually having happened.
44:42
Speaker 2: Wait, you had ball lightning in your house?
44:45
Speaker 1: Yeah, we were in this old farmhouse in Libertyville, Illinois,
44:48
where I grew up. And we lived with my grandparents there.
44:52
And ball lightning came inside the house. And my mother
44:56
stood up for it. My mother said, Ed, my dad's name.
45:02
Didn't she see that lightning zipping around the house last night? Lightning.
45:06
And my dad said, that couldn't have happened.
45:11
Speaker 2: Did he see it?
45:12
Speaker 1: Of course he saw it.
45:13
Speaker 2: But he just wanted to dismiss it.
45:13
Speaker 1: But he didn't have an explanation for it.
45:15
Speaker 2: What does your dad do?
45:16
Speaker 1: He was a theoretical physicist for his dissertation. He was
45:19
at University of Chicago. He discovered or showed somehow the
45:23
electron layer on the moon, that there's this atmosphere of
45:26
electrons on the moon.
45:28
Speaker 2: How can he say that that couldn't happen?
45:31
Speaker 1: So one of the reasons, so people are so complex
45:35
with the reasons they go into particular fields. My experience
45:38
with physicists, my dad included, is they tend to go
45:41
into this field of physics because the whole job of
45:45
physics is to simplify everything into a few equations, right?
45:49
Let's like, there's the funny, there's the, I don't know
45:51
if it's funny, but there's the standard physics joke of like,
45:54
all right, let's figure out the volume of a cow.
45:56
You know, let's just estimate it. It's a sphere, right?
45:59
And so it's like you cut off the legs and
46:02
the head and the tail and all of a sudden
46:04
you're just calculating a sphere which doesn't give you the
46:06
volume of the cow. And so I think there's a
46:10
desire to simplify everything and I think there's a desire
46:12
to control things. And many, many, many physicists have OCD
46:18
and have control issues. My dad had severe, severe OCD.
46:22
And so in his mind, it couldn't have happened because
46:28
it would– all those circuits would fry because he didn't
46:31
know how to explain it. And my mother just stood
46:33
up for it and said, well, it did happen and
46:35
you saw it and I saw it and it hit
46:37
the edge of my room and then went out and
46:40
there was still like the brown mark where it was
46:43
burned in the corner of the room. So like we
46:45
had plenty of evidence. So there was stuff going on
46:51
and there was a, there was this push pull with
46:55
my mom who just, believed in the primacy, I guess,
46:59
or the importance of experience like we saw it. And
47:03
the pull from my dad who believed in, if you
47:07
didn't understand, if you didn't have a theory for something,
47:09
it couldn't exist. And so I was living in that.
47:12
So what I did was I kept a dream journal
47:16
sort of the rest of my life. I still write
47:18
every morning my dreams and started to notice that I
47:22
was really good at precognitive dreaming. And it would happen
47:24
again and again and again. And I would have experience.
47:29
We can get into later the weird school stuff. But
47:32
experiences at school that reminded me that I had this capacity.
47:36
And then I hid it from myself when I realized
47:41
I wanted to go to graduate school and actually be
47:43
a scientist. So by which I mean I just sort
47:48
of said, well, all of that stuff's crap. Even though
47:50
I was still having those experiences, I had to kind
47:52
of split off. this is a thing that you have
47:54
to do if, if you think, okay, I have to
47:56
ride the academic train. Right. And the academic train says like,
48:01
I'm going to do hard science. I'm going to go
48:03
to the best neuroscience school. I'm going to, you know,
48:05
and then by the time I was in my late
48:08
twenties and I was in my second graduate school, getting
48:13
my PhD at Northwestern, I started to remember. And the
48:16
reason I started, and it's not like I had really forgotten,
48:19
but it's like, it just wasn't allowed to be real.
48:22
I started to, study timing in the auditory system because
48:27
I was into understanding how the auditory system managed things
48:30
in time. And then I started to ask myself, why
48:33
am I so interested in time? Why am I so
48:35
interested in the nature of time and how it works?
48:38
And then boom, oh, right, because I keep having these
48:41
precognitive dreams. There's obviously something we don't understand about how
48:44
time works because these are so consistent and clear. And
48:48
at that point, I knew that was happening immediately. Because
48:51
I knew I wasn't making it up. I could look
48:53
at my journal and I could see it. So that's
48:55
when I started saying, all right, you know, I'm old
48:58
enough to choose my own path and I'm going to
49:00
start asking these questions.
49:03
Speaker 2: And when you started asking them and trying to apply
49:06
it in using the scientific method, how did you first
49:10
attempt to do that?
49:12
Speaker 1: Well, I called, I was, I'm kind of fearless when
49:17
it comes to cold calling people, especially science. because very
49:20
few people call scientists. So I called up Dean Radin.
49:24
I had read some of his work from the Institute
49:27
of Nautic Sciences. I called him up and I said, um, hi,
49:31
my name's Julia. And I was thinking of going into
49:33
this field and I think precognition is real. And he's like, oh, okay. And, uh,
49:38
And I remember where I was sitting when I caught him.
49:42
And he said, the thing you have to do is
49:44
get your PhD in a field that is not this.
49:47
So finish your PhD and then as a postdoc, start
49:51
to investigate it. So I did. I finished my PhD
49:54
while I was studying all this other stuff and understanding
49:56
the field. And then as soon as I got into
49:58
my postdoc years, I found a sympathetic advisor at Northwestern
50:02
in the cognitive neuroscience program. And, um, And just said,
50:07
I want to start studying this stuff. So at the
50:09
same time, I had one foot in more mainstream stuff
50:12
about timing and the auditory and the visual system. And
50:15
then the other foot was in this purely basically psychic stuff,
50:19
trying to understand it. And I made an experiment. There's
50:23
a foundation called the Bial Foundation in Portugal. And I
50:25
wrote an application to them. And they funded my postdoc
50:30
so I could study the sense of being stared at
50:33
with closed circuit TV monitors. And I could study how
50:37
the skin physiology, skin conductance or sweat changes just before
50:43
you get a response right on a random psychic task.
50:48
And so that's kind of precognition or pre-sentiment. And then
50:51
I just pulled from, I got really interested in pre-sentiment
50:55
because I saw that it was real. And I also
50:56
saw there was a big gender difference that was fascinating
50:59
to me, which is that before men got their first
51:04
trial correct, and this is just a guessing game, so
51:07
it's randomly selected, their skin conductance would go crazy, like
51:11
they just won the lottery. And before they didn't get
51:15
it correct or they were incorrect, it would just kind
51:17
of like peter along. So they were anticipating at a
51:20
very high level what the future was going to bring,
51:23
whether they were going to win or not. Whereas women
51:26
practically but not totally showed the opposite, but regardless of
51:31
what happened, whether it was correct or incorrect, They were
51:34
much lower than men. So men were really excited about
51:38
the future correct thing. At least their physiology showed that.
51:43
So I got fascinated by that and pulled together a
51:46
bunch of– worked with a couple other people at different
51:50
institutions and pulled together 26 studies over the past– or
51:53
the prior, I guess, 40 years that looked at this
51:57
kind of physiological change that predicts essentially a random future event.
52:03
And just analyzed it.
52:04
Speaker 2: Do you have a theory as to why men have
52:07
that response and women don't?
52:09
Speaker 1: You know, I kind of think it's cultural. You were
52:12
talking about the importance of winning. And I think, I mean,
52:20
we know that gambling addicts are twice as likely or
52:22
maybe three times as likely to be men as women.
52:24
Speaker 2: Really?
52:26
Speaker 1: Yeah.
52:27
Speaker 2: And.
52:29
Speaker 1: The importance of winning– I don't know if it's biological
52:31
or cultural. But in any case, the importance of being
52:35
alpha or the importance of winning, I think it's a
52:37
big deal. It's a big deal to men.
52:42
Speaker 2: Do you think that goes back to tribal war?
52:45
Speaker 1: I think it goes like back to like chimpanzees.
52:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, which do tribal war.
52:51
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
52:51
Speaker 2: I mean it kind of makes sense that the importance
52:54
in winning is literally survival or death.
52:56
Speaker 1: You will get kicked out of your little chimpanzee colony.
52:59
Speaker 2: Not only that, the ability to predict things that are
53:02
going to happen would probably keep you alive.
53:06
Speaker 3: Yeah.
53:06
Speaker 2: Like if you were running into an ambush, you know, like,
53:09
I don't like this or something is wrong, something's off
53:12
or now's the time to go. Like, I feel it. Mm-hmm.
53:15
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, so those combined. But, you know, there's other
53:18
tasks that aren't about winning that are just about, you know,
53:21
are you going to see a picture that's scary versus
53:23
a picture that's neutral, where women and men both show
53:26
the effect. But in this particular task, it was just, like,
53:30
very clear. And then I replicated it in heartbeat. So
53:33
that first one was in skin conductance. And then I
53:35
looked at heart rhythms. And I replicated that same thing
53:39
where men are like, oh, yeah, here we go. And
53:41
women are like, da-da-da-da. It doesn't. If something doesn't matter
53:46
so much to you in the future, I don't think
53:48
it matters so much to you in anticipating it.
53:53
Speaker 2: Now, here's the question about this stuff. Do you think
53:56
that this is an emerging phenomenon in human consciousness or
54:01
do you think it's something that has atrophied that was
54:04
available before language?
54:07
Speaker 1: It's very clearly available. I mean before language. OK.
54:11
Speaker 2: That's what I think. I've been thinking that a lot lately.
54:14
And one of the things that I've been thinking is
54:16
one of the things that we've noticed– like I think
54:19
phones and the internet and computers are an amazing thing.
54:24
You can acquire so much information. You can learn about things.
54:27
You can encounter new people. There's so much stuff that's
54:31
great about the internet. The bad thing is– A lot
54:35
of people have a much shorter attention span now because
54:38
of social media. And then now they're demonstrating that through
54:42
use of large language models, a lot of people are
54:45
actually getting dumber.
54:46
Speaker 1: Yes.
54:46
Speaker 2: I've noticed it already. Well, it's– they've studied it and
54:50
they– especially children. They're actually less capable of solving problems
54:56
themselves because they always turn to a computer and have
54:59
the computer solve a problem. Right. The more I think
55:02
about that, the more I look at that, I go, well,
55:04
what is language? Language is a technology, and language is
55:06
a technology that allows you to say things with your mouth,
55:10
and I know what you're thinking. Maybe before that existed,
55:14
we had an understanding of what we were thinking. Maybe
55:17
there's some sort of a weird psychic connection that we
55:23
all believe that people have with each other in some
55:26
way or form, and some of it you could demonstrate,
55:29
some of it, but Most of it is just intuition
55:33
and feeling. And I always wonder, like, is this atrophied?
55:35
Like before we could talk when we were just these
55:38
bipedal hominids with, you know, larger brains and all the
55:41
other mammals and these weird abilities to be curious and
55:45
figure out things and develop tools. Like what was consciousness
55:49
like before language, before written language? You didn't have a
55:53
word for dog and tree and like what was it
55:57
that was going on in your head? If you don't–
56:00
like you think in your head. I think in my
56:02
head in a voice. Yeah. And they say some people
56:05
don't have.
56:06
Speaker 1: An internal voice. I don't have that.
56:07
Speaker 2: You don't have an internal voice?
56:08
Speaker 1: I have pictures.
56:09
Speaker 2: Oh, that's interesting.
56:11
Speaker 1: Yeah.
56:12
Speaker 2: Really? Yeah.
56:13
Speaker 1: I sometimes wonder about that if that's why I can
56:16
do the remote viewing stuff. Only pictures? Feelings?
56:20
Speaker 2: Oh, I have a whole dude in my brain.
56:22
Speaker 1: Yeah. I've heard that most people have that.
56:25
Speaker 2: No, I don't think it's most people.
56:26
Speaker 1: Really?
56:26
Speaker 2: I think it's kind of, well.
56:28
Speaker 1: Is it your voice?
56:30
Speaker 2: Oh, it's not me.
56:31
Speaker 1: No.
56:31
Speaker 2: Is it like your dad? No, no, no, no.
56:33
Speaker 1: Is it a guy?
56:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like a general.
56:37
Speaker 1: Oh.
56:37
Speaker 2: It's like someone's going, shut the fuck up. Go to work.
56:41
Do this. What are you talking about? Why are you
56:43
being such a bitch?
56:43
Speaker 1: So he's kind of a jerk.
56:45
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, no. He's right. Always. My inner
56:49
voice is never wrong. My inner self-correcting voice is always correct.
56:54
It's always right. It's always like– it's– I mean if
56:59
you wanted to get really crazy, you would say it's
57:02
like a guardian angel in your brain that's steering you
57:05
in the right direction. But if I've done something wrong
57:09
in my life, made a mistake in my life, said
57:11
something I shouldn't have said, that voice berates me.
57:14
Speaker 1: Wow. So that seems hard. No, it's good.
57:17
Speaker 2: It's great. I mean like– No, you got to get
57:19
over it. Well, but– But that's how you learn.
57:21
Speaker 1: Well, I mean– Let's talk about that. Because when people
57:29
go through hard things, one way to learn is like berating.
57:34
But that's kind of like not as sustainable as forgiving
57:37
yourself and deciding that you can figuring out how you
57:41
can do better. I mean, is berating really the best?
57:44
Speaker 2: I think you have to feel pain from mistakes.
57:47
Speaker 1: But don't you already feel the pain?
57:48
Speaker 2: No, you got to really feel it. Do you feel
57:51
like the only way? I don't like making mistakes twice.
57:53
And the best way to not make a mistake twice
57:55
is have the first one suck so bad that you
57:58
never want to go through that again.
57:59
Speaker 1: For sure.
57:59
Speaker 2: And if it doesn't really suck, make it suck in
58:01
your head.
58:02
Speaker 1: But does it already– I feel like it already sucks
58:05
without a guy telling you that it sucks.
58:07
Speaker 2: Well, it's not– I mean I'm kind of exaggerating. It's
58:10
not just that. But it's like– it's not even like
58:13
you're– it's not pejoratives. It's not insults. You're a fucking loser.
58:18
It's like you fucked up. You did this. You were
58:22
supposed to do that. You were supposed to get something done.
58:26
You didn't get it done. You were supposed to do this,
58:28
but you fucked it up. Like, don't fuck it up again.
58:31
This is what you did wrong. Don't do that again.
58:33
Speaker 1: I get it.
58:34
Speaker 2: This is what you could have done right.
58:36
Speaker 1: It's like your conscience.
58:37
Speaker 2: It is like a conscience, but it's very strong. It's
58:40
very loud.
58:42
Speaker 1: Yeah.
58:42
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I have to learn how to sometimes ignore
58:46
it and just calm. Otherwise, I won't sleep.
58:48
Speaker 4: Right.
58:48
Speaker 1: It can be too harsh.
58:49
Speaker 2: Yeah. But it doesn't like I don't hate myself or
58:52
anything like that. It's not that. But it's just like honest.
58:57
Speaker 1: Yeah.
58:57
Speaker 2: It's just an honest assessment of everything that I've ever done.
59:01
Speaker 1: Ever.
59:02
Speaker 2: Yeah.
59:03
Speaker 1: That's like instant karma.
59:05
Speaker 2: Yeah. In a way. Yeah. But it works. It works.
59:09
and I think it made me makes me a better
59:11
person I'm better than I would have been if I
59:13
didn't have that self-correcting mechanism.
59:16
Speaker 1: There's this poem by this mystic and I forget her
59:18
name but at the end of it she says at
59:23
the end of the day I always bring to my
59:25
mind all the people that I was kind to and
59:30
then I can fall asleep. And so if you know,
59:32
that's another way to do it, right? If you know
59:34
that at the end of the day, you have to
59:36
look in the face of all the people that you
59:39
were kind to so you can fall asleep, then that
59:42
kind of makes your day. Yeah.
59:45
Speaker 2: No, definitely. And I think I always tell people that
59:48
being kind and being generous is kind of selfish.
59:52
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because you feel better. Yeah, you do.
59:55
Speaker 2: You feel better about yourself. You feel better about life.
59:57
You feel better about everything. It's actually a good thing
59:59
to do to be kind and And generous. And that's
1:00:02
like counter to like you shouldn't think that way. No,
1:00:04
you should just be kind and generous. I agree. But
1:00:08
also you benefit from it. And I think the more
1:00:11
people understand that you benefit, the more people are likely
1:00:14
to behave in that way and it would be better
1:00:16
for everybody.
1:00:17
Speaker 1: So back to the language thing. So this actually to
1:00:20
me relates to the language thing. If you develop language,
1:00:25
you are more aware of what you're thinking in a
1:00:28
certain sense if you think linguistically. But you also, in
1:00:34
a way, sort of dampen down, as you say, and
1:00:37
I agree with you that there's a tradeoff there. You
1:00:40
dampen down the sort of instant knowledge of how people
1:00:44
around you are feeling, like that telepathy thing. So I
1:00:46
keep looking at this skull, right? And so what we know,
1:00:50
I don't think, but I don't think we've lost it.
1:00:52
So you had this idea that we've lost that psychic stuff.
1:00:56
I think it's absolutely there and I think it's neuroscientifically
1:01:00
defensible that it's there. But that language actually suppresses it.
1:01:04
Speaker 2: Yeah, atrophies it.
1:01:05
Speaker 1: It doesn't atrophy it. It's like you can actually use– so, okay.
1:01:10
So there's this cool result from this guy in Baycrest.
1:01:13
His name is Morris Freeman. And he's a neurologist there
1:01:18
up in Canada. And he noticed in his stroke patients
1:01:24
that if they have lesions here– So their stroke kind
1:01:27
of messed up this area here, left frontal orbital area
1:01:31
of the brain in the cortex, that they seem to
1:01:36
be more psychic. Like he didn't know how to explain it.
1:01:38
So he did an actual experiment where he tried to
1:01:41
get people to move with their minds an arrow on
1:01:45
a computer screen. So there was no mouse. There was
1:01:48
no way to move it. They just had to look
1:01:50
at the arrow and say, move to the left or
1:01:52
move to the right and wish it to happen. And
1:01:55
using their intention, right? So the people who had the
1:01:59
strokes there were able to do it statistically significantly. People
1:02:03
who had the strokes over here were not able to
1:02:05
do it.
1:02:06
Speaker 2: So can I pause you here? What was actually moving
1:02:08
the cursor?
1:02:09
Speaker 1: So he had a random number generator hooked up to
1:02:11
the drive. So the cursor was kind of like shaking.
1:02:14
And the random number generator would make it deviate to
1:02:16
the left or to the right. So the person was
1:02:19
effectively changing the random number generator. How often? Enough so
1:02:23
that it was statistically significantly.
1:02:24
Speaker 2: What is statistically significant in terms of numbers?
1:02:26
Speaker 1: So what you would do is, sure, you would have
1:02:28
a control. So you have the try period where you
1:02:32
say to the person, try to move it to the left,
1:02:34
try to move it to the right. And then you
1:02:36
have the control period where you say, you know, read
1:02:38
a book like you're not trying. And you compare the amount,
1:02:41
the distance and the amount of time it's spent in
1:02:42
the intended direction to the reading a book time. And
1:02:46
if it's, you can, you know, there's statistical tests you
1:02:49
can use to determine whether it was spending time in
1:02:52
the intended direction more often when it was intended.
1:02:55
Speaker 2: But how much more often?
1:02:59
Speaker 1: A number that's statistically significant. So I guess– so it's like.
1:03:03
Speaker 2: Imagine– Like 5 percent, 10 percent?
1:03:05
Speaker 1: Oh, I forget what the actual quantitative number is.
1:03:07
Speaker 2: But that would be interesting to know.
1:03:09
Speaker 1: It totally would. I just forget.
1:03:10
Speaker 2: And whether or not it would change with different humans.
1:03:13
Speaker 1: I agree. But then he replicated it. Instead of looking
1:03:17
at stroke patients– He used transcranial magnetic stimulation, which turns
1:03:23
down activity. So he put that over here. So he's
1:03:26
putting that over the left area. And to turn that down.
1:03:31
And again, these are not people who have had strokes,
1:03:33
just regular people, you and I. They were able to
1:03:36
do this with their minds. So it's just sitting there.
1:03:39
His explanation is that the left orbital frontal area is
1:03:47
We know that it inhibits the right frontal area and
1:03:50
we know that the right orbital frontal inhibits the left.
1:03:53
And his explanation is this stuff is going on in
1:03:56
the right hemisphere or at least is dominated by that.
1:04:00
And when you suppress it, you're not as psychic. And
1:04:03
when you release the suppression, you are more psychic. And
1:04:06
it's just right under the surface. It's right there. And
1:04:09
so when I work with non-speaking autistic kids, it feels
1:04:15
to me like– That's a pretty good explanation of what's
1:04:18
going on. They're not activating this part as much. Not
1:04:23
that I've proven this. This is a hypothesis. And I'm
1:04:27
not the only one with a hypothesis. But they're not
1:04:29
activating this part as much. We know that because this
1:04:31
is where speech is over here, right? These areas in
1:04:35
the left. And so therefore this area can be a
1:04:38
little bit more free. So the psychic stuff is coming out. Huh.
1:04:43
Speaker 2: Well, that's one of the weird things that they've demonstrated
1:04:45
about certain psychedelics like psilocybin you would think that it
1:04:49
just like turns on your mind and all the synapses
1:04:51
are firing no dampens yeah yeah which is very weird
1:04:55
yeah because it makes you think like what are we
1:04:57
doing with the mind yeah the brain i should say
1:05:00
not the.
1:05:00
Speaker 1: Mind well and the brain is related to the mind
1:05:03
yeah in ways we don't understand and then it's sometimes
1:05:05
not related to the mind right like in the psilocybin
1:05:07
results you're having all these experiences But the brain is dampened.
1:05:12
What's going on? And there's the filter theory of consciousness says, well,
1:05:16
consciousness is kind of like out there, almost like a
1:05:19
radio signal. And your brain is kind of filtering it. Yes.
1:05:22
So that then you have this simple like, oh, pick
1:05:25
up the cup and say the words. And, you know,
1:05:27
you can kind of live your life without realizing that
1:05:29
person over there is having this experience and that's going on.
1:05:32
And then in the future, this will happen. So it
1:05:35
makes sense to me that it's like our conscious minds
1:05:38
in order to just deal with daily life. Have to
1:05:41
be kind of stupid.
1:05:44
Speaker 2: And then– Because otherwise you'd be overwhelmed by all the
1:05:47
data and possibilities. It's so much– You're in the universe.
1:05:51
Speaker 1: It's so much data.
1:05:52
Speaker 2: Multicellular creatures all around you and subatomic particles.
1:05:56
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. And then– and that's– and when we're working
1:05:59
with– I work with a whole team that works with
1:06:01
non-speaking autistic kids like in telepathy tapes and when we're
1:06:04
working with them, Like they get distracted by that stuff.
1:06:07
Like they'll say, you know, I'm distracted. When I say say,
1:06:11
I mean they're, you know, typing on a letter board
1:06:14
or a keyboard. You know, there's spirits in the room or,
1:06:17
you know, I'm thinking about what you did earlier today
1:06:20
that I didn't know about but I do know about
1:06:22
because I'm telepathic. And so it's like a lot of
1:06:25
information that makes it pretty hard to be in the
1:06:27
here and now.
1:06:28
Speaker 2: Have any of those nonverbal autistic kids ever wrote something
1:06:32
down where they couldn't possibly have known it?
1:06:36
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:06:36
Speaker 2: Like what?
1:06:37
Speaker 1: Oh, I can give you many examples. In fact, do
1:06:40
you want to, I have a video of that.
1:06:42
Speaker 2: Oh, sure. Okay.
1:06:43
Speaker 1: I have to walk you through the video.
1:06:44
Speaker 2: Okay.
1:06:45
Speaker 1: Yeah. Do you have that over there?
1:06:46
Speaker 2: I don't know.
1:06:48
Speaker 1: I gave you like 18 things. Oh, give me a second.
1:06:52
Speaker 2: Sorry. Okay.
1:06:54
Speaker 1: So let me explain the context. Okay. So I met
1:07:00
my research team partially through people I had already worked
1:07:04
with and partially folks who Kai Dickens, creator of the
1:07:08
telepathy tapes, introduced me to.
1:07:09
Speaker 2: I had her on.
1:07:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know. It was a great show. Very interesting.
1:07:12
And so I wanted to ask that question. Can we
1:07:16
use rigorous methods to have folks write down non-speakers or spellers,
1:07:22
whatever we want to call them? I think non-speakers or
1:07:24
spellers are preferred. Non-verbal kind of implies that they don't
1:07:28
have language at all. But the reality is they may speak,
1:07:32
but they don't speak to communicate. They use letter boards.
1:07:35
Speaker 2: Got it.
1:07:36
Speaker 1: Or keyboards. I wanted to understand, like, they're doing all
1:07:40
these tests where they're repeating numbers and letters. And that's interesting.
1:07:46
But it doesn't really, to me, I mean, the whole
1:07:50
world of testing people for psychic abilities, it's not very interesting.
1:07:55
And if we presume that these students are actually pretty smart,
1:07:59
it's got to be boring for them. And so I thought, well,
1:08:02
let's give them an opportunity to really show their stuff.
1:08:06
And so I set up this whole rigorous trial set
1:08:10
and even the non-speakers came on board and actually told
1:08:14
us what they would like to see the stimuli be.
1:08:16
We want videos, we want music, we want words in
1:08:18
the videos that are sung. I mean, they just told
1:08:20
us all these things that they wanted. And by, by again,
1:08:23
using the letter boards and we said, okay, we can
1:08:25
do all that. But the catch is the person who's
1:08:30
sending the, The information is going to be in another room,
1:08:33
maybe like 30 yards away with a closed door. And
1:08:37
you can work with your communication partner, but she is
1:08:40
not going to know what the target is. And she's
1:08:41
going to have no idea what the target could be
1:08:43
because she's never going to see any of the target
1:08:46
videos that we'll use. And so we were preparing for
1:08:50
this and we were getting our software ready. We were
1:08:54
preparing for the formal trials that would be filmed for
1:08:57
the documentary. And so we were doing that on Zoom.
1:09:01
We weren't yet in person. But the non-speaker that I'm
1:09:04
about to tell you about was with his communication partner,
1:09:07
Maria Welch, who's a speech and language pathologist. And he
1:09:13
was getting ready to do the trial. We were explaining
1:09:16
it to him. And I was in Virginia. Maria and
1:09:20
the student were in, um, in Illinois. And then Jeff Tarrant, uh,
1:09:26
another co-investigator, another neuroscientist was in Oregon. And so the
1:09:33
person who was going to send the video, in other words,
1:09:36
just intend to send the video, like in a telepathy
1:09:39
experiment was going to be Jeff. Uh, the non-speaker chose Jeff.
1:09:43
And then, um, We did it. We turned off our cameras.
1:09:48
We were on Zoom. We turned off our cameras. We
1:09:49
turned off our microphones. Jeff sent the video. Maria and
1:09:54
the student started, I don't know, intending to receive it.
1:09:58
And then the student said he was ready. He spelled
1:10:00
that he was ready. And then Maria asked the question
1:10:04
that I thought I had put in the Zoom chat
1:10:07
for her because we didn't have our software set up.
1:10:09
So I had to send her a question in the
1:10:10
Zoom chat. And the way we traditionally did it at
1:10:13
that time was I asked– multiple choice. Is it a this, this, this,
1:10:19
or this? But the thing is, by mistake, I sent
1:10:22
that to Jeff because I had a private chat with
1:10:24
him going. So I didn't realize that she didn't have
1:10:27
the questions. Meanwhile, the student starts to spell on the letterboard.
1:10:32
He says, I'm ready. He says, it's a beautiful sky.
1:10:37
And she had not seen the questions. It was a
1:10:42
beautiful sky. Of all the videos in the world that
1:10:44
he picked to describe that way, It was a video
1:10:47
of the tops of trees and then above them like
1:10:51
northern lights that had been colored like by an artist
1:10:54
to look even more cool. And then there's like a
1:10:57
time lapse. And he said it's art of a beautiful sky.
1:11:02
And that was a really great description. And statistically, there's
1:11:07
almost no way to calculate how statistically likely that is
1:11:09
because it could have been any video in the world.
1:11:11
And we didn't even give him the multiple choice. Whoa. Yeah. Yeah.
1:11:15
So actually, that's not the video I'm going to show you.
1:11:17
I just realized that I wanted to answer the question
1:11:19
more directly. The video I want to show you, if
1:11:22
you can find it, is one of what we call
1:11:24
a telepathy train, where the students, and this happened more
1:11:28
than once when we were physically in town, in Chicago
1:11:33
as a team, where one student comes in and says something, leaves,
1:11:38
and the next student comes in with their mom, and
1:11:41
they check in. You know, Maria always asks them, would
1:11:44
you like to check in? And then they refer to
1:11:46
the thing the last student was talking about. And it
1:11:51
happened in a really compelling way in this video because
1:11:55
there was also a discussion that the first student who
1:11:58
comes in, which I believe I'm calling participant four just
1:12:01
for anonymity. So participant four comes in and says he
1:12:04
wants to go on a double date with participant five
1:12:07
and his girlfriend. And then he says, tell his mom.
1:12:12
And then when participant five comes in, He says, tell
1:12:17
my mom I want to go on a double date
1:12:18
with participant four and his girlfriend. So they clearly had
1:12:23
already discussed this telepathically because they're non-speakers. They're not talking
1:12:27
to each other. Their parents haven't talked to each other
1:12:29
about this. The parents don't know each other. And so
1:12:35
that happened. And then they also passed on this. I mean,
1:12:39
so this stuff kept happening. They also passed on this
1:12:42
idea of slamming a beach ball on the ground in
1:12:45
order to identify each of the videos because they wanted
1:12:50
to get the telepathy signals right, but they were missing
1:12:54
them on the formal trials. So they discussed between themselves
1:12:57
apparently telepathically, if you slam a beach ball on the
1:13:00
ground before we do the trial, then we'll focus on
1:13:04
it in time and we'll go to the right timeline
1:13:06
to talk about this is what they write down to
1:13:10
get to the video in our minds. And so that's
1:13:13
the video that I wanted to show you if it's here.
1:13:16
Because I don't include the double date stuff in it
1:13:18
because it's too private and they say too many names
1:13:20
of other students.
1:13:22
Speaker 3: Here's a link, but there's no link that I can find.
1:13:26
Speaker 1: Oh, you know what? If you go back to what
1:13:29
you just saw and then say, I worked with my
1:13:32
team to get out this response right away. It includes
1:13:35
a link to this video as well. Yeah. So that's the...
1:13:41
On the inalienable right. Then if you go down.
1:13:44
Speaker 2: I didn't see a video.
1:13:47
Speaker 1: Go up. Go down. You're going too fast here.
1:13:50
Speaker 2: Sorry, I'm just going to the top and then.
1:13:52
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that's my mom and my other mom. All right,
1:13:55
scroll all the way down. You got it. Keep going.
1:14:02
This is all about the science stuff. Okay, now stop
1:14:04
right there. Slow down. And then now go a little
1:14:08
bit more down. okay go up.
1:14:13
Speaker 2: Yeah video the debrief you got it all right this
1:14:20
is it yeah okay.
1:14:25
Speaker 1: And that's jeff and me on the right and that's
1:14:27
maria maybe someone else has questions to ask i.
1:14:30
Speaker 3: Was wondering if that was the best way to present
1:14:34
the video so that the timing doesn't become a factor.
1:14:38
Like maybe he saw a video at a different time,
1:14:41
but how could we make this one stand out so
1:14:43
you know that's the one we're talking about?
1:14:45
Speaker 1: Yeah, great. That's kind of what I was going to ask.
1:14:49
And that's Natalia on the very left.
1:15:03
Speaker 2: And so he's typing something into a keyboard right now?
1:15:06
Speaker 1: He's typing into the keyboard. It's got electronic voice. And
1:15:13
the electronic voice is hard to hear, so she'll repeat it,
1:15:16
and then I also have a little slide that shows
1:15:17
what he said.
1:15:19
Speaker 2: What did the voice say?
1:15:20
Speaker 1: Slam. Slam. Slam.
1:15:23
Speaker 2: Slam. Slam a ball?
1:15:41
Speaker 1: This is where he's giving us this idea to slam
1:15:45
a ball on the ground to get him to the
1:15:47
right timeline in telepathy trials. It was his idea. It
1:15:50
never occurred to us. Before that. That's before. I picked
1:15:55
up the F. I don't know why. Before that. Right.
1:16:05
By the way, Maria has a big crush on you.
1:16:10
She knows you're married, but she told me not to
1:16:12
tell you. Thanks.
1:16:15
Speaker 2: Tara said thanks. Video.
1:16:24
Speaker 4: Okay.
1:16:25
Speaker 1: Which person would be helpful to do that for the video?
1:16:34
Speaker 2: Okay, so this is the transcript of it. Slam a
1:16:37
ball before sending. That's what he's saying. Natalia says, who
1:16:41
should do that before the video is sent? He says sender.
1:16:45
What kind of ball? Slam a beach ball. Why would
1:16:49
that draw your attention to this timeline? He says, because
1:16:53
I could see and hear it when looking in the future.
1:16:57
Does it matter how many times she slams it? He
1:16:58
says before each video once.
1:17:01
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:17:01
Speaker 2: So the slamming of the ball allowed him to look
1:17:05
into the future is what he was saying?
1:17:06
Speaker 1: He was hoping that would work because he had just
1:17:08
failed a telepathy trial and he said, I was on
1:17:11
a different timeline. And we said, so how can we
1:17:13
get you on this timeline? And he said, he made
1:17:17
up this idea of slamming a beach ball. And what
1:17:20
we found fascinating about it was, you know, that's an
1:17:23
original idea that none of us thought about. But then
1:17:26
we also found it fascinating because of what you'll see next,
1:17:29
which is the next person who comes in who, of course,
1:17:32
hadn't heard any of this. This is another participant, Participant 5, and.
1:17:37
Speaker 2: Natalia's... Participant 4 arrives after Participant 5 leaves. He has
1:17:43
to go on a double date with Participant 5 and
1:17:45
his girlfriend, something Participant 5 asked about Participant 4 already.
1:17:50
He also brings up something Participant 5 mentioned about how
1:17:53
to make the telepathy work better. Mm-hmm. What is that voice?
1:18:10
Speaker 1: That's him. He's able to type and do this sort
1:18:16
of sing-song talking at the same time. Did you see
1:18:21
how Natalia just does that little shrug?
1:18:25
Speaker 2: It would be good to try the beach ball slam.
1:18:26
So now he didn't hear that other conversation at all.
1:18:29
He wasn't in the room. Where was he?
1:18:32
Speaker 1: So he was at home with his mom. So he
1:18:33
came in after we had a 20-minute break between the participants.
1:18:36
Speaker 2: So he wasn't anywhere near the building. There's no way
1:18:40
he could have known.
1:18:40
Speaker 1: That's why Natalia gave that shrug. Like, see, she and
1:18:44
Maria see this all the time where students will all
1:18:47
be talking about the same thing. Yeah.
1:18:50
Speaker 2: Just comes in and says the beach ball slam would
1:18:52
be a good idea.
1:18:53
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:18:53
Speaker 2: So he somehow or another.
1:18:54
Speaker 1: It's as if he was in that conversation.
1:18:56
Speaker 2: Whoa. Yeah.
1:18:57
Speaker 1: And this is, it is like they are all in
1:19:02
the same conversation. And it is so, it's hard to
1:19:08
think about what it would be like But it's becoming
1:19:10
more and more clear to me that it would be
1:19:12
very difficult to just be in this conversation where the
1:19:16
words are coming out of our mouths, if you also
1:19:19
are just having all these conversations with other people. I mean,
1:19:22
it's like an incredible focus. And so the work that
1:19:24
he has to do to type, and then he's also
1:19:27
using his sing-song voice, and he's clearly having some kind
1:19:31
of conversation. In his head, it's incredible focus that they're
1:19:35
actually having to do. And many of them have dyspraxia.
1:19:38
So their bodies– it's hard for them to control their bodies,
1:19:42
which is part of the speech issue. And so I
1:19:46
just think they're all gifted. I mean at this point. Right.
1:19:49
Speaker 2: But there's that thing that they kept talking about in
1:19:51
the telepathy tapes where they all meet.
1:19:54
Speaker 1: On the hill.
1:19:54
Speaker 2: Psychically on the hill. Yeah.
1:19:56
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:19:57
Speaker 2: And they all talk about it independently? Like it's not
1:20:00
something that has been taught to them? Like, do you
1:20:02
meet on the Hill? Oh, yeah, I do. No, they've
1:20:05
talked about it independently, which is very weird. Right. And
1:20:08
one way– Odd concept.
1:20:09
Speaker 1: Well, I turn on my scientist hat when I think
1:20:13
about that and I think, okay, well, they could have
1:20:15
heard it on the telepathy tapes and then they started
1:20:17
talking about it. But that's not how it seemed to
1:20:20
have worked. But I have my own experience of that
1:20:24
particular student. I forget whether I called him participant four
1:20:26
or participant five at the end. He and I became,
1:20:29
I had a good understanding of his mind and we
1:20:32
had some good conversations. And I had a dream one
1:20:36
night where he came to me and all he did
1:20:40
was show me this like, it was like a sun
1:20:44
where you could see the sunspots. And it was just
1:20:47
slowly turning. And it was beautiful. And he just gave
1:20:50
it to me. And then the next day I was
1:20:52
working with him over Zoom. And so I asked Maria,
1:20:55
I said, can I ask him a question? You know,
1:20:57
and she said, sure. And I said, you know, last
1:20:59
night you gave me something. You gave me a shape.
1:21:04
What was the shape? Because I hadn't told Maria about
1:21:07
the dream or anyone else. It was just my dream
1:21:08
that I wrote in my journal. And I was thinking
1:21:12
he would say ball or sphere, and that would either
1:21:14
be a good guess or it would be telepathy. But
1:21:17
he goes, I still can't get over this. I sent
1:21:24
you a pre-revolutionary orb with four stars on it slowly rotating.
1:21:34
Speaker 2: What is a pre-revolutionary orb?
1:21:35
Speaker 1: I don't fucking know. I don't know.
1:21:37
Speaker 2: With four stars on it?
1:21:40
Speaker 1: With four stars on it slowly rotating.
1:21:42
Speaker 2: But that's not exactly what you saw in the dream.
1:21:44
Speaker 1: Well, there were these sunspots. So see, there's a poetic
1:21:50
license that they have. I would say that's 80% correct.
1:21:57
So it was slowly rotating. And there were these sunspots
1:22:00
that I was calling sunspots. He was calling stars. And
1:22:04
it was definitely an orb. What does pre-revolutionary mean? I
1:22:07
don't know. They talk about, and I talk about in
1:22:10
my book, The Love Revolution, this idea that we're moving
1:22:13
towards a time when we can actually use love in
1:22:16
our lives to communicate and to connect people. But maybe
1:22:21
that's what he means. So that's one instance. So I
1:22:25
sort of go, okay, that was interesting. And it kind
1:22:28
of blew my mind that he used that language. He's
1:22:30
just gifted at interesting language. And then... This other non-speaker
1:22:36
who worked with Natalia, who was the young woman you
1:22:38
saw on the left who also works with a lot
1:22:40
of spellers, just decided to start reading my mind like
1:22:46
we did. He started, I asked Natalia, I said, can
1:22:49
we just do an experiment where I'll be doing something
1:22:52
and I'll know what I'm doing at that time. And
1:22:55
you just ask one of your students to read my
1:22:57
mind and then no one else will know what I'm
1:22:59
doing and she won't know what I'm doing. And so
1:23:01
what I was doing was doing this remote viewing for
1:23:04
a friend. And so I knew exactly what I was
1:23:07
doing during that time and what I was thinking. But
1:23:09
what I was thinking about was, remember that comet, 3I Atlas?
1:23:15
So I was thinking, I was kind of obsessively thinking
1:23:17
about 3I Atlas. Like, what is it? What's the deal?
1:23:19
It was during that exact time in December last year.
1:23:23
And he comes back with some stuff I don't understand.
1:23:29
Like poetic license. I call it poetic license or just
1:23:31
it's wrong. That I don't understand where it came from.
1:23:33
And then he says, oh, and three-eye atlas. And he
1:23:38
talks about this owl that I saw in a video
1:23:40
when I was doing the remote viewing. And I was like,
1:23:45
so Natalia didn't even know what three-eye atlas was. She
1:23:47
had to look it up. And the parent didn't know
1:23:49
what three-eye atlas was. And he spelled it three-e-y-e atlas.
1:23:54
Speaker 2: Right?
1:23:54
Speaker 1: Wow. So it was phonetic.
1:23:57
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:23:57
Speaker 1: Yeah. And then later, a couple weeks ago, I get
1:24:00
a text from Natalia that the same student, who apparently
1:24:03
has now felt perfectly fine reading my mind, tapped into
1:24:08
my mind when I was thinking about a medication that
1:24:10
my stepmom was taking. And he used her name, which
1:24:13
Natalia didn't know, and told me that she would be
1:24:16
okay on the medication, that it would help her. And
1:24:19
then told Natalia to text me, and so she did.
1:24:21
Speaker 2: The three-eye atlas in... Writing it as E-Y-E is very strange.
1:24:27
That's hard. Because that's not how it's written anywhere. Yeah. Right?
1:24:32
So the fact that he wrote it I-E-Y-E means he
1:24:35
was hearing you.
1:24:36
Speaker 1: It's how you would hear it.
1:24:38
Speaker 2: What the hell? Yeah. How weird.
1:24:40
Speaker 1: So there's no way I can explain. Also, he came
1:24:43
up with my son's name, which Natalia didn't know. So
1:24:46
that could have been from her. But still, he read
1:24:48
her mind.
1:24:48
Speaker 2: Did you ask him more about this pre-revolutionary orb with
1:24:52
four stars? Why did you give me that? What does
1:24:55
that mean?
1:24:56
Speaker 1: I wish I did. one thing I know with this
1:24:58
particular participant is that he's so gifted and his family
1:25:03
asks him a lot like about, um, to do mediumship stuff.
1:25:07
Like what does grandpa think about this or whatever?
1:25:10
Speaker 2: And in fact, grandpa's dead.
1:25:12
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And to him, there's not a lot of difference.
1:25:15
And so, and so, yeah. And, and they also like the,
1:25:20
the grandmother, um, had a, had a lung transplant and
1:25:23
they asked who the donor was. And he, I, identified
1:25:27
a probable donor who lived in the area who had
1:25:29
died that day. And they, they won't know for a
1:25:32
year if it was the actual donor because it takes
1:25:34
time to learn who the donor is, but they're pretty
1:25:36
sure that it probably is. But so.
1:25:40
Speaker 2: Boy, if they, if it turns out that he's right
1:25:42
and you can't find out for another year.
1:25:45
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:25:45
Speaker 2: But they won't release the information.
1:25:46
Speaker 1: Well, you know, yeah, my husband had a double lung transplant.
1:25:48
It just takes a while. Everyone has to agree that
1:25:51
they want to release the information. But, um, In any case,
1:25:55
he's just really good at this. Like, he's very skilled.
1:25:59
And I didn't want him to feel like he was
1:26:01
a show pony. And I wanted to get on with
1:26:03
his lesson. And so I didn't want to ask other questions.
1:26:06
I feel like, you know, he'll probably just show up
1:26:08
in my dream and tell me at some point.
1:26:10
Speaker 2: Yeah, but do you think that he even would think
1:26:13
of himself as a show pony? Like, wouldn't it just
1:26:16
be communication?
1:26:17
Speaker 1: He doesn't. But I didn't—also, I wanted— like— I feel like.
1:26:22
Speaker 2: I would want to know. Why did you give me
1:26:23
a son?
1:26:23
Speaker 1: Of course I wanted to know. But also I was–
1:26:25
What's pre-revolutionary? What do you mean? I agree. I mean
1:26:28
he's the kid who– I mean there are some– we
1:26:31
worked with six kids. They're all gifted and amazing. But
1:26:34
he's one that showed up in telepathy tapes as– I
1:26:38
don't know if you remember this story. It's so wonderful.
1:26:42
His teacher– so Maria, what she does is like they'll
1:26:45
read a paragraph about a topic. And then he'll ask,
1:26:48
you know, the students like, okay, let's, you know, talk
1:26:51
about the topic just like in school. But he has
1:26:53
to spell out his answers. And so I think the
1:26:55
topic was like Gothic art. And so, excuse me, I'm
1:27:00
going to have a drink of water. So the topic
1:27:05
of the paragraph was Gothic art. And she says, so,
1:27:09
you know, what was the purpose of Gothic art? And
1:27:12
he said, oh, it aphorizes the masses. And she says,
1:27:17
I don't think that's a word. And then she thinks, well,
1:27:20
I better look it up because he says it's a word.
1:27:23
And so she looked it up and it was only
1:27:25
a word that was used in the 1600s.
1:27:27
Speaker 2: Oh, my God.
1:27:34
Speaker 1: And it means like it appeases them. That's crazy. So
1:27:37
he wrote out it means it calmed them down. And
1:27:41
she said, well, how do you know about the word?
1:27:43
It was only used in the 1600s.
1:27:43
Speaker 2: He said.
1:27:45
Speaker 1: Or the 1400s or something. And he writes out, oh,
1:27:48
I was talking with a magistrate from that time period. So, like,
1:27:57
what do you do with that?
1:27:59
Speaker 2: What do you do with that?
1:28:01
Speaker 1: Except for maybe state that there's something going on we
1:28:06
don't understand and it deserves more study and these students
1:28:09
shouldn't be dismissed.
1:28:11
Speaker 2: Now, is he... I don't know if you even asked this,
1:28:15
but is he communicating with people in a different timeline
1:28:20
or is he communicating with disembodied souls that no longer
1:28:25
live in that timeline but still contain consciousness?
1:28:29
Speaker 1: So my experience of him and several other people who
1:28:33
are non-speakers is that there's really not a lot of
1:28:36
distinct– like it's hard for them to know if someone
1:28:38
is alive or dead. because they're not spending too much
1:28:41
time in the physical– they're not spending too much time.
1:28:45
We spend all this time in the physical and that's
1:28:47
what seems to be real and important to us. But
1:28:50
to them, it's like when I brought up that someone
1:28:53
he mentioned, he said, oh, I was just talking to
1:28:55
the JP who was another non-speaker. And I said, oh,
1:28:59
were you sad when J.P.
1:29:00
Speaker 2: Died?
1:29:01
Speaker 1: And he said, oh, I didn't know he was dead.
1:29:04
Because– Because you.
1:29:05
Speaker 2: Were just talking to him. Because you were just talking
1:29:07
to him.
1:29:08
Speaker 1: And it does seem to be on this timeline because
1:29:12
there's information that they say– well, again, this is their experience.
1:29:16
But their experience is that they get contemporary information. Like J.P.
1:29:21
saw his mother do this and he's happy that she's
1:29:24
doing that and that happened two years after he died.
1:29:27
Speaker 2: So– So JP was relaying information about his mom two
1:29:34
years after he died.
1:29:38
Speaker 1: He gets around.
1:29:43
Speaker 2: God, it's so weird.
1:29:45
Speaker 1: And that was the student's– it's so hard not to
1:29:48
say his name. But that was the student's story about it.
1:29:51
But like as we know from people who study mediumship
1:29:55
like the Windbridge Institute or the Windbridge Research Center and
1:29:57
places like that, that study mediumship. There's this big argument
1:30:01
about their experiences. They're talking to dead people. Are they
1:30:04
actually just tapping into some kind of informational substrate that
1:30:07
underlies everything? Or are those the same thing? Right. Yeah.
1:30:12
Speaker 2: Right. So we're trying to differentiate so we could exist
1:30:15
in this consciousness, in this form, in this reality. And
1:30:19
we think that this is it. This is it. It's
1:30:21
locked down. This is the box. And it's not.
1:30:27
Speaker 1: Apparently, it looks like it's not.
1:30:30
Speaker 2: It seems like it's not to them. So then the
1:30:32
question is, what is it about being non-speaking that allows
1:30:38
them to have access to this?
1:30:40
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:30:41
Speaker 2: Is it, you know, is it like one of those
1:30:44
things where, you know, people that can't see, apparently they
1:30:47
can hear much better? Yeah. You hear about that?
1:30:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, sure, sure. You know, there was this cool
1:30:54
article recently came out in the New York Times about
1:30:57
these singing mice. So Cold Spring Harbor researchers are studying
1:31:03
these mice that sing at a frequency that we can hear,
1:31:05
humans can hear. All mice vocalize at ultrasonic frequencies when
1:31:11
they're close to each other. But when they're far away
1:31:13
from each other, these singing mice will do this singing.
1:31:17
And I guess they call it singing because it sounds
1:31:18
like singing to us. It's really communication, of course. But
1:31:22
they wait. They take turns singing. You know, I'll sing
1:31:26
and then you sing. I'll sing and then you sing.
1:31:28
Just like you would in a conversation. And they looked
1:31:31
at what the difference was between regular laboratory mice who
1:31:34
don't do this and these singing mice. Because they were
1:31:36
thinking these ones have speech and these ones just do
1:31:38
this other thing. And there was very little difference. They
1:31:42
saw like some more fibers. But that's it.
1:31:45
Speaker 2: So when you say singing mice, what do they do? Like,
1:31:49
play this.
1:31:49
Speaker 1: Here we go.
1:31:55
Speaker 2: I don't hear anything. Do you hear it?
1:32:01
Speaker 1: Yeah, you want to hear that chirping?
1:32:02
Speaker 2: You want to hear that chirping? Watch with the audio
1:32:05
wave here.
1:32:06
Speaker 1: It'll pop up here. Look at the spectrogram on the phone.
1:32:09
Speaker 2: It's like it starts right after the four-second mark.
1:32:13
Speaker 1: That.
1:32:16
Speaker 2: God, I barely hear that. I'm going to turn my
1:32:18
thing up. I'll try it again. Oh, my thing's really low. Oh, yeah,
1:32:22
I hear it. Okay. That's a, okay. My, my volume
1:32:28
is really low. So that's singing mice. They just make
1:32:30
a little chirp chirp.
1:32:32
Speaker 1: Yeah. And so the reason I'm bringing that up is
1:32:34
because if we can understand what gives mice the capacity
1:32:38
to have this kind of communication and other, other mice,
1:32:41
the capacity that they don't have it, maybe we can
1:32:43
understand non-speaking autism versus, you know, sort of speaking autism
1:32:47
or people who can are neurotypical, but it turns out
1:32:52
that the difference just as in degree, in other words,
1:32:55
Just a few more fiber tracks. And so that's why
1:33:00
I keep saying I don't think it's about something that's atrophied.
1:33:03
It's like a slight difference allows us to speak. Most
1:33:06
people have that ability to speak. People who don't are,
1:33:09
I think, very much like that. You get to be
1:33:13
in contact with this information that is generally sorted out
1:33:17
if you're using language more actively. Like, I almost think
1:33:22
that babies... Are probably telepathic. I'm wondering if that's how
1:33:27
we learn language. I keep thinking like we have so
1:33:30
few exposures compared to an LLM. We have very few
1:33:33
exposures of like, you know, death whistle. Like how many
1:33:36
times do you hear that before you have to learn it?
1:33:38
If you're a baby, I have to like know that
1:33:42
when you say apple, you're talking about the thing in
1:33:44
your hand and not the 8,000 other things that are
1:33:46
going on. Right. And I don't hear it that many
1:33:48
times before I get that that's what an apple is.
1:33:50
Speaker 2: Can you imagine if you could just go back and
1:33:52
be a baby again before you learned language just to
1:33:57
exist and understand what thinking is like?
1:34:00
Speaker 1: Well, I think– and then you wouldn't be able to
1:34:02
understand it because everything would be like William James said,
1:34:04
like blooming, buzzing confusion. Right.
1:34:06
Speaker 2: But it would probably be– if you could just– I
1:34:09
mean if you could access that memory to a time
1:34:12
where you didn't understand language, but could you even do that?
1:34:16
Speaker 1: I don't know.
1:34:16
Speaker 2: The thing is like the problem is you already understand language.
1:34:19
So how would you even be able to access it?
1:34:21
Speaker 1: It's like those movie fantasies where you go back in
1:34:23
time and you have all the wisdom you have now,
1:34:24
but you get to experience being a kid again. Like
1:34:27
that's the fantasy. That would be amazing.
1:34:29
Speaker 2: That's a coward's dream.
1:34:32
Speaker 1: But isn't it nice sometimes to be a coward?
1:34:35
Speaker 2: No, that's a coward's dream because it's like no one
1:34:37
wants to make the mistakes that they made in high school. Boy,
1:34:39
if I could go back now, I'd be the king
1:34:41
of the school. Yeah. You'd be a cheater. You'd be
1:34:45
playing video games on God mode.
1:34:46
Speaker 1: I mean that's how I made it through trauma as
1:34:50
a kid. That's how I made it through abuse. I
1:34:52
mean like that time travel therapy is a thing.
1:34:56
Speaker 2: So going back and like reliving your life as an
1:34:59
adult who knows better and has information.
1:35:01
Speaker 1: It really helps people.
1:35:03
Speaker 2: Interesting.
1:35:03
Speaker 1: Because you can love yourself from the future.
1:35:06
Speaker 2: I think you're talking about a different thing, right? You're
1:35:08
talking about abuse and getting over abuse. What I'm talking
1:35:11
about is just general sucking at life. Boy, if I
1:35:15
could go back and do it again, I'd be so
1:35:17
much better.
1:35:17
Speaker 1: Oh, I understand. That's different. Now, this isn't going back
1:35:20
and doing it again. This is almost like the opposite.
1:35:22
This is like you're still there back experiencing it, making
1:35:26
the bad choice or abuse or whatever it is. But
1:35:28
then your wiser self who's survived and who gets that
1:35:32
it was a bad choice or who gets that it
1:35:33
was abusive, you go back in time mentally and you
1:35:36
see yourself. So you're still there doing it, but you're
1:35:39
like a second character is introduced in the timeline. You
1:35:43
see yourself and you go, you know what? You're going
1:35:45
to learn from this. Things are going to get better.
1:35:48
You are loved. It's going to be okay. And that
1:35:51
works regardless of whether it's a bad choice or whether
1:35:54
it's abuse. It's like you're doing the best you can
1:35:59
no matter what.
1:35:59
Speaker 2: Right. That seems to make sense. Like you're a human
1:36:05
being that understands language back then. If you go back
1:36:08
to being a baby.
1:36:09
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
1:36:10
Speaker 2: Then you don't know language, but then people would be talking.
1:36:13
So what would you hear?
1:36:14
Speaker 1: I think you'd feel things telepathically.
1:36:18
Speaker 2: You would probably feel their intention or feel where they're
1:36:20
coming from.
1:36:21
Speaker 1: You'd feel their vibes. It's like, you know, like, you
1:36:23
know how babies and even dogs will like, someone will
1:36:26
give off vibes and they'll just be like, nope. Yeah.
1:36:28
You know?
1:36:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
1:36:30
Speaker 1: I think it's like that.
1:36:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, dogs are really good at that. Some dogs, not
1:36:33
my dog. I have a golden retriever. Everybody's the best.
1:36:36
Speaker 1: Oh, everyone's awesome.
1:36:37
Speaker 2: He thinks everybody's amazing.
1:36:38
Speaker 1: Oh, no wonder you can have like a general in
1:36:40
your brain. You have a golden retriever who will love
1:36:41
you forever.
1:36:42
Speaker 2: Oh, he's the best. Everybody's his best friend. Like if
1:36:45
he was in the room, he would just go from you,
1:36:48
get pet by you, go over to Jamie, get pet
1:36:50
by Jamie, come over to me. He would just make
1:36:52
the rounds.
1:36:52
Speaker 1: You should bring him.
1:36:54
Speaker 2: I do sometimes. He's on the floor. He's the carpet. Oh.
1:36:57
See right there? That's Marshall.
1:36:59
Speaker 1: Oh, he's wonderful. Golden Retrievers are the best emotional support animals.
1:37:03
Speaker 2: Oh, they're so sweet.
1:37:04
Speaker 1: They just love people.
1:37:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, they love everybody. I have a little dog, too,
1:37:08
a little King Charles Cavalier Spaniel.
1:37:11
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:37:11
Speaker 2: And all he does is, like, attack Marshall, like, bite
1:37:15
his face. And Marshall's so tolerant. He just lays there.
1:37:18
This dog's licking his ear, licking his eyeballs, licking his face,
1:37:21
and just kissing him and biting him. And he just
1:37:25
never gets upset, never growls, never says, get off me,
1:37:28
just deals with it.
1:37:30
Speaker 1: I love that.
1:37:31
Speaker 2: He's the sweetest.
1:37:32
Speaker 1: Yeah. I want a dog.
1:37:33
Speaker 2: They're the best.
1:37:34
Speaker 1: I know.
1:37:34
Speaker 2: I love them. I had a weird dream about my
1:37:37
little dog. My little dog was so little that I
1:37:39
could hold him in my hand. He's not that little.
1:37:42
He's pretty little. He's like that big. But he was
1:37:44
so little that I could hold him in my hand
1:37:46
and he was running into traffic. And so I had
1:37:47
to run into traffic and risk dying to grab this
1:37:51
dog and pick him up and hold on to him
1:37:54
and somehow not get hit by a car.
1:37:56
Speaker 1: Oh, wow.
1:37:57
Speaker 2: It was a very strange dream.
1:37:58
Speaker 1: Was this recent? Yeah.
1:38:00
Speaker 2: But he didn't even look like him. He looked like
1:38:02
a chihuahua. But I knew it was Charlie.
1:38:05
Speaker 1: Isn't that funny how in dreams you just know it's someone,
1:38:08
even it could be someone else?
1:38:09
Speaker 2: Yeah, I knew it was Charlie, but it didn't look
1:38:10
like Charlie because he was so tiny. He was like
1:38:12
a mouse. Like literally I was holding him in my
1:38:14
hand like a little baby mouse.
1:38:16
Speaker 1: You know, that reminds me of that dream quality of–
1:38:21
of someone being someone, like having the essence of them,
1:38:24
but not looking like them, reminds me also of something
1:38:27
I've noticed in the non-speakers where they're not very good
1:38:29
at labeling animals. Like, like, like camels and kangaroos might
1:38:34
be the same. It's like, it's like the physical form.
1:38:39
Speaker 2: It's not what's important.
1:38:40
Speaker 1: It's just not what's important. It's like the feeling. Yeah.
1:38:43
On the inside. To me, it's like proof of a
1:38:46
soul or something. I don't, I really think we ought
1:38:47
to start studying, Souls, scientifically. Because if we can show that...
1:38:53
I didn't think we were going to talk about this, but... Wow,
1:38:57
I'm sure that happens a lot. But if we could
1:39:01
start understanding what a soul is.
1:39:04
Speaker 2: Right. How would you quantify it?
1:39:05
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know. Right. I mean, I think.
1:39:07
Speaker 2: Maybe it's one of those things you just can't.
1:39:10
Speaker 1: Maybe.
1:39:11
Speaker 2: You can't study.
1:39:12
Speaker 1: But if you understand... I guess I'm always coming back
1:39:14
to the informational substrate because that's like my favorite concept.
1:39:17
But if you understand... That underneath, if this is true,
1:39:22
I sort of think this is true, that underneath all
1:39:24
of what we call physical reality, so space, time, matter, energy,
1:39:29
is this informational substrate that it's almost like has all
1:39:32
the information from the beginning of the universe to the
1:39:35
end of the universe, like all of it, including like
1:39:37
what you're thinking, feeling, et cetera, at this moment or
1:39:39
other moments. And if you could, I guess... insert information
1:39:49
into it and read information from it, then I think
1:39:57
maybe that means you have a soul. Maybe that's what
1:40:02
a soul is, is that which inserts information into that
1:40:06
informational substrate. So you change things in the world and
1:40:09
read things from it. You perceive things in the world.
1:40:13
And maybe if you can do both of those things,
1:40:15
it means that's what a soul is.
1:40:18
Speaker 2: What makes you think that there's an informational substrate that
1:40:21
contains all the information from the beginning of time to
1:40:24
the end of time?
1:40:25
Speaker 1: Yes, that's a very good question. It's just a feeling
1:40:30
I have.
1:40:33
Speaker 2: I'm not saying you're wrong.
1:40:34
Speaker 1: I'm not saying I'm wrong either, but I'm not saying
1:40:37
I'm right. It's aesthetically pleasing to me to– okay. It
1:40:43
does seem like people, whether they're– or people who are
1:40:47
particularly gifted at remote viewing or whatever, can go to
1:40:50
different times in space time or different places in space,
1:40:53
different times in time, and get information that seems like
1:40:59
in this physical world you shouldn't be able to get, right?
1:41:03
I mean, that's what I've been studying, and I've shown
1:41:05
that that's the case at a rate greater than chance,
1:41:09
especially if people are in a place of self-transcendence or
1:41:12
feeling love. And so— That suggests that there's this sort
1:41:19
of link about what we call God or love or
1:41:23
universal love or this ineffable force. I don't know what
1:41:28
to call it. Universal love, I'll call it. It suggests
1:41:31
that there's a link between sort of what happens in
1:41:34
the universe and what we experience and what we do
1:41:37
and what we intend and this universal love force. So
1:41:41
I want to As a scientist, I'm like, how do
1:41:43
you make a physics of love? So I want to
1:41:47
think about it as something that I can think of
1:41:50
as what I could do physics or math on. And
1:41:53
the way that comes out is like this informational soup
1:41:57
or something that has all that information there. And then
1:42:01
it is– we play with it throughout our lives.
1:42:06
Speaker 2: But how would it have all the information from now
1:42:09
to the end?
1:42:10
Speaker 1: Because time doesn't work. in this linear way that we're
1:42:13
used to experiencing, right? Like that's what precognition is showing us.
1:42:18
If you can get information about future events at a
1:42:20
rate above chance, and I can do that and other
1:42:22
people can do that. And, and actually most people can
1:42:26
do that according to the statistics and they're just not
1:42:29
conscious of it. If your physiology is changing, then that
1:42:32
means that sort of information can leak backwards from the future. Right.
1:42:38
Speaker 2: But can it leak backwards an infinite amount of time?
1:42:41
Like could it link backwards all the way to the
1:42:43
end of the universe where it dies of heat death?
1:42:45
Speaker 1: And so Jamie is bringing up this.
1:42:48
Speaker 2: Oh, the Akashic Records here. Right. I was going to
1:42:49
bring that up.
1:42:50
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:42:50
Speaker 2: It's a modern esoteric term. The idea of a cosmic
1:42:53
library that stores every event, thought, feeling, and intention that
1:42:58
has ever occurred often said to be accessible through psychic
1:43:00
or mystical means. That has ever occurred. But what about
1:43:04
forever in time in the future, the potential future?
1:43:07
Speaker 4: Yeah.
1:43:08
Speaker 2: So in theosophy and anthroposophy, what is that word?
1:43:16
Speaker 1: Anthroposophy.
1:43:17
Speaker 2: What is that word? What does it mean? Yeah, what
1:43:19
does that mean?
1:43:19
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't get what anthroposophy is. There's
1:43:21
all these anthroposophists and they're related to the Waldorf people,
1:43:25
but I don't totally understand it.
1:43:26
Speaker 2: It's perplexity. Our AI sponsor trying to flex. Oh, okay, cool.
1:43:30
That's what it's doing. It's flexing on us, showing us
1:43:32
how smart it is. They're described as non-physical compendium of
1:43:36
all universal events, thoughts, words, emotions and intents spanning past,
1:43:40
present and potential future. So potential future meaning forever. So
1:43:45
the idea that we're somehow or another when these people
1:43:49
are able to sense something that's going to happen or
1:43:53
know about an image that's going to be displayed, that
1:43:57
this small leap in the future of a few seconds
1:44:01
or a minute or whatever it is, It's also accessible forever.
1:44:06
It's like there's no distance.
1:44:10
Speaker 1: If you just think about time as a landscape, imagine
1:44:15
time as a landscape. There's a mountain, there's a waterfall,
1:44:17
there's a tree. And we're used to just walking in
1:44:22
single file in one direction in the landscape. But if
1:44:26
you fly a plane above, you could say, oh, I
1:44:28
see on the other side of the mountain, there's this waterfall.
1:44:31
And so flying the plane above is like, doing any
1:44:34
of these mystical practices like with the Akashic Records or
1:44:37
doing remote viewing or accessing that information, accessing the landscape
1:44:42
in a different way, not through this linear sort of
1:44:46
physical dimension or reality or whatever you want to call it,
1:44:49
but through some other– maybe you go to a different dimension.
1:44:52
I don't know how to think about it mathematically. Maybe
1:44:54
you go to a different dimension.
1:44:55
Speaker 2: The thing about memory and consciousness and just the idea
1:44:58
of future and time at all, everything– Is made out
1:45:02
of matter, right? We are made out of atoms.
1:45:06
Speaker 1: Ideas aren't made out of matter.
1:45:08
Speaker 2: No, but I'm going to get to that. So the
1:45:10
idea is that if we are made out of atoms, well,
1:45:14
that means subatomic particles exist inside of us. Subatomic particles
1:45:19
are made out of magic. Like what they do is
1:45:23
they exist in superposition. They're moving and they're still at
1:45:25
the same time. They– They can be quantumly connected to
1:45:30
other particles that are nowhere near. So why wouldn't we
1:45:34
think consciousness that exists supposedly at least if not exists
1:45:38
is tuned in by our own minds. It's somehow or
1:45:42
another that's probably connected in some weird spooky action in
1:45:47
a distance way.
1:45:48
Speaker 1: Well, it's not even weird. As you said, it's exactly
1:45:52
what we're made of.
1:45:53
Speaker 2: Right.
1:45:53
Speaker 1: So we call it weird because– We're trapped in.
1:45:56
Speaker 2: This– Monkey mind.
1:45:58
Speaker 1: We're trapped in this like linear– Yeah. Oh, it works
1:46:00
like this. Oh, the ball will always go in this direction.
1:46:03
We're trapped in that but we are made of quantum
1:46:06
particles as you said, quantum wave particles. And even by
1:46:10
the way, at the larger level than the subatomic particles,
1:46:14
you have chemicals in our body that are actually– You know,
1:46:17
in quantum coherence or superposition. Yeah. And so– and in
1:46:22
birds and in leaves. I mean that's how photosynthesis works.
1:46:24
So don't get me started on quantum computing because I
1:46:29
get a little pissed off about this because– OK. I
1:46:34
know we were talking about consciousness.
1:46:36
Speaker 2: Should I– Yeah. Go ahead.
1:46:37
Speaker 1: All right. I'll just go on my little train. My
1:46:41
heartbeat is going wild.
1:46:42
Speaker 2: Is it?
1:46:43
Speaker 1: Yeah, because this is really– Something that is really important
1:46:47
to me for some reason that I don't understand.
1:46:49
Speaker 2: Quantum computing is?
1:46:51
Speaker 1: Our mistake. Our current mistake with quantum computing.
1:46:54
Speaker 2: Okay.
1:46:55
Speaker 1: What I believe to be the current mistake.
1:46:56
Speaker 2: Okay.
1:46:57
Speaker 1: Misunderstanding. So a leaf is using essentially quantum computing to
1:47:05
do photosynthesis. in a way that we can't replicate right now.
1:47:12
I mean, at room temperature, above room temperature, if it's
1:47:14
out in the sun, right? It's keeping these chemicals in superposition.
1:47:22
It is able to trap energy from photons better than
1:47:29
anything that we have. It's doing quantum computing without a
1:47:36
lot of expense whatsoever. So when we go and we
1:47:41
decide that we want to be the first in quantum
1:47:43
computing and we're going to invest all this money in
1:47:46
like super cooling systems and very difficult to understand error
1:47:50
correction methods and all these things, working on trapping single
1:47:53
particles at the subatomic level. And that's how we're going
1:47:57
to have to do it to make it, to force
1:47:59
it into these patterns. Like, come on, we're doing something wrong.
1:48:03
Like a leaf can do it outside in the sun
1:48:06
and does it all the time. We're doing something wrong.
1:48:11
So I started thinking that way like 12 years ago
1:48:17
and got really passionate about it. photons and how photons
1:48:22
are kind of like this– almost like a link. This
1:48:25
is another thing that I'm going to say. You're going
1:48:27
to be like, why do you think this? But regardless,
1:48:29
it came into my mind that photons are kind of
1:48:31
like a link between mind and matter. Like they're not
1:48:35
really– Like you said, they're made of magic. They're not
1:48:38
really matter. They don't have any mass. And they're actually–
1:48:44
they're bosonic particles. So there's two types of particles. One
1:48:48
is a fermionic named after Enrico Fermi. And those are
1:48:51
things we're used to like protons, neutrons, electrons. And then
1:48:57
there's bosonic particles, which are things that generally– I think
1:49:02
none of them have any mass. And they're very different things.
1:49:06
Like the Higgs boson is one. Photons is another example.
1:49:09
Photons are another example. I think there's a version of
1:49:11
helium that's also bosonic. But what makes it bosonic is
1:49:15
it could be in the same place at the same
1:49:18
time as another bosonic particle and then another one and
1:49:22
another one and another one. So like they kind of
1:49:24
don't exist in physical reality. It's like we have this
1:49:27
idea that two electrons can't be in the same place
1:49:29
at the same time and they can't. But these can.
1:49:33
And so– It's almost like they're interacting in another dimension
1:49:37
that's less physical. And it seems just interesting to me
1:49:44
that we think a lot about what a photon would feel.
1:49:49
And I just keep thinking that there's some connection between
1:49:53
what we call mind and what we call brain that
1:49:55
has to do with photons. So anyway, I got obsessed
1:49:59
with photons and I started thinking about... The double slit experiment.
1:50:05
Does your audience know what that is?
1:50:07
Speaker 2: Probably, but a refresher would probably be good for everybody.
1:50:09
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. So when I first told my husband about
1:50:13
the double slit experiment, he's an artist. He's like, double slit.
1:50:21
I'm like, that never occurred to me because I'm like, oh,
1:50:24
I'm ready to explain it to him. And he's like,
1:50:25
couldn't get off that. But anyway, it was- Peeves and buttheads. Yeah.
1:50:30
You said double slit. So imagine there's like a flashlight
1:50:36
at one end of a tube. And then there's like
1:50:39
a photon detector at the other end of the tube.
1:50:42
And in between the flashlight and the photon detector are
1:50:44
two slits. And they could be in cardboard or metal
1:50:47
or whatever. So there's two slits here. And they're very skinny.
1:50:50
And the reason I say they're skinny is because they're
1:50:52
so skinny that if you turn down the light enough,
1:50:56
only one photon is going to get through. And it's
1:50:58
going to have to choose between this slit or that slit.
1:51:01
And the weird thing is if you do this over time,
1:51:05
you'll see the pattern at the photon detector at the
1:51:07
other end of the tube. It will look like an
1:51:10
interference pattern. What does that mean? Oh, look at you.
1:51:13
Speaker 2: Yeah, here it is. Yeah. So the electron beam gun
1:51:16
electrons goes through the double slit and at the end
1:51:19
of it, you get this very bizarre pattern.
1:51:22
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this pattern– and so I was talking about photons.
1:51:25
But yeah, you can do it with electrons. You can
1:51:26
do it with larger particles. And that doesn't matter. But
1:51:33
if you hear that one double slit up there is
1:51:38
really good. That's a good one. Yes. So there's two
1:51:43
pieces of it that are weird. The first bullet up
1:51:46
there that you can't see on the screen but is
1:51:47
going to say that when you send a single particle
1:51:51
one at a time, it has to choose between the slits,
1:51:55
but it still seems to interfere with itself in space.
1:51:58
It's like it goes through both slits. One particle... goes
1:52:02
in two places at once. It's called non-local in space.
1:52:06
It's non-local. In other words, it's not behaving like we're
1:52:09
used to. It's not behaving like a billiard ball. One
1:52:13
thing is going through two slits. So I kept looking
1:52:15
at this and saying, well, it might be non-local in space,
1:52:21
but it could be non-local in time. And by that
1:52:25
I mean that if you put an electron or a
1:52:27
photon in there, it could be interfering from the future,
1:52:32
like with another electron or another photon that happens in
1:52:35
the future. And there's actually an experiment you can do
1:52:38
to test that. And I wanted to do the experiment.
1:52:42
So first of all, did you understand what I just said? Okay.
1:52:47
So the way you could test that is, look, if
1:52:52
the photon that's going to, if the photon, I'm just,
1:52:56
now I'm going to pretend I'm a photon. I don't
1:52:57
really like thinking of photons traveling because I don't think
1:53:00
they really travel But anyway, I'm going to pretend I'm
1:53:02
a photon. I just got shot out of this flashlight
1:53:05
or this light bulb. I'm traveling towards a slit and
1:53:10
I interfere with another photon that wasn't just shot out
1:53:14
of the light bulb. It's going to be shot out
1:53:15
of the light bulb in the future, but it's just
1:53:16
sort of hanging out there because it's floating around in time.
1:53:20
Speaker 2: Is the actual light able to do one photon at
1:53:23
a time?
1:53:24
Speaker 1: Yeah, if you turn it down enough, it is.
1:53:26
Speaker 2: How could you measure whether it's one photon?
1:53:28
Speaker 1: You calculate– you can just calculate the expected amount of
1:53:32
light that should come through with the detector.
1:53:35
Speaker 2: And is that accurate down to a single photon?
1:53:38
Speaker 1: Yeah. You can calculate based on the speed of light
1:53:41
and the emission and where the detector is.
1:53:44
Speaker 2: Okay.
1:53:45
Speaker 1: How much– yeah. So you can turn it down to
1:53:48
that level. And– I think this experiment's like almost, I
1:53:54
think it's 100 years old. So they were able to
1:53:58
do that way back then. And so imagine this photon
1:54:02
gets shot out of this flashlight. It interferes with another
1:54:05
photon just like it from the future. Just imagine that's possible.
1:54:10
If that's true, then in experiments where you have a
1:54:14
lot of photons available to interact from the future, like
1:54:17
in other words, the light is on for a long time. Mm-hmm.
1:54:20
The interference pattern should show a different sort of pattern
1:54:25
than if you don't have very many photons in the future,
1:54:29
so the light's not going to be on a long time.
1:54:31
So the experiment I wanted to do and that I
1:54:33
did was, look, just randomly determine how long this experiment's
1:54:38
going to last. How long are you going to leave
1:54:39
this light on into the future? And then look at
1:54:43
the very first period of time. Like, look at the
1:54:45
first 30 seconds, right? And after 30 seconds, you randomly choose,
1:54:49
are you going to turn this light off or are
1:54:51
you going to leave it on for another two minutes?
1:54:53
In the first 30 seconds, can you determine what the
1:54:56
choice is going to be based on the pattern? If
1:54:58
you can, that means this thing is interfering in time.
1:55:01
And it turns out you could. So I ended up
1:55:06
replicating that and replicating that and replicating that. And then
1:55:09
a friend at UC Berkeley who teaches the advanced physics
1:55:13
lab there said, I want to set up my own equipment.
1:55:17
do the exact same experiment. I'm going to run it
1:55:19
over a year and I'm going to see if I
1:55:21
get the same result. So he sent me his data.
1:55:23
He walked away. I analyzed the data and I figured
1:55:28
out the equation that relates the amount of future time
1:55:33
after the decision to the detection pattern before the decision.
1:55:41
And so That's the kind of result that I think
1:55:44
is going to actually shift quantum computing because you're working
1:55:48
at room temperature with groups of photons rather than trying
1:55:51
to trap them. And you're treating them more like a
1:55:55
giant unit, this unit in time, rather than this unit
1:55:59
in space. And so actually– can I name drop my
1:56:03
new company? Yeah.
1:56:04
Speaker 2: What was the results of his data?
1:56:06
Speaker 1: Oh, that the same result happened? Yeah.
1:56:10
Speaker 2: So it really was that somehow or another the photons
1:56:13
were able to predict the future.
1:56:14
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, if you think of a box. Okay, so
1:56:18
think of a really deep well. Let's think of a
1:56:21
well with water in the bottom. You cannot see. You
1:56:24
can't look over the edge. It's so deep you don't
1:56:26
know how deep it is. So you might drop something
1:56:29
in it. And then you listen for the ding. And
1:56:32
you can have a sense of how deep it is.
1:56:34
It's a little like this. You can't know in depth.
1:56:38
sort of with our eyes, how long that experiment's going
1:56:43
to last. But you're getting a little reverberation from the
1:56:46
future in the photons. It's like they're telling on themselves. Like,
1:56:50
we've got a lot of future photons to interfere with,
1:56:52
so we're going to behave in this way. Or we
1:56:55
don't have so many future photons to interfere with. We're
1:56:57
going to behave in this other way.
1:56:58
Speaker 2: One of the things that people are very familiar about
1:57:00
that know about the double-slit experiment is the idea of
1:57:03
the observer and how the observer changes reality. Yeah. What
1:57:10
do you think is going on there?
1:57:13
Speaker 1: The word change is super telling because when you think of,
1:57:16
when you were asking about timelines before, so, uh, uh,
1:57:23
can you pull, can you pull up like a picture
1:57:25
of timelines and, and, and retro, like a picture of
1:57:29
retro causality. Can you look at retro causality and put
1:57:32
up a picture? I want to say something about the
1:57:34
word change because we have this idea of It was
1:57:39
supposed to be like this, whatever it is. It was
1:57:41
supposed to be like, that's kind of a complicated one.
1:57:46
Oh gosh, there's all these complicated ones. There's, look, that
1:57:54
path diagram. No, that's, why are they all so complicated?
1:58:03
Let's do this, no.
1:58:05
Speaker 2: Well, what is it about them that's so complicated?
1:58:07
Speaker 1: Well, because people don't really know how it works and
1:58:10
so they make all these different pictures of it. Okay,
1:58:12
I'm just– let's ignore that. I'm just going to make
1:58:14
a picture.
1:58:14
Speaker 2: Okay, okay.
1:58:15
Speaker 1: Imagine a figure eight. So we normally think of things
1:58:18
just going like this. Figure eight goes, oh, I go
1:58:21
back like that. I get the information here and I
1:58:24
bring it back. Exactly. And so it's more like time
1:58:27
is doing that. Our events are doing that, right? So
1:58:31
I guess, what was your original question though? I got
1:58:34
obsessed with pictures of timelines, change.
1:58:37
Speaker 2: Observer.
1:58:37
Speaker 1: Yeah. So the thing about changing something is if it
1:58:43
was all, if it was, I like to use the
1:58:45
word influence because if it was already always going to happen,
1:58:51
you didn't change anything. It's not like you're on a
1:58:53
different timeline. It's that the future influenced the past. Right.
1:58:59
Speaker 2: But the observer influences reality in the results of the tests.
1:59:05
So if you do an experiment.
1:59:07
Speaker 1: Yeah. So let me explain that effect. So with the
1:59:10
double slit experiment, the result is if you– that indicates this.
1:59:15
If you put a little detector by one of the
1:59:18
slits because you say I'm going to trap one of
1:59:19
those– I'm going to trap a photon or electron. I'm
1:59:22
going to figure out which slit it's going through. So
1:59:25
you put a detector at one of the two slits.
1:59:27
If you get a bing, it means it went through that.
1:59:29
If you don't get a bing, it went through the
1:59:30
other one, right? What happens is the actual outcome now
1:59:35
looks different. You don't get the same interference pattern. You
1:59:38
get a single slit interference pattern. As if it didn't,
1:59:42
it wasn't non-local in space or time. It didn't interfere
1:59:45
with itself and it just kind of like went through
1:59:47
like a billiard ball.
1:59:48
Speaker 2: Right.
1:59:49
Speaker 1: And so... That's where the observer effect comes in. There's
1:59:53
this idea that you have observed– you've tried to trap
1:59:56
the photon during its flight. So that's the other reason
2:00:00
why I think that mind and photons are related is
2:00:04
because there's something about the knowledge. I almost, again, think
2:00:09
of it informationally. But it's like you just gained knowledge
2:00:12
about this system as our knowledge mechanisms of our mind.
2:00:17
You've just gained knowledge. And it has now changed. It's
2:00:20
almost like the photons are part of mind. So, of course,
2:00:24
mind is affecting mind.
2:00:26
Speaker 2: And so mind observing the photon changes the path of
2:00:30
the photon.
2:00:31
Speaker 1: It changes mind.
2:00:32
Speaker 2: It changes the behavior of the photon. It changes what
2:00:35
we see as a result.
2:00:37
Speaker 1: It's like... Like affects like. So if photons are like
2:00:41
mind and mind interacts with mind, now both minds are different.
2:00:44
You have gained this knowledge. The photon has gone into
2:00:47
this different place.
2:00:52
Speaker 2: It's– the problem with it, it's so weird and so
2:00:56
weird to think of that and observing something changes it,
2:01:01
that it makes people start to consider, OK, like if
2:01:05
that's the case– How much of observing the known universe
2:01:12
is a part of it existing? All of it.
2:01:16
Speaker 1: It's like this figure eight. That's the thing is that
2:01:19
that's just a great example, it seems to me, of
2:01:22
mind observing mind. Your mind and my mind will never
2:01:25
be the same after observing each other, just like with
2:01:27
every other person we meet, right? We're constantly changing. I
2:01:31
like influencing. We're constantly influencing each other.
2:01:34
Speaker 2: Right.
2:01:35
Speaker 1: And It is like this figure eight thing, carrying it back.
2:01:40
So I don't think there's any difference. It's just that
2:01:44
photons behave more like our minds, so they're showing it
2:01:48
to us. But electrons and anything that's doing the quantum thing.
2:01:53
Speaker 2: And so why do you think that we have a
2:01:57
bad understanding of quantum computing?
2:02:00
Speaker 1: Oh, I mean, no, I shouldn't.
2:02:01
Speaker 2: This is how we started this.
2:02:02
Speaker 1: Yeah, not that we have a bad understanding of quantum.
2:02:05
We have a great understanding of what we are currently
2:02:07
considering quantum computing.
2:02:09
Speaker 2: Or maybe this is the way people are talking about it.
2:02:12
Speaker 1: No, it's the approach. It's this approach of we're going
2:02:16
to trap a single particle slash wave. We're going to
2:02:22
trap a single photon. We're going to trap a single ion.
2:02:25
We're going to have it. behave in ways repeatedly according
2:02:30
to these commands, these gates, these gating functions that they do.
2:02:37
We understand that. The problem is it seems to me
2:02:40
it's forcing something that shouldn't behave that way, that doesn't
2:02:44
naturally behave that way, to behave that way. It's like
2:02:46
we're trying to imitate classical computers with quantum computers, and
2:02:52
we're not taking into account these group classical level properties
2:02:56
that clearly... A leaf uses when it's doing photosynthesis. It
2:03:01
has to. It's not building a super cooling system and
2:03:04
trapping ions. It's functioning in this really wet physiological environment
2:03:12
and it's doing just fine with quantum computation. So it's
2:03:16
more like the approach needs to become more naturalistic and
2:03:21
I think it needs to take into account these non-local,
2:03:24
temporarily non-local phenomenon like the one I discovered.
2:03:27
Speaker 2: Well, aren't they considering that at least partially, at least
2:03:30
it's being discussed, that this many worlds interpretation of the
2:03:34
results of quantum computing, that something's happening that you can't
2:03:38
account for in the known universe. Something's happening with the
2:03:42
scale of the equations that it's able to solve in
2:03:45
the time span in which it's able to solve. It's
2:03:48
not possible that the same sort of process is going
2:03:52
on that would occur if it was happening right here
2:03:55
and right now, that it seems that it's gathering the
2:03:57
computing power.
2:03:59
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's great. That's the whole point of quantum computing
2:04:02
is to capture that. And yes, it could be multiple universes.
2:04:05
It could also be retrocausality. And some people don't like
2:04:09
the retrocausality answer. I think that's actually more likely.
2:04:11
Speaker 2: So the retrocausality thing would be that all time is
2:04:14
happening in this figure-eight loop, and then somehow or another
2:04:17
this quantum computer is able to tap into that And
2:04:20
have this infinite access to all potential future and past information.
2:04:26
Speaker 1: Right. And then I just think it's easier to do
2:04:29
quantum computing if you take into account– excuse me. If
2:04:35
you take into account this retrocausality piece and these group
2:04:40
properties of particles at room temperature that can tell us
2:04:46
about the future.
2:04:47
Speaker 2: So the idea that this– Does that include a many
2:04:53
worlds interpretation of the universe? Is that also there? Is
2:04:58
it possible that not only do you get the time
2:05:02
of all time available instantaneously because it is a part
2:05:07
of a loop and somehow or another a quantum computer
2:05:10
is able to tap into that, but not just this
2:05:13
timeline and this loop in this universe, but multiple universes,
2:05:19
infinite in fact. that all of their time is also available.
2:05:24
Speaker 1: You know, maybe. The thing is— sorry, I'm just going to
2:05:27
have to drink more water.
2:05:28
Speaker 2: No, that's okay. There's water there in the glass, too,
2:05:30
if you want some. There's coffee.
2:05:33
Speaker 1: I get so excited about this stuff. The thing is— Good.
2:05:35
Speaker 2: Great.
2:05:36
Speaker 1: The thing is you don't need both. And so it
2:05:40
could be both. I was just thinking this morning about
2:05:43
how it could be both. It could be both. You
2:05:46
could have these loops with the information retrocausally bringing it back.
2:05:51
And you could have multiple universes of those loops.
2:05:53
Speaker 2: Infinite loops.
2:05:54
Speaker 1: But it's kind of like saying, like you know how
2:05:58
physicists really like to simplify things? It's kind of like
2:06:02
saying we could do whatever we want. We could paint
2:06:05
a picture of a fairy who also does something, you know,
2:06:08
and then there's a gnome over here that does something.
2:06:10
But if you don't need those things, you throw them out, right?
2:06:15
And so it's like usually either people talk about Multiple
2:06:19
universes or retrocausality but not both because they're solving the
2:06:22
same problem.
2:06:25
Speaker 2: But it is possible that even with our little monkey
2:06:29
minds trying to understand retrocausality that we're not taking into
2:06:33
account the possibility that retrocausality might exist in infinite timelines.
2:06:38
Speaker 1: Yep. Certainly. Certainly the universe works in ways that we
2:06:43
don't understand.
2:06:44
Speaker 2: And the deeper we look, the more confused we get.
2:06:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, and also you find yourself looking right into mind.
2:06:50
I really do think there's something to the more you
2:06:54
look into physics, the more you look into mind. I
2:06:57
mean all the physicists from– did you ever read that book,
2:07:00
How the Hippies Saved Physics?
2:07:02
Speaker 2: No. Sweet.
2:07:04
Speaker 1: Yeah. Sweet, good book about like the 70s and Esalen
2:07:07
and physicists.
2:07:08
Speaker 2: Oh, OK.
2:07:09
Speaker 1: Realizing like– That's the real hippies.
2:07:11
Speaker 2: That's where the ass was flowing.
2:07:13
Speaker 1: Yeah. They're all tripping. And they had this experience of
2:07:16
like if we really understood quantum mechanics, we would just
2:07:19
get it that it's mind looking into mind.
2:07:24
Speaker 2: How do you think that aligns with this whole extraterrestrial thing?
2:07:30
Speaker 1: You're pointing at my book. Yeah. Yeah. So this cover,
2:07:33
my husband did the art.
2:07:34
Speaker 2: Have a nice disclosure.
2:07:36
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's like a little quirky like alien face engaging.
2:07:41
It took him five minutes. I love it. Yeah, so
2:07:47
this book is not about aliens. And some people get disappointed.
2:07:50
It has an alien on the cover because people think
2:07:52
of Disclosure with aliens right now. But it's really about
2:07:58
what you know... what we can find out by going
2:08:01
into our inner space. Like what we can find out
2:08:05
by tapping into our own wisdom and our own experience
2:08:08
and not waiting for some authority figure to say, hey,
2:08:11
this is what's true. And now we will reveal the
2:08:14
great secrets. Because honestly, when that happens, which could be
2:08:18
literally tomorrow.
2:08:19
Speaker 2: It might be today.
2:08:21
Speaker 1: It might be today with the release of the files.
2:08:23
Speaker 2: I don't know what they're going to tell us.
2:08:24
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think there's going to be a lot of
2:08:26
redacted stuff and flood the zone with shit. Yeah. But
2:08:31
when that happens, it's not going to matter. Because when
2:08:34
someone tells you something and they say it's true, it
2:08:37
doesn't matter until you experience it. It doesn't matter until
2:08:42
it matters to you. Right.
2:08:45
Speaker 2: Yes, that's a good point.
2:08:46
Speaker 1: And so I think that disclosure, if you want to
2:08:49
have a nice disclosure, it's really about learning what matters
2:08:53
to you and disclosing all your own weird shit to yourself.
2:08:59
You know, all the weird thoughts like you're talking about
2:09:01
that guy in your head. All those weird thoughts that
2:09:04
we have and the weird experiences we've had in our
2:09:06
lifetimes that we sort of bury. Like the thing about
2:09:10
the ball lightning. I still forget that and I've talked
2:09:14
about it several times. We sort of say, well, that's
2:09:18
not normal. That's not usual. Maybe it didn't happen somehow,
2:09:21
but it did. Or people who have experience seeing UAP
2:09:26
or UFOs or people who are psionic assets or people
2:09:31
like me who have psychic experiences all the time. And
2:09:35
how I suppressed it so that I could go and
2:09:38
get my PhD and then it came up as a
2:09:40
flower later. I think that the movement has to switch
2:09:45
like we need a Copernican revolution where we're not looking
2:09:48
for some authority figure to tell us what's true.
2:09:53
Speaker 2: I would agree with that. But I also think it
2:09:56
really helps if someone who knows more than you, who's honest,
2:10:00
can tell you what's true. What I was kind of
2:10:03
getting into– I agree with that. But what I was
2:10:05
kind of getting into is this idea of retrocausality. If
2:10:08
all timeline exists in the future, these things that people
2:10:11
keep experiencing– Which if you just extrapolated from what we
2:10:15
understand about evolution from ancient hominids to current human beings
2:10:20
to what do you think we're going to look like? Well,
2:10:23
that's what I think we're going to look like.
2:10:25
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:10:25
Speaker 2: Very frail things that don't need muscles. Big heads. Very
2:10:29
big heads.
2:10:29
Speaker 1: Kind of like weird arms.
2:10:30
Speaker 2: And communicate telepathically.
2:10:32
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:10:32
Speaker 2: And they don't have any gender. It seems like that's
2:10:35
the direction that the human species is moving in. So
2:10:40
if you thought of this whole idea– Of time going
2:10:43
in this figure eight loop, then you would consider, oh,
2:10:46
is that us?
2:10:47
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, so that hypothesis is one of the many hypotheses,
2:10:52
but I think that's a really good one, at least
2:10:55
for the grays. Yeah. At least for what people describe
2:10:59
as the grays. I think people have described other kind
2:11:02
of beings or creatures. And there's this guy, Michael Masters,
2:11:08
who studies that.
2:11:09
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've had him on.
2:11:10
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And so we– if someone– the thing is, okay,
2:11:15
so what if someone says that's the truth? It's still
2:11:19
like– it's the same problem I have when I tell
2:11:23
people like, look, all of us can basically get information
2:11:26
from the future and so can photons. Like it doesn't
2:11:30
matter until it matters. It doesn't matter until you make something.
2:11:33
It doesn't– and that's– it doesn't matter until you make something.
2:11:38
Like you show that something works. that uses this principle,
2:11:42
then people believe it. It's like general relativity. Lots of
2:11:46
people don't know what it is, but we have GPS.
2:11:49
So we kind of have to say that's real. But
2:11:52
someone saying something and making something with it are two
2:11:56
different things. And so I'm very impressed with what people
2:12:01
like Anna Brady Estevez, who used to be at the
2:12:03
National Science Foundation, is doing. She made this company called,
2:12:07
I guess I don't know much about money companies. It's
2:12:10
like a Fund, some kind of fund, investment fund called
2:12:15
American Deep Tech. And she's like, I'm going to reverse
2:12:18
engineer UFOs because that's making something from these principles.
2:12:26
Speaker 2: Well, there's a lot of people that believe that's already
2:12:27
being done.
2:12:28
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, but she wants to do it in the
2:12:30
private sector outside of, you know, the big.
2:12:34
Speaker 2: How is she attempting to reverse engineer?
2:12:37
Speaker 1: Well, she's, she's not, she's building a fund that's trying
2:12:39
to invest in different companies that are using these kinds
2:12:42
of principles like alternative propulsion or, you know, informational time
2:12:45
travel or these kinds of principles, space time metric. And
2:12:49
so she's one of many people who recognize that we
2:12:54
have to get sort of out of the top five
2:12:57
contracting companies who are holding all the knowledge about this stuff. Um,
2:13:02
We have to build things and just go forward. I know.
2:13:10
What are you thinking?
2:13:11
Speaker 2: Well, I mean if this retrocausality idea about aliens in
2:13:16
the future does exist, one of the weirder things is
2:13:19
the back engineering part because part of the back engineering,
2:13:24
there's– do you know Diana Pasolka is?
2:13:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
2:13:28
Speaker 2: Yeah. So her work is very interesting.
2:13:30
Speaker 1: You've had her on the show.
2:13:31
Speaker 2: Yes. Very interesting.
2:13:32
Speaker 1: And I love her new book, too.
2:13:34
Speaker 2: Yeah. Her books are great. One of the things that
2:13:37
she talked about, though, was that the idea that these
2:13:38
things are donations.
2:13:40
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. Jacques Vallée talks about that. Yes.
2:13:43
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:13:43
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:13:43
Speaker 2: And so does Gary Nolan.
2:13:46
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:13:46
Speaker 2: So it's this weird– the people that have examined the
2:13:49
physical characteristics of them, they're very strange.
2:13:51
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:13:52
Speaker 2: Like when they've gotten these little samples.
2:13:54
Speaker 1: Little bits, like weird metals that we don't have. Yeah.
2:13:57
Speaker 2: Atomically layered. Yeah. Somehow or another printed in these very–
2:14:02
strange alloys that would cost billions of dollars to make.
2:14:05
And they found this crash in 1976. Like it doesn't
2:14:08
make any sense.
2:14:09
Speaker 1: They seem like little, to me, they seem like little
2:14:11
acupuncture points, like in the history of humanity, like little,
2:14:16
just little acupuncture, like, Oh, let's put a needle there.
2:14:18
Maybe they could have an iPhone. Maybe they could figure
2:14:22
out how to care cancer. You know, maybe they could
2:14:25
figure out how to do faster than light travel. So
2:14:27
it does feel like, yeah, a little acupuncture and it
2:14:31
can be done with, with, with artifacts, like people find.
2:14:34
And I'm, you know, reading Diana Posalka's book, American Cosmic.
2:14:39
She talks about finding these artifacts and how she's like
2:14:41
not even sure she believes in them. And I totally
2:14:43
get it. I think I would feel the same way.
2:14:45
But then there's this other side to it that's not artifactual.
2:14:50
It's about consciousness. It's about some kind of mystical awareness.
2:14:56
You can also do acupuncture that way, right? You can
2:14:59
put into someone's mind, like I'm not sure how I
2:15:02
had the idea as a cognitive neuroscientist to do this
2:15:04
experiment with photons. I think you can put into someone's
2:15:08
mind information that will be helpful to the future. And
2:15:14
I think that happens to people all over, inventors all over.
2:15:17
Speaker 2: That's the muse.
2:15:18
Speaker 1: Yeah. And the muse could come from the future, right?
2:15:22
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:15:23
Speaker 1: Eric Wargo talks about that.
2:15:25
Speaker 2: I've thought about that with ideas that, It's almost like
2:15:28
ideas are a life form and this is the thought
2:15:30
that I had. Like if you think about everything that
2:15:33
exists today that human beings have created, all that stuff
2:15:37
came from an idea. Like the idea then manifests itself
2:15:40
in physical form and we want to take credit for it.
2:15:43
We want to say, oh, I made that steam engine
2:15:46
and you did. Right. But how the fuck did you
2:15:48
do that? Like where did the idea come from? Because
2:15:50
ideas– Anybody that's really honest about their ideas will tell
2:15:54
you like, boy, I don't even know if that's my idea.
2:15:56
It just came out of the ether. Every great thought
2:16:00
that I've ever had, every great joke that I've ever written,
2:16:02
all that stuff just came out of space, came out
2:16:05
of some weird place. And I've always thought of that like,
2:16:09
what if ideas are a different type of life form?
2:16:12
And it's a life form that manifests itself through us
2:16:16
in physical space. And that's Marshall McLuhan's thought in a
2:16:21
book from 1960s. He said, human beings are the sex
2:16:25
organs of the machine world. Isn't that amazing?
2:16:28
Speaker 1: That's amazing.
2:16:29
Speaker 2: Isn't that an amazing quote?
2:16:31
Speaker 1: It came into my head. So I love that idea.
2:16:33
I always thought of science as like a living being,
2:16:36
like it has its desire. And if you don't do
2:16:39
the experiment, someone else is going to.
2:16:40
Speaker 2: Do the experiment. Right, and it possesses you.
2:16:41
Speaker 1: And songwriters talk about that too. If you don't write
2:16:43
the song, someone else is going to write the song.
2:16:46
And the image I had in my head because I
2:16:48
think in images was of– do you remember those Play-Doh
2:16:52
heads that would have holes in them and you would
2:16:54
turn the crank and the Play-Doh would come up?
2:16:56
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
2:16:57
Speaker 1: Shave and haircut.
2:16:57
Speaker 2: Give them haircuts.
2:16:58
Speaker 1: That's right, yeah. That's what came into my head. Like
2:17:01
it's just coming out of whatever hole is in blocked
2:17:03
and it just has its own momentum. And then like
2:17:06
what if one of those little holes said, oh, look
2:17:08
what I did. I grew this hair. And it's like, well, okay.
2:17:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, right? I know. That's what it's like. I mean
2:17:15
most people that I've talked to that are singers– Songwriters,
2:17:20
authors in particular, they'll tell you that these ideas just
2:17:23
sort of come out of nowhere and you just got
2:17:25
to be there to receive them. Pressfield wrote a great
2:17:27
book about it called The War of Art. Steven Pressfield?
2:17:30
Speaker 1: No, I don't know.
2:17:31
Speaker 2: He wrote The Legend of Bagger Vance and he's a
2:17:33
screenwriter and just a brilliant guy. But his book, The
2:17:37
War of Art, is really like a masterpiece because I
2:17:39
have a stack of them and I give them to comedians.
2:17:42
I just read this because it talks about the muse.
2:17:44
And it talks about like treating it as if it's
2:17:47
like a real deity that you are summoning. And you
2:17:51
do the work. You show up every day. You like
2:17:54
have this intention to do this. And if you do that,
2:17:57
it will be real. And it is like these are
2:18:02
things that come from somewhere else into your head.
2:18:05
Speaker 1: Especially in comedy because you have to be in the moment.
2:18:08
You're not thinking– I mean– even if you write your
2:18:10
whole show ahead of time.
2:18:11
Speaker 3: Right?
2:18:12
Speaker 1: Mike Birbiglia talks about this on Working It Out, right?
2:18:14
Even if you write your whole show ahead of time,
2:18:16
if you're not in the moment, the timing is going
2:18:18
to be off.
2:18:19
Speaker 2: Not only that, it's not just the timing's off, the
2:18:21
audience knows. You could say things exactly correctly with the
2:18:25
right timing, but they're animals. They smell it. If you're
2:18:29
thinking about your laundry or something else, they know. They
2:18:33
know if you're really thinking about a thing. It's hypnosis.
2:18:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, or it's like telepathy. I.
2:18:40
When I was– this morning, I'm like, oh, God, I
2:18:42
just have to take a nap because I'm thinking too
2:18:44
much about what I'm going to say on Joe Rogan's show.
2:18:47
And that's just the worst when you're thinking about what
2:18:49
you're going to say. Yeah. Because then if you say it,
2:18:52
everyone could just tell you.
2:18:53
Speaker 2: Well, you're thinking about a result.
2:18:54
Speaker 1: It's like you're reading a line.
2:18:55
Speaker 2: You're thinking about a result instead of thinking about the process.
2:18:58
Speaker 1: Yeah. Or you're just not in the process. Right, right, right. Yeah, yeah.
2:19:03
Which is so funny because we're sitting here talking about
2:19:05
retrocausality and these figure eight things and the multiple worlds.
2:19:07
And then we're talking about how important it is to
2:19:09
be in the now, which kind of like doesn't exist
2:19:11
physically but sure exists psychologically. Like it's all that exists.
2:19:15
Speaker 2: And we were also talking before about ego. And I
2:19:17
think that's a part of the problem with the way
2:19:18
people can create or not create is that you've got
2:19:21
to learn how to get out of your own way.
2:19:23
And everybody talks about that. Writers always talk about that.
2:19:26
Like you have to just get out of your own way.
2:19:28
And that's really what's going on with this wrestling match
2:19:32
with the mind.
2:19:33
Speaker 1: Yes.
2:19:34
Speaker 2: It's like we're trying to like just be clear. And
2:19:38
I think that's where probably some of this nonverbal, these
2:19:42
non-speaking people, that's where they have this advantage.
2:19:45
Speaker 1: Yes.
2:19:46
Speaker 2: They don't have the same perception of themselves the way
2:19:49
we do, I bet.
2:19:50
Speaker 1: Not at all. No.
2:19:53
Speaker 2: So they're free in that regard. They don't have that
2:19:56
monkey on their back, so to speak.
2:19:57
Speaker 1: Well, but then they have another monkey on their back,
2:19:59
which is they live in this culture in which people
2:20:01
think they're idiots because we read each other's bodies and
2:20:04
we say there's something wrong with the way you're moving
2:20:06
your body. You can't talk. You're making these sounds. And
2:20:09
so you're free in your mind, but you're not free
2:20:12
in your body.
2:20:12
Speaker 2: And we're giving off negativity. Oh, what's wrong with this guy?
2:20:14
Speaker 1: And then they feel that. And they hear it.
2:20:16
Speaker 2: Right, right, right.
2:20:16
Speaker 1: And so when we were filming for Kai's documentary, we
2:20:21
all got together with– The sound people and the camera
2:20:24
people before our first non-speaker came in for their trial.
2:20:28
And we said, you know, they're telepathic. So we're going
2:20:32
to do a little prayer right now that we can
2:20:33
all be in a proper positive state when they come in.
2:20:36
And our first student came in and said it was
2:20:38
really great walking through the hall and feeling that good.
2:20:43
And not like we told them we did that, but
2:20:45
it was just validation that that was there. And the
2:20:49
getting out of your own way, like, God, I think
2:20:51
that's less of a problem for these students.
2:20:53
Speaker 2: Is that a part of the book?
2:20:54
Speaker 1: Well, the reason I'm looking, I guess, at the book
2:20:56
is that the first two chapters popped out of me.
2:21:00
I didn't know I was writing a book until I
2:21:01
was on the second chapter.
2:21:02
Speaker 2: Which thing you were writing?
2:21:04
Speaker 1: I'm like, I'm writing words on a page with this
2:21:06
weird story about a guy who hears the walls start
2:21:09
talking and he's like, what's going on? And And it's
2:21:13
in the second person. Like I'm saying, you, this is
2:21:15
happening to you. And like, why am I, I've never
2:21:17
written like that before. And the second chapter, I'm like,
2:21:20
I think I'm writing a book and I don't know
2:21:22
what this is about. And by the third chapter, I'm
2:21:25
finally like, what the fuck? I mean, what is going on?
2:21:28
And so it was a discovery process. So the whole
2:21:30
first half of the book is this discovery process of like,
2:21:33
what am I trying to communicate? And I had to
2:21:37
get everything out of the way in terms of all
2:21:39
like the scholarly stuff. Like, well, I better not say that. Nope.
2:21:42
Didn't get to, nope. Just had to say the things
2:21:44
that were coming up. Had to do it all just
2:21:46
exactly as it was. Like I was writing a song,
2:21:49
you know? And then what it kind of did was
2:21:52
work on me. Like, like it had its own process,
2:21:55
but I didn't think it was going to have, like,
2:21:57
I thought it would work on other people. I don't
2:21:59
know what I thought. I just had to write the words.
2:22:01
And then I just, I guess in the back of
2:22:03
my mind, I'm like, it's going to make people feel
2:22:06
their own inner space in a way that's going to
2:22:08
be unique to them. And then it turns out I
2:22:12
ended up feeling my own inner space in a way
2:22:14
that was unique to me. And then I had to
2:22:15
write about that. So I ended up talking about this
2:22:20
gifted and talented program I was in and all the
2:22:23
receipts I had from that and what the heck was
2:22:25
going on with that. It's funny to me how sometimes
2:22:28
I'll swear. Sometimes I'll say, heck.
2:22:30
Speaker 2: I don't know why.
2:22:31
Speaker 1: I was like, why? Sometimes I'll say, what the fuck?
2:22:33
And sometimes I'll be like... gosh darn it I don't know.
2:22:38
Speaker 2: What the difference is oh I think about that all
2:22:39
the time.
2:22:40
Speaker 1: Yeah but anyway it's a weird weird book but what
2:22:45
it did was open up for a lot of people
2:22:49
who were in these weird gifted and talented programs opened
2:22:53
up a lot of memories and I ended up starting
2:22:56
a support group for people who had these experiences and
2:22:59
kind of don't know what to do with them and
2:23:02
still feel the surveillance and the sort of the feeling
2:23:07
of being studied throughout your whole life and not knowing
2:23:10
if your, your gifts are your own or if they
2:23:12
were taught to you in some kind of way that
2:23:14
you've forgotten. And so anyway, I don't know why I
2:23:17
brought that up. I guess about the, I guess about
2:23:19
the getting out of your own way thing. I had
2:23:21
to write all that down. It's the best book I've
2:23:22
ever written. I've written other books. They're good, but this
2:23:26
one is everything I wanted to say, nothing I didn't
2:23:28
want to say. And I got it all out there. Um,
2:23:32
And I have a security clearance and I was afraid
2:23:35
that it would get taken away from me if I
2:23:38
said all these things.
2:23:39
Speaker 2: Because you talked about remote viewing?
2:23:41
Speaker 1: No, because I talked about the intelligence community potentially being
2:23:45
involved in … Gifted programs? Yeah.
2:23:49
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, of course they are. I would imagine they are.
2:23:51
I would imagine … I would imagine they were trying
2:23:53
to get talent in any way they can, especially if
2:23:55
they actually invested time and energy and we know they
2:23:57
have in remote viewing and things along those lines.
2:24:00
Speaker 1: Yeah. But the problem is … They were doing these–
2:24:02
I mean, of course, I'm impressed with and know many
2:24:07
good people in the intelligence community. And at the time
2:24:12
that they were doing these programs and giving students these
2:24:15
weird drinks and doing some kind of mechanism to remove
2:24:19
memory of certain things, they were not asking for parental consent. So, yes,
2:24:25
looking for talent, understood. Yes, yes. Trying to look for
2:24:28
a psychic– I mean the intelligence community has always been
2:24:31
interested in psychic capacities. Not asking for parental consent, bad.
2:24:36
Speaker 2: And so they were giving you guys drinks? Do you
2:24:39
know what was in it? No.
2:24:41
Speaker 1: I remember a pink drink that was chalky. It's the
2:24:44
same kind of drink everyone talks about.
2:24:47
Speaker 2: And then what was the effect of that pink drink?
2:24:49
Speaker 1: I don't know. So here's the– there's two memory lapses
2:24:53
that are very consistent. One was in seventh grade when
2:24:56
I was explicitly told I was in a gifted program
2:24:58
rather than my earlier years when I just had these
2:25:01
pullouts and things. So in seventh grade, I'm in what's
2:25:04
called the SOAR program. This was in like 80, 81.
2:25:08
This is before GATE, Gifted and Talented Education. I think
2:25:11
it's just a predecessor to GATE. And I was pulled
2:25:17
out every week, I think, about every week to go
2:25:19
see a counselor. But the counselor was really two people.
2:25:25
And a man and a woman, maybe it was sometimes
2:25:29
just her, but I think it was both of them.
2:25:31
And they would see me in the small rooms. But
2:25:33
all I remember is walking. I remember walking down the
2:25:36
hallway to the room, dreading that, opening the door. I
2:25:41
know which door it was. I can picture it. Shutting
2:25:44
the door. There's stuff over the window. And then I
2:25:49
black out like every time. And I don't mean like
2:25:52
I'm 57 years old and I don't remember what happened
2:25:54
in the seventh grade. What I mean is when I
2:25:57
would then leave, I remember going back to class and
2:26:01
not remembering what happened in the room.
2:26:02
Speaker 2: Wow.
2:26:04
Speaker 1: So there's some kind of– and this is not– I
2:26:07
mean this is not different from what many other people
2:26:11
will report in that program. So some amnesia. Either– Either
2:26:16
the drink was the amnesiac or the drink is something
2:26:18
else and they did hypnosis to make us forget or whatever.
2:26:21
The other time was when I was adult. I was adult-ish.
2:26:27
I was 20-ish. And I took some time off of
2:26:31
college to go hang out in Palo Alto because I
2:26:35
had a boyfriend out there. I previously had a boyfriend
2:26:38
out there and I was kind of into the Stanford world.
2:26:41
I wasn't at Stanford, but I was just into hanging
2:26:44
out there. And I needed a job. And so it
2:26:50
was the time when word processing was like you could
2:26:52
get paid to be a word processor. And I understood
2:26:57
computers and I was like, I'll be a word processor.
2:27:00
So I either saw an ad in the newspaper at
2:27:04
Lockheed Martin or my dad told me, I know someone
2:27:07
you should talk to at Lockheed Martin for a job.
2:27:09
I end up at Lockheed Martin for an interview in
2:27:12
the morning. They hire me on the spot. Then I
2:27:17
remember sitting and talking to the guy during the interview.
2:27:19
I could see the parking lot behind him. I see
2:27:22
the desk. Behind me, I'm vaguely sensing in memory some
2:27:27
kind of weird equipment, but again, no memory of that.
2:27:31
Then I remember the end of the day. When I'm
2:27:34
typing on a computer, my hands are shaking and I'm crying.
2:27:40
And I don't remember what happened between the morning and
2:27:43
the night in that moment.
2:27:44
Speaker 2: I don't remember.
2:27:46
Speaker 1: And I feel like I'm typing up a resignation letter,
2:27:51
but in my memory, it could have just been the
2:27:54
thing I was typing up, like word processing. But I
2:27:56
hand it to the boss and I go, I can't
2:27:59
work here. And he said, oh, I thought you would
2:28:02
have a great future at Lockheed Martin. I'm like, why
2:28:04
would you say that to a 20-year-old who you know
2:28:05
is going back to college in like three months? What
2:28:08
a weird thing to say to a word processor who
2:28:12
you just hired on that day. And then I left.
2:28:18
So I don't know what to say about those instances.
2:28:22
My memory is usually pretty photographic and my auditory memory
2:28:25
is excellent.
2:28:27
Speaker 2: So do you think that the people at Lockheed Martin
2:28:30
somehow or another had record of you being a part
2:28:33
of this other program?
2:28:34
Speaker 1: I figure.
2:28:34
Speaker 2: And that's one of the reasons why they hired you?
2:28:36
Speaker 1: I figure. Or my dad knew that. And maybe the
2:28:43
memory of him telling me was a real memory. I mean,
2:28:46
so he was working for Department of Energy when I
2:28:48
was a kid. And I recently had a support group
2:28:51
meeting like two days ago with the folks who were
2:28:53
in these programs. And... Someone asked the question, who here
2:28:57
had parents who worked for either the public school system
2:29:00
or federal government? And everyone raised their hand. And then
2:29:03
I said, who here didn't? Like, let's just make sure.
2:29:06
And no one didn't. And so. Yeah.
2:29:11
Speaker 2: So the federal government is mining people's children. It seems
2:29:15
exceptional so that they can use them for whatever they're
2:29:18
trying to accomplish.
2:29:19
Speaker 1: Well, or their contractors. And maybe it's like. Excuse me.
2:29:27
I get burpy when I talk about stuff that's hard. Um,
2:29:32
you know, maybe like I've wanted, I've wanted to work
2:29:35
for the federal government and I, and I got a
2:29:37
job offer and everything went through the security clearance process
2:29:39
and then doge happened. But, but I was recruited four
2:29:44
days after I filed a FOIA to try to get
2:29:46
information about that program. And then a couple of days later,
2:29:51
no more burpy, a couple of days later, um, after
2:29:57
I passed the first interview, um, I got a note
2:30:01
from the FOIA people saying, are you sure you want
2:30:03
us to continue this FOIA request? Four days later. I mean,
2:30:07
that's not, that's fast for FOIA. Like FOIA is not
2:30:10
super rapid. And then I said, no, I guess maybe
2:30:13
not because I was thinking maybe the, um, people who
2:30:17
were going to hire me maybe didn't want me to
2:30:18
have an outstanding FOIA request. So I said, maybe not.
2:30:20
And then three minutes later I got a call from
2:30:23
the recruiter saying, um, Okay, you've passed to the next level.
2:30:27
Speaker 2: Oh, wow.
2:30:29
Speaker 1: Yeah. So I think that there's– now, so I don't
2:30:33
mean to sound– so the thing that I think was wrong, unethical,
2:30:37
was not giving students things to ingest and doing experiments
2:30:43
that remove their memory without consent of parents and the students, right?
2:30:47
Speaker 2: And this is universal amongst all the other students. They
2:30:50
all said that they lost memory.
2:30:52
Speaker 1: Not universal. Nothing is universal. Some actually remember horrible abuse
2:30:56
that I can't repeat here. But many of them don't
2:31:01
have amnesiac periods.
2:31:02
Speaker 2: And was the same with all of them? Was it
2:31:07
a similar result that they were trying to achieve? Was
2:31:09
it some sort of exceptional powers that these children had
2:31:13
or exceptional ability, exceptional cognitive ability? Like what was it?
2:31:18
Speaker 1: It looks like they were looking for exceptional cognitive ability
2:31:21
and leadership ability, creative ability, and psychic ability. But no,
2:31:28
so that's, so, I mean, I just want to say like,
2:31:31
that's not nefarious to want those things.
2:31:33
Speaker 2: But it is from children.
2:31:35
Speaker 1: Right. And so this is the thing that is just like, okay.
2:31:37
Speaker 2: You're just taking children and making, doing experiments on them.
2:31:40
It's like, you're fucking weirding them out. They're supposed to
2:31:43
be playing with their friends and having fun and living
2:31:45
a normal life. You've all of a sudden changed all
2:31:48
of that by introducing them to scientific experiments and making
2:31:51
them drink fucking Pepto-Bismol or whatever they're giving you.
2:31:54
Speaker 1: Some amnesia.
2:31:54
Speaker 2: Whatever pink.
2:31:56
Speaker 1: Or some radioactive thing. I don't know. So I had
2:31:58
this dream.
2:31:59
Speaker 2: Radioactive. X-Men type shit.
2:32:01
Speaker 1: Sorry. Well, right. And so the reason I bring that
2:32:04
up is I had this. So I know already that
2:32:07
I'm gifted at dreaming telepathically and precognitively, right? And so
2:32:12
I know that's true. And then I have this dream.
2:32:17
After I moved to Washington, D.C., and I'm starting to
2:32:19
think about working for the federal government, I have this dream.
2:32:23
I don't have a job yet or even a job offer,
2:32:25
but this car is following me in the dream. It's
2:32:28
a red convertible, and there's a guy in the convertible,
2:32:31
and it has a little FBI badge on it, on
2:32:33
the car. And I'm like, why are you following me?
2:32:35
So I just speed up, and he keeps following me.
2:32:37
He says, hey, we like how spunky you are, but
2:32:40
call the office. And I go, call the office? I
2:32:43
don't have a job. And he goes, call the office.
2:32:47
He's very adamant. And so I'm pissed and I crawl
2:32:51
up on the hood of the car and I look
2:32:53
at him, you know, as he's driving, as one does
2:32:55
in one's dream. I'm very aggressive. And I said, give
2:33:00
me the phone number. So he gives me the phone
2:33:03
number and I immediately wake up. I write it down.
2:33:06
It's the only time it's ever happened to me in
2:33:07
a dream that a phone number actually corresponds to a
2:33:09
phone number of a government agency. So I look it up.
2:33:11
It corresponds to a government agency that monitors radiation exposure.
2:33:16
And the first document I find online is this document
2:33:20
about these tests of radiation exposure in humans that started
2:33:25
in the 70s. And they're like, look, we can't do
2:33:28
these tests on animals. We have to do them on humans.
2:33:31
It didn't say like let's give people radiation or it
2:33:35
didn't say let's give people things that soak up radiation
2:33:37
and help heal them. It didn't say either of those things.
2:33:39
It just said we have to do this on humans.
2:33:41
It was from the Nuclear Defense Agency. And so that
2:33:46
made me start asking questions about whether this has to
2:33:49
do with trying to understand the effect of radioactivity. And
2:33:53
so I looked into a bunch of history, and I
2:33:57
found out that my mom grew up really poor. Both
2:34:01
her parents worked at a uranium mining facility in Denver. And,
2:34:06
of course, her mother was a secretary, but her father
2:34:09
was a miner. And he would come home with, you know,
2:34:12
uranium dust on his boots. And so there's, there's intergenerational exposure, right?
2:34:20
So if you're, if you're a parent, if your mother,
2:34:22
especially because, you know, the eggs are, she was like
2:34:25
seven or so, but the, if the eggs are in you,
2:34:27
your whole life as a woman, right? And so if
2:34:29
they get mutated, I could see now, oh, I would
2:34:33
potentially be studied and my sister as well. So then
2:34:38
I started looking at all these places where these programs developed.
2:34:41
The very first SOAR program was in the 70s and
2:34:47
started in Aiken, South Carolina. I found a bunch of
2:34:50
newspaper articles about it. SOAR at the time stood for,
2:34:53
get this, Students on Active Research. Like, let's just call
2:34:59
it what it is. Out loud, publicly.
2:35:02
Speaker 2: That's crazy. Yeah.
2:35:03
Speaker 1: So by the time it got to me up in Illinois,
2:35:06
it was called Scholarly Opportunities in the Academic Realm.
2:35:11
Speaker 2: Active research is too creepy for people. Oh, yeah. What, baby? Yeah.
2:35:14
Speaker 1: But anyway, Aiken, South Carolina is right next to the
2:35:18
Savannah River nuclear facility that processed plutonium. And then there
2:35:24
were a bunch of people who were in the SOAR
2:35:25
program in Nevada, which is obviously a nuclear test site.
2:35:29
And then I talked to a friend who– who knows
2:35:32
a bunch of special forces guys, but he grew up
2:35:35
in a place where they had these weird radioactivity, like
2:35:39
actual containers, like in their school, like storage bins in
2:35:43
their school, which is just weird. And he was in
2:35:46
one of these programs and his friend was in one
2:35:47
of these programs. And so I think there might be
2:35:50
something related to that. And I don't know how all
2:35:52
this stuff ties in, but the story I'm, again, this
2:35:56
is just speculation and based on The receipts that I
2:35:59
found and putting things together could all be wrong and
2:36:02
some of the– my good friends in the intelligence community
2:36:04
think it's pretty nuts. But regardless, I would want to
2:36:09
understand the effects of radiation on the human mind. Maybe
2:36:13
it could make positive things happen like the X-ray.
2:36:16
Speaker 2: At low level.
2:36:16
Speaker 1: At low levels.
2:36:17
Speaker 2: Right.
2:36:18
Speaker 1: Right? I mean I'm– as a cognitive neuroscientist, I get it.
2:36:22
But you just have to ask for consent. You have
2:36:24
to talk about the risks. You have to be clear
2:36:26
about it. And you don't– it's clear that there's a
2:36:29
file that kind of follows you, right, when you're in
2:36:31
these programs.
2:36:32
Speaker 2: Well, it's also very clear that if you look at
2:36:34
the history of MKUltra, their whole motive operandi was just
2:36:38
do everything you want to do. Don't ask for permission.
2:36:41
Speaker 1: Well, yeah.
2:36:41
Speaker 2: Just do it to people. Operation Midnight Climax, all those
2:36:44
crazy things that they were doing.
2:36:45
Speaker 1: But they shut it down. They were doing it to
2:36:47
a lot of intelligence community officers. They said, OK, don't
2:36:49
do that anymore. So let's do it to prisoners. Okay,
2:36:52
don't do that anymore. Let's do it to children. Who's
2:36:55
going to– it's the 70s. Who's going to say anything?
2:36:58
Speaker 2: I bet foster kids.
2:36:59
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, and people like me whose families were breaking
2:37:02
up and also you're in the public school and your
2:37:06
parents are trying to hold their shit together. So they
2:37:10
don't know what's going on. So, yeah, it's unethical, probably illegal.
2:37:18
And I understand that it may be for good reasons.
2:37:20
I mean, I think all those things are true. And
2:37:23
I think it's interesting that if you talk to kids
2:37:25
who went to the gifted programs in the D.C. area
2:37:29
in that same generation— they say none of this stuff
2:37:32
happened to them, which is a red flag. It's like
2:37:36
you wouldn't want to do it to the executives that
2:37:38
are living in the D.C. area, right? The executives in
2:37:41
the intelligence community and in those contractors. So you wouldn't
2:37:45
want to do it to those kids because those are
2:37:47
the kids of the executives.
2:37:48
Speaker 2: Right. Ew.
2:37:51
Speaker 1: I know.
2:37:51
Speaker 2: Ew.
2:37:53
Speaker 1: I know.
2:37:54
Speaker 2: But, I mean, isn't that always the case? Like, that's
2:37:57
also why those are the ones that don't get drafted? Yeah.
2:38:00
Speaker 1: No, it's the privilege, yeah. Yeah.
2:38:02
Speaker 2: It's creepy.
2:38:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know. It can go down a really bad
2:38:05
rabbit hole, but that's what made me want to, all
2:38:09
this kind of, Difficulty in my early childhood brought some
2:38:15
clarity and also, I guess, probably my psychic abilities or
2:38:19
my precognitive abilities as an adult has brought some clarity
2:38:24
around what really matters and what we can do to improve.
2:38:28
make the world a better place and how we can
2:38:31
heal all that. Because every single person in that equation
2:38:35
was doing the best they could, even if they were
2:38:37
making shitty choices. You know, like someone, I can imagine
2:38:42
the counselor who knows what's going on, whatever they're doing
2:38:44
to me in that room, I can imagine she, you know,
2:38:47
felt like, okay, I have to do this for the country.
2:38:50
Speaker 2: To get results, to find out.
2:38:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, we need to do this for the country and
2:38:53
we need to do this for humanity. You know? And so...
2:38:57
there's a lot of forgiveness. Like every once in a while,
2:39:00
I'll just send love back in time.
2:39:02
Speaker 2: Well, that's a very balanced view. Now I understand why
2:39:05
what you were talking about, like your youthful experience that
2:39:09
you would want to live it over again so you
2:39:11
could forgive people and get over the trauma of it.
2:39:14
Now I understand.
2:39:15
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's why I'm wearing the shirt because
2:39:18
I started.
2:39:18
Speaker 2: Applied Love Labs.
2:39:20
Speaker 1: Yeah. I started that nonprofit in 2019. And what we
2:39:24
do is we apply love, weaving it through time. In
2:39:29
like technology and events and curricula. So I would love
2:39:33
to show off one of our coolest things. Can you
2:39:36
go to timemachine.love? We built a time machine. Whoa. So
2:39:43
we actually use this with some native tribes and with
2:39:48
some– there it is.
2:39:49
Speaker 2: Enter your time machine.
2:39:51
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:39:51
Speaker 2: So what is this?
2:39:52
Speaker 1: So this is– it's like a journaling, an audio journaling app.
2:39:58
that essentially prompts you to give messages to yourself. And
2:40:02
it says it's going into your time machine. And then
2:40:04
later it comes out and you hear yourself and it
2:40:06
has a, in the future, it has a bizarre impact
2:40:10
because what happens is we're not used to hearing, we're
2:40:14
used to getting little messages from ourselves.
2:40:16
Speaker 2: Like written, but not your actual self talking to yourself.
2:40:19
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it changes people. And it seems to be
2:40:22
a real favorite of veterans. And, uh, People who have
2:40:27
experienced addiction and abuse and any kind of situation where
2:40:30
they could say, like, I'm going to be here tomorrow
2:40:32
and these are the choices I'd like to make. And
2:40:35
I'd like to love myself and I'd like to feel
2:40:38
love for other people. So we've used it at the
2:40:41
Cook County Jail with a group of people there who
2:40:45
really found it powerful and with a couple of Native tribes.
2:40:50
who would like to change it a little bit and
2:40:52
make it fit their culture a little better. But still,
2:40:57
it looks like unconditional love itself, like from the math,
2:41:01
if you look at the statistics of the results of
2:41:02
this experiment we did, it looks like unconditional love itself
2:41:06
caused a huge shift along with someone's time perspective in
2:41:12
which they started to include more, like started to love
2:41:15
themselves over time more. Like it's like a big bubble
2:41:17
that extends over time.
2:41:19
Speaker 2: That makes sense.
2:41:20
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
2:41:22
Speaker 2: Makes sense.
2:41:22
Speaker 1: It totally makes sense. And it's how I handled– I
2:41:26
sort of wanted to make that up because that's how
2:41:29
I handled my childhood abuse.
2:41:32
Speaker 2: Can I get your book again?
2:41:33
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah.
2:41:33
Speaker 2: I feel like we just scratched the surface here. We've
2:41:35
already killed three.
2:41:36
Speaker 1: Hours, but I feel like– It's been three hours?
2:41:38
Speaker 2: No. Close to it, yeah. I feel like you and
2:41:41
I could do a bunch of these. So let's do
2:41:44
another one.
2:41:44
Speaker 1: I would love that.
2:41:45
Speaker 2: Let's definitely– because I feel like we didn't even talk
2:41:47
about remote viewings.
2:41:48
Speaker 1: Oh, let's just do a whole show on that because
2:41:50
I was a teacher of it and then I'm an
2:41:52
experimenter and then I have a team.
2:41:54
Speaker 2: Next time you come in, for sure.
2:41:55
Speaker 1: Okay.
2:41:55
Speaker 2: We'll do that.
2:41:56
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:41:56
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. This was a lot of fun.
2:41:58
I really enjoyed it.
2:41:59
Speaker 1: Joe, excellent.
2:42:00
Speaker 2: And the book is called Have a Nice Disclosure, Julian Mossbridge, PhD,
2:42:04
right there. Go get it. Thank you. Did you do
2:42:06
an audio book?
2:42:07
Speaker 1: I did.
2:42:08
Speaker 2: Did you read it?
2:42:08
Speaker 1: I gave you a free copy. It's me. Yes. I
2:42:11
don't like audiobooks where it's not the person.
2:42:13
Speaker 2: I agree.
2:42:13
Speaker 1: It's like so stupid. And the publishing companies will tell you, no,
2:42:17
you have to have this actor do it. And I'm like, no,
2:42:19
because you can hear when you listen if it's that person.
2:42:22
Speaker 2: Exactly.
2:42:23
Speaker 1: Yeah. I agree.
2:42:24
Speaker 2: I'm glad you did it.
2:42:25
Speaker 1: Yeah. All right.
2:42:25
Speaker 2: I'll listen to it. Bye, everybody.
2:42:28
Speaker 1: Bye. Bye.