Cognigenics Chairman Radin Seeks Genetic Push to Unlock Human Telepathy

Cognigenics董事长Radin寻求通过基因手段解锁人类心灵感应 宗教裁判所数百年间对神秘主义者的处决系统性地清除了欧洲人口中的通灵敏感基因，从而催生了利用现代RNA疗法恢复意识能力的需求。 Dean Radin博士详细讲述了自己跨度广泛的职业转型历程，从古典小提琴到电气工程、实验心理学，再到参与“星门计划”（Stargate program）的机密超心理学研究。对话探讨了关于心灵感应、遥视以及弯勺等心物相互作用的科学证据，对占据主导地位的科学唯物主义世界观提出了挑战。Radin阐释了超心理基因（psi-gene）图谱绘制的最新进展，以及其创立的Cognigenics公司为治疗认知能力衰退而开发的鼻内RNA递送系统。此外，对话还探讨了人类历史中的反常现象、量子纠缠，以及针对无法解释的海洋和空中现象的“超地球人”（ultraterrestrial）假说。 Dean Radin发现自己患有吉尔伯特综合征（Gilbert's syndrome），这种肝酶基因突变消除了他体力消耗后的恢复时间，同时提供了强大的心血管保护并有助于长寿。 (0:01) 纯智科学研究所（IONS）由阿波罗14号宇航员Edgar Mitchell在返回地球途中体验到“总观效应”（overview effect）后创立。 (6:31) Radin认为，唯物主义或物理主义这一占主导地位的科学世界观，从根本上无法解释人类的主观体验。 (9:20) 尽管主流科学界抱持怀疑并拒绝审查数据，但150年来积累的大量证据为心灵感应的存在提供了有力证明。 (15:07) Radin加入了机密的星门计划——这是SRI International一项研究遥视的绝密级SCI特别访问项目，他发现顶尖遥视者其实完全是普通人。 (20:21)

Dean Radin argues that anomalous phenomena such as telepathy, remote viewing, and psychokinesis are empirically demonstrable expressions of non-local consciousness rather than scientific impossibilities. Integrating evidence from classified defense research, laboratory statistics, and emerging genetics, Radin contends that mainstream materialism fails to account for how mind directly interfaces with physical reality. Empirical Evidence and Classified Government Research (22:32) Radin highlights a persistent divide between institutional academia and national security agencies regarding parapsychological phenomena. While mainstream critics often refuse to review empirical data on the assumption that psi effects are impossible, intelligence agencies funded classified initiatives like the Stargate program under Top Secret Special Access Program security layers. At SRI International and later through automated Ganzfeld testing at the University of Edinburgh, researchers sought to isolate telepathy and remote viewing under strict experimental controls designed to eliminate sensory leakage and investigator bias. Operational intelligence applications yielded actionable results, including an incident acknowledged by President Jimmy Carter in which a remote viewer accurately mapped the African crash site of a concealed Soviet bomber. In laboratory settings, Radin utilized meta-analyses to aggregate independent trials and deployed neural networks at Princeton's PEAR lab, demonstrating that conscious human intention statistically skews the binary outputs of random number generators according to individual participant signatures. Non-Local Consciousness and Attentional Evolution (47:29) To account for remote viewing and precognition, Radin rejects strict materialism in favor of dual-aspect monism and philosophical idealism, proposing that consciousness exhibits non-local properties analogous to quantum entanglement. In this framework, conscious awareness can access information across spatial and temporal barriers without physical signals. Operatively, remote viewing protocols require participants to bypass analytical interpretations—such as prematurely naming an image—in order to record raw sensory impressions and coordinate data. Radin and Rogan hypothesize that modern humans developed an evolutionary attentional blindness to non-local information as a survival mechanism, prioritizing immediate environmental threats over distant awareness. Historically, this non-local state was relegated to specialized tribal roles, such as shamans supported by their communities. Laboratory presentiment experiments reflect this latent capacity, showing that human skin conductance spikes roughly 1.5 seconds before a random number generator displays an emotionally charged image, indicating unconscious anticipation of future stimuli. Genetic Markers and Mind-Matter Interactions (90:25) Radin’s research extends into physical anomalies and genomic sequencing. In examining psychokinesis, Radin asserts that focused intention can alter the probabilistic atomic structure of materials. He cites personal demonstrations of macro-scale spoon bending, claiming metal undergoes a temporary grain-boundary softening for roughly twenty seconds when approached in a motivated, non-analytical mental state, contrasting this with conventional mechanical force. To identify biological correlates of anomalous experiences, Radin analyzed exome data from 23andMe and Ancestry participants alongside experiential surveys. The investigation identified 212 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with self-reported psychic abilities, including a brain-expressed SNP showing a correlation probability of one in a million. Radin argues that these findings point toward an underlying genetic basis for intuitive capacity, though extensive clinical sequencing remains constrained by research funding. Biotechnological Modulation and Systemic Transparency (113:14) Through a biotechnology venture called Cognenics, Radin is investigating intranasal RNA interference designed to downregulate 5-HT2A brain receptors. Unlike psilocybin, which binds broadly and induces hallucinations, this temporary RNA therapy aims to enhance neuroplasticity and short-term memory without psychedelic effects. The primary objective is mitigating severe cognitive decline, contextualized by a published case study where an advanced Alzheimer's patient achieved temporary conversational fluency and behavioral lucidity following supervised psilocybin administration. Radin notes that human applications remain subject to FDA approvals. The discussion addresses the profound societal ramifications of cognitive and telepathic technologies. While acknowledging spiritual warnings that unintegrated psychic expansion could foster psychological manipulation, Radin suggests that widespread cognitive transparency would neutralize traditional propaganda, institutional deceit, and political sociopathy. To mitigate institutional resistance or suppression, parapsychology researchers emphasize publishing discoveries directly into the public domain. Radin acknowledges that consciousness research lacks a definitive explanatory physics and remains burdened by academic stigma. Commercial applications, including RNA cognitive treatments, remain constrained by pending FDA evaluations and ethical challenges regarding mental privacy and human optimization.

意识研究学者 Dean Radin 认为，人类意识并非局限于大脑内部的机械副产物，而是具备跨越时空的“非定域”连接特性；从冷战时期军方的“星门计划”到受控实验室测试，再到当下的基因关联与神经受体调控，多项跨学科证据正推动对传统物理唯物主义范式的重构。 机密星门计划与实验室中的意识效应 (22:32) Radin 回顾了超心理学从早期唯灵论走向严密受控实验的演变。在持有贝尔实验室正式许可发表预知成果后，他受邀加入美国政府顶级机密的特别访问项目（Top Secret SCI SAP）“星门计划”（Stargate），在 SRI International 与物理学家 Hal Puthoff、Ed May 等人共同以科学手段测定远程透视（Remote Viewing）的有效性及物理屏蔽边界。军方曾借助特异功能者利用地图勘测，在非洲密林中精确定位坠毁的苏联核轰炸机，该案例曾获吉米·卡特（Jimmy Carter）总统公开确认。 在民用与学院研究中，Radin 借助统计元分析和排除研究者偏差的自动化甘兹菲尔德（Ganzfeld）系统来确立数据效度。在普林斯顿大学 PEAR 实验室的随机数发生器试验中，受试者的心理意图显著改变了二进制随机输出的分布概率，呈现出独特的个人交互特征；而在内华达大学的生理预感实验中，受试者的皮肤电反应在电脑随机选取情绪图像前 1.5 秒即出现显著脉冲峰值，显示机体潜意识能够在物理刺激呈现前产生先验感知反应。 物理范式超越：量子纠缠与双面一元论 (47:29) 面对主流学界近年来因预设现象不可能发生而直接拒绝审视数据的阻力，Radin 提出必须突破纯粹唯物主义框架来解释超常认知。他指出意识具有非定域（Non-locality）特征，其运作方式与量子力学中的叠加态和量子纠缠展现出高度相似性：正如微观纠缠粒子能瞬时跨越时空距离互通，非定域意识同样跨越了常规物理维度的阻隔。若无这种深层织入现实结构的非定域关联，心灵感应与远程透视在物理上将无法成立。 从演化生物学角度分析，Radin 认为现代人普遍缺失超感知能力是一种生存适应性选择。远古人类若沉迷于感知远距离时空（“神游冥王星”），极易被身边的捕食者淘汰，因而大脑演化出了聚焦于眼前的“注意盲区”；唯有部落中专职的萨满等极少数个体能被集体供养以保留这种远距信息获取能力。在形而上学层面，Radin 倾向于“双面一元论”（Dual-Aspect Monism）与唯心论（Idealism），主张物质与心灵是同一基底实体的两个面向，物理世界最终完全从深层意识中显现。 遗传关联探索与靶向 RNA 神经调控 (90:25) 为解开超感知体验的生物学机制，Radin 团队分析了数万份外显子测序与主观体验问卷数据，鉴别出 212 个与通灵体验存在统计关联的单核苷酸多态性（SNP），其中某个大脑相关 SNP 的关联概率达到百万分之一，显示此类认知特质可能具备特定基因背景。针对宏观意念致动（如弯勺现象），他推测这并非释放未知的机械能量，而是意图在特定瞬间改变了金属微观晶界的原子概率排布，使其短暂发生软化。 在生物技术应用上，Radin 参与创立的 Cognenics 公司开发了基于 RNA 干扰的鼻腔递送系统。该化合物精确靶向致幻剂所作用的 5-HT2A 受体并予以直接下调，在实验室动物测试中表现出显著的抗焦虑与去攻击性效应，且能避免裸盖菇素引发的剧烈幻觉。这项非永久性基因表达调控技术当前正针对认知衰退与阿尔茨海默病展开转化研究；已有医学文献证实，晚期认知症患者在特定受体受刺激后，曾出现短暂但显著的语言流利度与自理能力恢复。Radin 强调该药剂必须通过严密处方与特制喷雾递送设备管理，以防被健康人群滥用为智力增强剂。 信息透明冲击、意识伦理与同步性共振 (69:42) Radin 探讨了意识机密研究中的制度悖论：整个军事保密机制致力于维护信息垄断，但高精度的远程透视研究在本质上却使任何物理与数字秘密不再可能绝对存在。他推论，若非定域认知技术被广泛证实并应用，传统依靠信息封锁、商业谎言与政治宣传的权力体系将被动摇，反社会欺诈行为将无所遁形；为此，研究团队坚持将全部科学数据公开发表于公共领域以规避人身安全风险。 这种认知能力的技术化也伴随着严峻的伦理隐患。Radin 援引与灵性人士 Sadhguru 的对话指出，心灵感应属于双向通道，不仅涉及信息接收，更涉及思想注入与精神操控的潜在威胁，若使用者缺乏消除自我膨胀（Ego）的道德修养，极易被力量所腐化。最后，Radin 分享了在硅谷 Boundary Institute 期间经历的“四重同步性”奇遇：一墙之隔的独立研究员不仅通过梦瑜伽（Yoga Nidra）精准意念搜索并指名找到了他，还在隔壁建成了与 Radin 白板设计分毫不差的屏蔽实验室，印证了专注意图在深层意识中共振并塑造物理现实的可能性。 Radin 将超心理学研究从边缘异闻推向结合量子模型、统计元分析与靶向分子神经生物学的前沿假说，构建了挑战机械唯物论的意识理论。然而，其论据体系中包含大量基于问卷统计的外显子关联、尚未进入正式 FDA 双盲临床阶段的实验性 RNA 疗法，以及高度依赖个人叙事的同步性体验。非定域意识概念能否获得现代科学共同体的广泛承认，仍取决于未来能否在消除系统偏差的前提下建立可被完全独立复现的物理与生理机制。

## Background 该视频由 PowerfulJRE 于 2026年6月11日发布在 YouTube 平台上，内容为《Joe Rogan Experience》第 2513 期。本期嘉宾是多能科学研究所（IONS）首席科学家、Cognigenics 联合创始人兼董事长迪恩·雷丁（Dean Radin）博士，节目主要围绕他的新书《魔法科学：心智如何编织现实的织锦》展开，探讨意识、超心理学及边缘科学的前沿研究。 ## TL;DR 在这场深度对话中，迪恩·雷丁博士分享了他从古典小提琴手跨界到电气工程及实验心理学的传奇人生。他结合自身在贝尔实验室、普林斯顿大学以及参与军方绝密“星门计划”的经历，探讨了心灵感应、远距离遥视和意念改变物质等超心理学现象的科学实证。此外，雷丁博士还介绍了利用精准 RNA 干扰技术改善认知障碍并激发人类潜能的前沿生物科技，试图打破传统唯物主义的教条，通过现代科学视角重新审视古老的“真实魔法”。 ## Atmosphere & style 整个对谈沉浸在一种既神秘莫测又严谨理性的奇妙氛围中。主持人 Joe Rogan 带着强烈的好奇心与开放包容的态度层层追问，而雷丁博士则以老练、幽默且富有洞察力的科学家风范见招拆招，将荒诞不羁的“玄学”转化为拥有扎实数据支撑的科学论述。随着从深海潜艇心灵感应聊到现实中的意念弯曲汤匙，节目的情感弧线从最初的猎奇调侃逐步走向对宇宙与意识本质的敬畏，给听众带来一场打破思维框架的精神激荡。 ## Key takeaways - [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=70s) 迪恩·雷丁博士因患有吉尔伯特综合征导致运动后缺乏恢复力，但高游离胆红素作为强效抗氧化剂赋予了他远超实际年龄的心血管健康优势。 - [06:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=391s) 阿波罗宇航员因在太空触发“总观效应”体验到天人合一，回国后创立了多能科学研究所（IONS），旨在探索人类的内在意识。 - [11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=702s) 唯物主义或物理主义是一套用于解释物理世界的假设，在科技上很成功，但它完全无法解释人类的“主观体验”。 - [11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=702s) 超心理学在过去150年里通过严格隔离、双盲设计的受控实验，已积累了证实心灵感应真实存在的强有力科学证据。 - [20:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=1221s) 绝密的“星门计划”研究侧任务是攻克科学原理，发现特异功能的核心决定因素是先天遗传的天赋与对未知经验的心理开放度。 - [30:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=1852s) 元分析和神经网络技术证实，人类的意念确实能够让随机数生成器（RNG）的物理比特流向意图的方向倾斜，并留下独特的个人签名。 - [37:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=2227s) “预感”实验通过皮肤电和脑电波数据证实，受试者的潜意识能够在情绪化图片被系统随机选定前的 1.5 秒提前产生生理感知。 - [43:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=2618s) 意识具有一种超越传统时空限制的“非定域性”特征，这与量子力学中的量子纠缠概念极为相似。 - [55:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=3331s) 统计学数据显示，赌场的派奖额度在满月日前后一天达到峰值，完美契合了古代神秘学中关于满月带来神秘力量的传说。 - [01:09:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=4190s) “Psi Genes”实验发现普通人的超能力感知基因在内含子序列中被表观遗传机制“关闭”了，这可能与中世纪宗教裁判所数百年的残酷定向清洗有关。 - [01:24:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=5076s) 意念弯曲勺子的本质是在特定状态下促使金属内部晶粒边界瞬间软化，它需要信念、动机和想象力叠加出的爆发式极致精神驱动力。 - [01:30:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=5425s) “双面向一元论”认为心灵与物质并非独立世界，而是共同衍生自一个未知、统一且因“意义”而分裂的“本源世界”。 - [01:33:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=5620s) 几乎所有量子力学的奠基人（如普朗克、薛定谔等）都是唯心主义者，他们认为物质世界是从意识中涌现出来的。 - [01:45:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=6300s) Cognigenics 公司开发出一种通过鼻腔吸入靶向 RNA 干扰的疗法，在灵长类和动物实验中成功实现了 100% 的记忆力提升和焦虑缓解。 - [01:55:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=6934s) 人类大脑面对任何药物都会产生补偿机制，在生物学上没有免费的午餐，完全拥有他心通等超能力若无严格精神修养将演变成灾难。 - [02:08:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=7696s) 虽然AI在科研编程中起到显著的催化作用，但其容易产生“幻觉”和浅层抓取缺陷，无法替代人类的纪律性思考与自律。 - [02:18:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=8320s) “超地球人”假说认为 UAP 的主角可能是来自地球历史深处、比现代人类先进数百万年的古老地球文明分支，浩瀚的深海是其设立基地的最佳选择。 - [02:31:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=9080s) 雷丁博士在硅谷经历了一场惊人的“四重共时性”事件，两个拥有相同意愿的同行在同一时间地点完成了重合的物理世界交汇，证实了专念显化的可能。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=1s) 嘉宾的背景：从音乐到工程与心理学的跨界 播客在 Joe Rogan 标志性的片头和轻松的寒暄中拉开序幕。Joe 表达了对这次对话的兴奋之情，甚至开玩笑问嘉宾是不是通过某种方式“显化”（manifest）了这次见面的机会，嘉宾笑着回应“也许吧”。随后，Joe 切入正题，询问嘉宾的个人背景。嘉宾提议用大约 3 分钟的时间，快速梳理一下自己过去 40 到 45 年的人生轨迹，以便为后续的深入探讨留下切入点。 嘉宾透露，他最初的身份是一名小提琴手，并且一直练到了大学过半的阶段。然而在那个节点，他突然意识到，想要成为一名职业音乐家，本质上必须成为一名“运动员”，因为音乐家是靠身体来谋生的。此前从未有人告诉过他这一点。最终，他决定放弃这条道路，一方面是因为他觉得自己从来都不够强壮，更重要的是，音乐家需要极强的耐力，而这恰恰是他的短板。 - 嘉宾曾长期修习古典小提琴，直到大学中期才决定放弃以此为业。 - 他放弃音乐的原因在于意识到职业音乐家高度依赖身体素质与极强的耐力。 --- ### [01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=70s) 吉尔伯特综合征与身体机制的利弊 面对 Joe 关于是否曾尝试增强耐力的提问，嘉宾解释说自己根本做不到。他患有一种名为**吉尔伯特综合征（Gilbert's syndrome）**的基因突变，这是一种肝脏酶的突变。普通人在运动后通常会感到神清气爽，但由于这种突变导致他体内严重缺乏某种酶，并且含有过高的高游离胆红素（unconjugated bilirubin），导致他的身体几乎没有恢复时间（recovery time），运动后只会感到极度的疲劳和虚脱。这种病症目前除了尚未有人尝试过的基因工程外，没有任何治疗方法。如果他走得太快、太猛或太久，接下来的三四天都会受到影响。因此，他每天的日常锻炼主要局限于散步。Joe 随后打趣地建议他采取“少食多餐”式的微量运动法，比如每隔 4 小时做 2 个俯卧撑，嘉宾笑着表示这完全可行，自己现在能做 7 个俯卧撑，这种轻量运动确实有助于维持老年人容易流失的骨密度。 然而，这一基因突变并非全无益处。高游离胆红素虽然带来了易疲劳的副作用，但它同时也是一种极强的天然抗氧化剂。正因如此，现年 74 岁的嘉宾拥有如同 20 岁年轻人一般的体检数据。他分享道，当人到了一定年纪，医生通常会建议做一次心脏钙化扫描（cardiac calcium scan）来检查动脉血管的健康状况，该扫描的得分范围在 0 到 100 之间（0 代表完全健康，100 则意味着生命垂危）。由于嘉宾的胆固醇指标高得离谱，他的医生便为他安排了这项检查。令人惊叹的是，他的扫描结果竟然是 0。医生无法置信一个 74 岁的人能拿到 0 分，而这正是该基因突变带来的神奇逆龄与长寿优势。Joe 忍不住赞叹道：“该死，小伙子，你看起来真的比实际年龄年轻了 15 到 20 岁。” - **吉尔伯特综合征（Gilbert's syndrome）**：一种肝脏酶突变，导致体内高游离胆红素水平过高，使患者运动后缺乏恢复期、极易疲劳。 - **健康红利**：高游离胆红素是强效抗氧化剂。嘉宾现年 74 岁，其心脏钙化扫描得分为 0（最健康状态），心血管系统年轻如 20 岁。 - **日常锻炼**：由于无法承受高强度运动，嘉宾的主要运动方式是散步，且赞同通过全天分散进行极轻量运动来维持骨密度。 --- ### [04:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=242s) 小提琴（Violin）与乡村提琴（Fiddle）的趣闻 随后，Joe 插入了一个看似无关但令他十分好奇的问题：小提琴（Violin）和乡村提琴（Fiddle）到底有什么区别？嘉宾解释说，这部分取决于演奏方式，但主要取决于所演奏的音乐性质。被称为“Violin”通常意味着走向古典音乐和音乐会独奏家的职业道路；而被称为“Fiddle”则更多地关乎风格、音调以及特定的文化语境（例如美国南方的乡村音乐）。 嘉宾分享了自己当年的转型经历。当他意识到自己不会走古典音乐的职业道路后，便转向了蓝草音乐（bluegrass）中的乡村提琴和班卓琴（banjo）。他一共演奏了 25 年，其中最后 5 年都在玩蓝草音乐。在转型过程中，他不得不“被迫”学会不要演奏得那么完美。在蓝草音乐中，如果你的音调稍微带点偏差、持琴姿势不那么规范、甚至发出一些沙哑粗糙的刮擦声，反而听起来更好，因为那才是“地道的风味”（authentic）。 在读研究生期间（大约 25 岁时），嘉宾曾参加过伊利诺伊州乡村提琴大赛（Illinois State Fiddler Contest）。当时，后来名声大噪的艾莉森·克劳斯（Alison Krauss）还只是个十几岁的小姑娘，也参加了同一场比赛。结果嘉宾“惨败”，而艾莉森在当时就已经展露出令人惊叹的才华。面对对此有些茫然的 Joe，嘉宾和导播 Jamie 解释说艾莉森·克劳斯是一位极其著名的格莱美级歌手兼提琴手，拥有绝美的嗓音。Joe 坦言自己对这个领域不太了解，并表示如果让他命名一个乡村提琴的代表，他首先会想到查理·丹尼尔斯（Charlie Daniels Jr.）的那首《恶魔降临乔治亚》（The Devil Went Down to Georgia），认为那是美国大众文化第一次真正认识并接纳乡村提琴。嘉宾对此表示赞同，称赞那首曲子确实是高水平的演奏，虽然听起来有点像“打了类固醇的提琴拉法”，但绝对是非常棒的艺术作品。 - **乐器区别**：Violin 指向传统的古典音乐职业生涯；Fiddle 则代表一种演奏风格与文化，常见于南方蓝草音乐。 - **蓝草美学**：蓝草乡村提琴追求一种略微失准、持琴随性、带有沙哑擦弦声的质朴与地道感。 - **名人轶事**：嘉宾曾在 25 岁时与年少的格莱美传奇歌手艾莉森·克劳斯（Alison Krauss）同台竞技并惨败。 --- ### [06:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=391s) 从电气工程跨界到心理学，以及多能科学研究所的启示 在结束了关于音乐的题外话后，嘉宾继续梳理他的职业履历。在大学中期，他决定找一份“用脑而不是用身体谋生”的工作，于是转向了电气工程专业，因为他从小在高中就喜欢拆解和组装东西。然而在拿到电气工程学士和硕士学位后，他发现自己又不想当电气工程师了，于是最终攻读了实验心理学（experimental psychology）的博士学位。嘉宾形象地将自己的职业生涯比作一场电视游戏节目（game show）：每当面对一条可以永远走下去的安稳道路时，他前面总会亮出“二号门”（door number two），而他几乎每次都会选择二号门。因为他总是在做了一段时间并完全理解一个领域后，就会渴望去尝试截然不同的新事物。 在读大四那年，嘉宾了解到了一家名为**多能科学研究所（Institute of Noetic Sciences，简称 IONS）**的机构。该研究所由阿波罗 14 号宇航员埃德加·米切尔（Edgar Mitchell）创立。作为第六个登上月球的人，米切尔在从月球返回地球的途中经历了一种强烈的神秘体验。今天，许多进入太空的宇航员都会谈到这种所谓的“总观效应”（overview effect），而米切尔是最早公开谈论这一体验的人。这种体验会从根本上改变一个人，让他们从过去的思维方式中蜕变出来。在经历那种神秘体验时，米切尔感到自己字面意义上与宇宙融为一体。回到地球后，为了探究这到底是怎么回事，他决定创立这家研究所，将他探索外太空（outer space）的目光转向对人类“内太空”（inner space）的探索。 嘉宾回忆起当年在大学读到该研究所的座右铭——“探索意识的边疆”时，内心深受震撼，当即认定这就是自己最终的归宿。然而在当时，除了 IONS 之外，全世界没有任何地方支持开展这类研究，因此他只能将这个愿望默默埋在心底。 - **学业轨迹**：电气工程学士 $\rightarrow$ 电气工程硕士 $\rightarrow$ 实验心理学博士。 - **二号门哲学**：嘉宾倾向于在完全掌握一个领域后，放弃安稳，选择未知的全新方向。 - **多能科学研究所（IONS）**：由阿波罗 14 号宇航员埃德加·米切尔（Edgar Mitchell）因在太空触发“总观效应”并体验到天人合一后于 1973 年创立，旨在用科学方法探索人类内在意识。 --- ### [08:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=529s) 何为“多能”（Noetic）？生活中无法被量化的超自然微光 Joe 随后提出了关于“多能”（Noetic）这个词定义的疑问。嘉宾解释说，“Noetic”指的是一种**直觉感（feeling of intuition），但它极其特殊，因为它自带一种“这件事绝对正确”的笃定感（sense of certainty）**。普通的直觉是你在不知道原因的情况下突然知晓了某事，而“多能”则是带着绝对把握的知晓，且事后往往证明这种笃定是完全正确的。这也就是人们在冥想或其他状态下所说的“下载”（downloads）信息。 Joe 指出，直到过去这二十年里，这个话题在理性主义者眼中依然是遭到公开鄙视和排斥的。人们似乎有一种强烈的欲望去排斥它，试图用更清晰、也许是由自我（ego）驱动的条款来定义世界，认为人能掌控自己的命运。人们在科学的叙事下，将人类谈论了数千年的 mystical woo-woo（神秘主义玄学）统统归结为荒谬。理性主义者总是说：“我们要讲科学，我们要数据。”但诡异的是，这方面其实是有数据的。Joe 坦言，只要一个人愿意让自己看起来有那么点荒诞不羁（他自己就很愿意），偶尔冒个险去搞清楚世界是否真的如教科书所说的那样一成不变，是一件大有裨益的事，因为现实可能远比想象的要诡异。 Joe 和嘉宾都赞同，生活中普遍存在着一些无法简单用“巧合”解释的怪事。比如你多年没想过一个人，突然某天脑海里闪过他的名字，下一秒他就给你打来了电话；或者你内心直觉强烈警告你不要去做某事，如果你忽略了它，往往就会发生灾难，让你事后痛骂“该死，我早知道不该去那儿的”。这绝不仅仅是由于经历丰富而产生的模式识别（pattern recognition）或情境理解。人们之间还存在着某种奇妙的能量联结。比如当某人在生你的气却克制着什么都不说时，你一进屋就能立刻感受到那种“古怪的低气压”。Joe 动情地总结道，我们在世界上体验到的这些东西，是无法放在秤上称重的，是无法用卷尺去测量的，也无法测量其密度，但它们确实存在。人类用来看、听、触摸、嗅觉的感官非常有限，世界上绝对存在着其他影响着我们、但我们目前还缺乏工具去直接测量的东西。 - **Noetic（多能/直觉知晓）**：一种伴随强烈“确定感”的直觉体验，通常在事后被验证为正确，类似于冥想中的“信息下载”。 - **主流偏见**：长期以来，唯物主义流派倾向于将此类现象贬低为记忆偏差或纯粹的巧合，忽视其背后的研究。 - **生活中的超常体验**： - **心灵感应式巧合**：突然想到很久未联系的人，对方随即来电。 - **预知与警示**：强烈直觉警告某些危险，忽略后往往遭遇灾难。 - **能量感知**：即使对方不发一言，也能清晰感知到他人的负面情绪或愤怒。 --- ### [11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=702s) 唯物主义的局限性与 150 年的心灵学实验历史 针对 Joe 关于“缺乏测量工具”的观点，嘉宾给出了修正：**事实上，我们确实拥有测量这些现象的工具。**这正是吸引他将毕生精力投入其中的原因。当普通人遇到这些奇异体验并向传统科学发言人寻求解答时，得到的永远是陈词滥调的回应：那是巧合、是记忆的脆弱性等等。但嘉宾在大学时期就了解到，早在 19 世纪后期（1880年代），就有一支科学分支开始系统研究这些现象。科学极其擅长捕捉那些奇特的、主观的体验，并通过严密的实验设计来排查这究竟是巧合还是真实存在的现象。 嘉宾承认，自己对这一领域的兴趣部分源于阅读了大量的科幻小说。科幻小说里充斥着关于精神力量或“多能”现象的描写。例如《星球大战》里的“原力”（The Force），以及弗兰克·赫伯特（Frank Herbert）的《沙丘》（Dune）系列。在《沙丘》中，人类之所以必须服用“美兰极/香料”（spice），是因为那是他们在折叠时空、穿过虫洞导航时，唯一能够预知彼岸状况的方法。这些设定之所以能风靡全球、历久不衰，正是因为它们在读者的内心深处激起了某种共鸣；如果这些概念真的荒诞到让任何人都没有思考的维度，它们根本不可能流行。 然而，当年轻的工程师、科学家或学者步入正统学术生涯时，他们会被灌输一套关于世界运行规律的底层假设，即**唯物主义（materialism）或物理主义（physicalism）**。糟糕的是，学校从不告诉你这只是一套“假设”。在接受了 20 多年的高等教育过程中，由于没有任何人提及我们在唯物主义假设下工作，也没有人探讨旨在反思这些假设是否正确的“科学哲学”（philosophy of science），人们便渐渐将其视作理所当然的绝对真理。一旦你开始研究科学哲学，就会发现理解现实有许多不同的视角。唯物主义在解释物理世界的方方面面以及带来科技繁荣上极为出色，但它**完全无法解释主观体验（subjective experience）**。这成为了当今科学界的头号未解之谜。嘉宾之所以撰写新书，正是为了挑战唯物主义是唯一真理的教条。他强调，书名中的“魔法”指的不是舞台魔术，而是人类目前还没有正式科学命名法去定义的“真正的魔法”。 Joe 随即追问，当科学家在 19 世纪后期首次开始研究这个领域时，他们具体试图孤立和搞清楚什么？嘉宾解释说，当时的科学家和今天一样，试图研究人们看到的幻影（apparitions）、人与人之间存在的心灵感应联结（telepathic connections）以及预知能力（precognitions）。他们开始尝试用实验科学的方法，在**受控条件（controlled conditions）**下研究这些现象。这里的“受控”至关重要，意味着必须通过严密的实验设计将巧合排除在外，阻断任何可能的信息泄漏。如果心灵感应是真实的，它就必须在实验室中展现出来。嘉宾总结道，距离那一研究起点已经过去了 150 年，如今科学界已经掌握了非常、非常强有力的证据，证明**心灵感应确实存在**。 当 Joe 询问早期的实验是如何获取第一批证据时，嘉宾提到他们当时称之为“思想传递”（thought transference）。不过，当时的有些方法在今天看来是不合格的。比如，当年他们会找来两个声称能进行心灵感应的儿童进行测试，但后来很多次都发现孩子们其实在使用某种隐秘的暗号进行作弊。这种简陋的实验在今天绝对行不通。现代的实验要求实验对象被**严格隔离**，并且双方在实验结束前都绝不可能知道传递的目标物件是什么。通过在不同人群中进行成千上万次的重复实验（replications），如今已经形成了一个极其庞大且扎实的证据链，以至于那些真正通读了相关文献的专业怀疑论者（skeptics），往往也很难找出实验设计上的漏洞。 - **科学哲学与唯物主义的局限**：唯物主义是一套用于解释物理世界的假设，在科技应用上很成功，但在解释人类“主观体验”上面临彻底失效（当今科学第一谜题）。 - **受控实验（Controlled Experiment）**：现代超心理学实验的核心。通过严格隔离受试者、双盲设计、阻断任何常规信息泄漏途径，用统计学彻底排除巧合。 - **150年的科学实证**：自 19 世纪晚期至今，经过全球学者无数次跨人群的严格可重复实验，科学界已积累了证实心灵感应（Telepathy）真实存在的强有力证据。 ### [16:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=1006s) 科学界的鸵鸟心态与远距离遥视的现实依据 科学家对超心理学研究的拒绝态度正在发生演变。现在很多人的第一种反应是，由于此前已经花了大量时间去寻找破绽，结果发现“根本找不到可以成立的漏洞”；而第二种更加近期的反应则更加令人无语——人们甚至拒绝看一眼证据。他们直接说“因为我们知道这不可能，所以根本不看数据”，这显然已经不再是科学的论辩方式了。面对这种固执，谈话双方都觉得非常荒谬。尤其是当你想想情报机构曾投入巨资和大量时间去研究“远距离遥视”（Remote Viewing）时，如果这真的只是没有证据的无稽之谈，为什么国家机器会持续投资？这显然不合逻辑。 事实上，如果去听听像哈尔·普托夫（Hal Putoff）这些亲身参与过远距离遥视实验的人所讲述的故事，就会发现他们通过遥视获取过具体且“具备行动价值的数据”（Actionable Data）。主持人承认自己从未尝试过，也不确定自己是否有这个能力，但他曾在电视节目中做过一次实验。当时那名自称拥有遥视能力的受试者虽然在镜头和高压环境下有些偏差，但这引出了一个关键问题：在录像机环伺的强迫状态下，怎么可能达到理想的心态？直觉和遥视高度取决于实验者的精神状态。如果一个人处于极度焦虑和恐惧中，和他在完全放松、专注且毫无干扰（比如没有电钻声或狗叫声）时的状态是完全不同的。人的大脑状态不是像烤面包机那样只有开关两档，它是动态且可以被脑电波测量记录的。 远距离遥视本质上是人类与并非近距离的现实之间，一种非常奇异的连接。通过这种能力，人们可以事无巨细地描述出遥远的细节，例如“当时苏联正在建造的潜艇”。如果对此一概否定，那纯粹是愚蠢的表现。只有聪明的学者愿意冒着“看起来有点傻”的风险去花时间钻研，人类才能真正搞懂其中的奥秘。 --- ### [20:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=1221s) 从贝尔实验室到绝密的“星门计划” 在获得博士学位后，讲述者进入了当时全球最大的实验室——贝尔实验室（Bell Laboratories）工作。由于对超自然现象抱有浓厚兴趣，他在工作之余利用部分时间，在实验室内悄悄进行了一些关于“心物相互作用”（Mind-Matter Interaction）和“预知”（Precognition）的小型心理学实验。这里面其实有一条奇妙的学术脉络，最终都绕回到了诺etic科学研究所（Institute of Noetic Sciences）。当年正是埃德加·米切尔（Edgar Mitchell）率先资助了斯坦福国际研究院（SRI International）的哈尔·普托夫和拉斯·塔格（Russ Targ）进行遥视研究，他还把尤里·盖勒（Yuri Geller）带到了美国，从而引发了包括贝尔实验室在内许多机构对特异功能的研究兴趣。 由于讲述者在贝尔实验室的实验取得了进展，他申请并获得了管理层的正式许可，允许他以贝尔实验室研究员的官方身份，在美国科学促进会（AAAS，美国最大的科学组织）的下属机构——超心理学协会（Parapsychological Association）的年会上发表关于预知测试的报告。许多人并不知道，超心理学协会是美促会200多个合法的分支科学组织之一。 停 在讲台发表完演讲后，几位听众在台下找到了他。其中一人神秘地问他：“如果现在有空缺，你是否有兴趣加入‘星门计划’（Stargate Program）？” 这是一个让人无法拒绝的邀请。在当时，虽然社会上流传着斯坦福国际研究院在做此类研究的传闻，但其背后的“机密部分仅仅是个传言”，没人知道军方真正的核心动作。于是，他向贝尔实验室请了一年假，正式加入了斯坦福国际研究院。 - **保密等级的震惊**：加入项目后，讲述者才发现该项目的涉密程度远超想象。它不仅不是普通机密（Secret）或最高机密（Top Secret），而是属于“最高机密敏感隔离信息（Top Secret SCI）及特别准入项目（Special Access Program）”。这意味着即使你拥有最高机密权限，只要没有代号并在这本特定的登记册上签字，你对这个地方也必须一无所知，甚至连项目的代号本身都是绝密的。 - **核心领导层变更**：他在哈尔·普托夫手下工作，当哈尔于1985年离开后，由埃德（Ed May）接任负责人并执掌了10年之久。 - **研究方的使命**：普通的“星门计划”传闻多聚焦于军方的作战应用（Operational Side），但讲述者所在的SRI团队属于“研究侧”（Research Side）。他们的任务是攻克科学原理：这东西是真的吗？（答案是肯定的，有些人确实极具天赋）；它的边界在哪里？它能被屏蔽、防御或伪装吗？ --- ### [24:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=1458s) 天赋、心理开放度与“特异功能基因”的寻找 当讲述者第一次见到像乔·麦克莫尼格尔（Joe McMonigle，该领域的超级巨星）和英戈·斯旺（Ingo Swan）这样的特异功能者时，他被深深地震撼了。这些人完全打破了他脑海中“佐迪亚克夫人”（Madame Zodiac）那种传统神婆的刻板印象，他们“看起来就像普通的善男信女”。 为了搞清楚这些奇人异士究竟在心理、生理或医学上与常人有何不同，军方和研究人员动用了一切手段进行检测，因为陆军非常渴望能批量筛选并培养出同样具有天赋的士兵。然而令人疯狂的是，检测结果显示**没有任何一致的生理或心理生理特征**。 唯一的两个决定性因素是：**天赋（Talent）**和**开放度（Openness）**。天赋很大程度上取决于先天遗传；而开放度则是一种心理特质，代表你是否对未知的经验敞开心扉。那些思维僵化、不愿接受新事物的人，会在心理上筑起坚固的防御“把这种能力屏蔽掉”；而对体验保持开放的人通常表现得更好。受限于当年的技术，他们无法深入研究，但如今他们已经拥有了基因工具，并进行了数项寻找“特异功能基因”（Psy-gene）的研究，目前似乎已经有了突破性的线索。 --- ### [26:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=1570s) 普林斯顿的学术孤岛与跨学科的阻力 在结束了“星门计划”一年的工作回到贝尔实验室后，另一扇学术大门随即向他敞开：普林斯顿大学向他发出了邀请。当时普林斯顿拥有由工程学院院长领导的“普林斯顿工程异象研究实验室”（PEAR Lab），该实验室在长达近30年的时间里致力于心物相互作用和遥视的研究。由于讲述者的博士学位属于心理学，他的教职被安排在心理学系，但他的核心任务是领导一个跨越多个系科（包括PEAR实验室、哲学系、心理系、土木工程系等）的综合研究项目。 从第一天起，他就被警告“这是一个不可能完成的任务”。虽然项目资金充足，但学术界的繁衍机制是“在各自的筒仓（Silos）里生存”。学者们往往在极度细分的领域里成为专家，甚至在同一个心理学系里，认知心理学家、感知心理学家和社会心理学家之间都因为研究壁垒而老死不相往来。当讲述者试图把这些学科强行融合在一起时，遭遇了难以想象的巨大阻力。 - **学术体制的弊端**：虽然各系科看在巨额拨款的面子上愿意配合“玩这个游戏”，但一旦涉及真正的跨学科交叉和数据共享，抵制情绪就会集中爆发。 - **专家的时间成本**：在高校里，一个人要成为某个领域的专家需要花费20年，之后还要用余生去跟进学术前沿。因此，让他们把注意力转移到其他系科的课题上，无异于在学术评价体系中自毁前程。这种“占山为王”的孤岛效应至今没有好转。 - **新学科的诞生先例**：虽然极度困难，但这正是新学科诞生必经的阵痛。就像60-70年前，有远见的基金会看到生物学、细胞学和神经系统研究者各行其是，于是砸下重金把他们强行捏合，才催生了今天的“神经科学”（Neuroscience）。而讲述者目前从事的“意识研究”（Consciousness Studies）也是直到最近才开始融合哲学家、麻醉学家等多方视角，逐步形成一门独立的学科。 --- ### [30:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=1852s) 元分析与大脑对随机数生成器的干预 在普林斯顿期间，除了艰难地拉拢各个教授谈话外，讲述者的一项重要工作就是进行**元分析（Meta-analysis）**。这是一种将大量相似的独立实验（如多项心灵感应实验）结果通过统计学方法融为一体的技术，被称为“对分析的再分析”。它能科学地回答两个核心问题：第一，这个现象在科学上是否能被不同的独立研究者“重复验证”；第二，如果把所有人的实验合在一起看，其总体的效应量到底有多大。他曾就此写过一本书，可惜当时无人问津。 同时，凭借自身的工程学背景，他开始使用当时最新潮的机器学习技术——**神经网络（Neural Networks）**，来分析来自PEAR实验室的数据。 ``` [实验流程：心物相互作用测试] 目标：利用意念干预物理设备 │ ▼ 随机数生成器（RNG）持续输出随机比特流（0 和 1） │ ├── 任务 A：受试者集中意念，尝试让机器产生更多的“1” ├── 任务 B：受试者集中意念，尝试让机器产生更多的“0” └── 任务 C：对照组，受试者不做任何意图干预 ``` 实验结果非常奇特。从宏观统计来看，当运行了大量受试者后，人类的意念确实能够让比特流向意图的方向倾斜（想让它高它就走高，想让它低它就走低）。但这并不是每个人都能做到的：有些人会得到完全相反的结果；有些人非常擅长让数值走高，却无法让其走低。这表明每个人与机器互动时，都会留下一种“独特的个人签名”（Signature）。为了抓住这种独特的交互规律，讲述者开始尝试用神经网络去训练和识别这些数据。 ### [33:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=2006s) 意图识别的雏形与“金色手铐”的无奈 在离开普林斯顿大学后（因为跨学科团队的协作令人极度沮丧，尽管那是拨款项目的必要部分，演讲者坚持了三年最终还是选择放弃），他重返工业界。在面试时，他明确表达了自己的诉求：他想继续探索一种全新的技术。这种技术可以通过机器识别人的身份和意图，“有点像 Neuralink（脑机接口），但不需要在脑部进行任何物理连接，纯粹依靠意图”。最终，他在华盛顿特区外的一家公司找到了一份可以付诸实践的工作。他们利用先进的神经网络和随机数生成器（RNG）进行研发，技术甚至已经成熟到准备申请专利的阶段。 当时机构的负责人是一位退役将军，其老战友是一位海军上将。上将表示美国海军对此表现出极大的兴趣，原因显而易见——他们亟需一种能与潜艇建立高效沟通的新方式。然而，就在技术即将突破、走向应用的紧要关头，公司被整体收购了。新东家直接下达了冷酷的命令：“你们不能再研究这个了。” 尽管新公司给演讲者提供了极好的职位和丰厚的待遇，他将其戏称为“金色手铐”（Golden Handcuffs），但这并不是他真正想追求的事业。 - **离职原因**：在普林斯顿大学难以推动跨学科团队（multidisciplinary teams）的协作，工作充满挫败感。 - **技术理念**：非侵入式的意图识别技术，利用先进神经网络结合随机数生成器。 - **潜在买家**：美国海军（Navy），希望将其用于与潜艇（Submarines）的通信。 - **研发中止原因**：实验室的主管副总裁根本不相信这种技术的可能性，而且“当然，他连数据看都不看一眼”，纯粹因为不想让自己显得很愚蠢（silly）而叫停了项目。 --- ### [35:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=2140s) 从圣门计划到爱丁堡的自动化遥感实验 几年过去了，演讲者并未放弃这一研究，而是选择在工作之余把它当作副业来做。直到 1992 年经济衰退爆发，他所在的部门遭遇裁员，他自己也未能幸免。但也正是在这个契机下，他加入了一项当时还不为人知的机密任务——“圣门计划”（Stargate program，当时该计划还有许多其他代号，但如今统称为圣门）。该计划当时正向全球的研究机构分发机密合同，其中就包括苏格兰的爱丁堡大学。 爱丁堡大学的一位同事此前一直在开发一套自动化的甘茨费尔德（Gansfeld）测试系统。这是一种专门用于心灵感应（Telepathy）实验的自动化系统，旨在“将人类（实验人员）排除在控制环路之外”，只留下两名实验参与者，通过按下按钮来完全自动化地运行流程。不幸的是，这位研发者中途因故去世，留下了一个未完成的项目。演讲者得知后，主动找到当时圣门计划的负责人埃德·梅（Ed May），申请前往苏格兰接手并完成这个项目。他在爱丁堡大学待了大约一年，成功完成了这套自动化感应系统，至今该系统已经对无数受试者进行了测试。 - **关键时间点**：1992 年遭遇经济衰退（Recession）并被裁员。 - **项目背景**：圣门计划（Stargate program）向英国苏格兰的爱丁堡大学（University of Edinburgh）提供机密合同。 - **系统核心**：自动化甘茨费尔德（Gansfeld）系统，将实验人员排除在外以确保双盲和客观性。 - **关键人物**：埃德·梅（Ed May），时任圣门计划的负责人（Director）。 --- ### [37:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=2227s) “预感”实验与十字路口的抉择 在爱丁堡大学高效完成自动化系统后，演讲者在 1993 年左右开始着手开发一项名为“预感”（Presentiment）的实验。他用日常生活中常见的场景来解释激发这一灵感的动机：想象你每天千百次地驱车上班，在经过一个熟悉的绿灯路口时，通常你会加速通过。但突然，内心深处有一个小声音告诉你“今天不对劲”，于是你选择减速。尽管后方的车辆疯狂对你鸣笛抗议，但就在你接近十字路口的一瞬间，一辆卡车猛地闯红灯呼啸而过。如果你没有减速，必然会被侧面撞击。这种劫后余生的震撼让你意识到，是直觉救了你一命。 演讲者试图在实验室中模拟这种心理机制。由于无法让受试者面临真正的生命危险，他采用了情绪刺激。实验中，受试者的皮肤电传导（skin conductance）、瞳孔放大（pupil dilation）和脑电波等神经系统指标会被全程记录。受试者被要求按下按钮，随后屏幕上会随机出现一张图片。图片可能是平静的（如风景），也可能是极具情绪冲击力的。情绪图片又分为两类“效价”（valences）：负面的（如手术、爆炸场景）和正面的（如微笑的婴儿）。关键在于，图片的挑选完全由一个真正的随机数生成器（RNG）在受试者按下按钮**之后**才做出决定，因此包括实验人员在内的任何人都不可能提前预知。 在结束爱丁堡的工作后，演讲者再次面临人生抉择。他同时收到了橡树岭国家实验室（Oak Ridge National Labs，这意味着重新回到机密研究领域）的邀约，以及内华达大学的邀请。后者由罗伯特·比格洛（Robert Bigelow，因研究不明航空现象 UAP 而闻名）资助。最终演讲者选择了内华达大学，因为比格洛非常慷慨地资助他成立并管理属于自己的实验室。在这里，他重启了“预感”实验，并获得了惊人的突破。 - **实验设计**：受试者按下按钮，等待 5 秒后系统才选定图片；在图片被选定前的 1.5 秒，生理数据就已经开始产生分化。 - **实验结果**：如果即将出现的是情绪化图片，受试者的皮肤电传导在 1.5 秒前就会提前开始波动；若是平静图片，则保持平稳。这种潜意识提前感知未来的现象被称为“预感效应”。 - **资金支持**：由罗伯特·比格洛（Robert Bigelow）资助在内华达大学（University of Nevada）建立独立实验室。 --- ### [41:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=2461s) 改变命运的“第五发子弹” 提到“预感”效应在现实中的极端投射，演讲者分享了他的一位实验室同事所经历的真实故事。这个故事发生的时间跨度甚至不是实验室里的短短几秒，而是整整提前了两周。这位朋友平时会和伙伴们一起去野外打猎。他最钟爱的一把枪是一支六发双动转轮手枪（six-shot double-action revolver）。每次打猎前，他都会把枪彻底清理干净，然后习惯性地只装入五发子弹，并将击锤对准第六个空弹膛，以防携带时意外走火。 在打猎前两周的某天，他正在擦拭手枪并依次装填子弹。一、二、三、四……当他拿起第五发子弹时，内心突然涌起一股强烈的、说不清道不明的异样感，觉得“这发子弹不对劲”。于是他鬼使神差地把这发子弹放在了一旁，让手枪带着两个空弹膛去了猎场。打猎期间这把枪并未动用。打猎归来后，他们犯了一个打猎后最不该犯的错误——聚众饮酒。在酒精的作用下，大家变得过于亢奋，现场突然爆发了激烈的肢体冲突。其中一个人猛地夺过了这位朋友的手枪，在近距离内直接指向了另一个人的脸。 这位朋友惊恐地看着对方扣动扳机，击锤后撤，弹仓开始旋转。就在他试图冲上去阻止的千钧一发之际，只听见清脆的“咔哒”（click）一声——击锤重重地砸了下去，但枪没有响。因为弹仓恰好从第六个空膛旋转到了第五个空膛，而那本该有子弹的第五个位置，正是两周前被他莫名取下的那一发。现场所有人瞬间惊出一身冷汗。事后，这位朋友将那发救命的子弹珍藏在了银行的保险箱里，并感慨道：“每个人都有一发写着自己名字的子弹，而我的那一发现在躺在保险箱里，绝对不会再拿出来。” 演讲者坦言，这种现实中的极致案例证明了人类直觉的强大，但在实验室里，出于伦理限制，他们目前只能测试几秒钟内的短期预感。 --- ### [43:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=2618s) 遥视的机制、训练与非定域性意识 当主持人问及“遥视”（Remote Viewing）的具体状态以及如何通过特定协议进入这种意识状态时，演讲者解释说，这很大程度上取决于一个人是否拥有天赐的才能。比如著名的遥视者乔·麦克蒙尼格（Joe McMoneagle）以及其他少数顶尖高手。如果你在吃早餐时随手拿出一个密封文件夹问乔里面是什么，他可以一边继续嚼着面包，一边立刻把正确答案告诉你。乔甚至透露，如果他知道自己下午要进行一场遥视测试，相关的所有信息在当天早上就会像走马灯一样“砰”地一下全部自动呈现在他的脑海中。对于这种天才，遥视纯粹是一种瞬间检索所需信息的本能。 然而，对于没有非凡天赋的普通人来说，通过训练同样可以掌握这项技能。普通人训练最核心也最艰难的第一步，叫做“不要命名你的核心印象”（not name an impression）。 > “如果你告诉某人，‘20分钟后我会给你看一张你不知道是什么的图片’，然后你让他们想象会看到什么。如果他们的脑海中闪过一丝黄色，他们会立刻开始联想到香蕉。一旦这种联想发生，他们就再也无法摆脱香蕉的干扰了。” 因此，遥视训练要求受试者在面对一个全球某个角落的目标、或者信封里的照片时，只用笔尖在纸上做一些随机的涂鸦或线条（scribbles），去捕捉最初、最纯粹的感觉和感官体验，并在随后的训练中将这些复杂的线条与情绪、感知交织在一起，直到最终它们凝聚成一个清晰连贯的画面。训练的第一课就是：任何你脑海中能叫得出具体名字的东西，大概率都不是目标本身。 谈到最令人震撼的遥视成就，演讲者提到自己在获得安全许可后，观看了哈尔（Hal）向国会议员和总统做的那份绝密简报。简报中展示了乔和其他几位隐名埋姓的高手做出的近乎完美的临摹画。在测试中，实验人员切断了所有已知信息，仅仅给遥视者一个随机生成的五位数代码（例如，用一组随机数代替“莫斯科”），并要求他们画出两小时后才会展示给他们的目标。而他们竟然真的精准地画了出来。 对于这种不可思议的代码联结，演讲者承认科学界目前尚无定论。但他指出，要解释这种现象，人类必须跨越唯物主义（Materialism）作为唯一现实模型的框架。他提出，意识（Consciousness）似乎具有一种“非定域性”（Non-local quality），这与量子力学（Quantum Mechanics）中的量子纠缠（Entanglement）极为相似——它是一种超越了传统时间和空间限制的连接。 - **顶尖遥视者**：乔·麦克蒙尼格（Joe McMoneagle），具备无需刻意准备、跨越时间提前接收信息的天赋。 - **普通人训练核心**：避免“命名错误”（Naming），用抽象涂鸦代替具象联想，克制大脑自动脑补（如看到黄色就联想香蕉）的倾向。 - **盲测协议**：通过给目标绑定一组随机的五位数代码（five-digit number）来建立意识连接。 - **理论模型**：意识的非定域性，类似于量子力学中跨越时空的纠缠，其终极状态类似于电影《瞬息全宇宙》（Everything Everywhere All at Once）所展现的图景。 --- ### [48:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=2931s) 动物的协同与退化的超自然能力 随后，主持人与演讲者就这项能力是人类正在演化出的新特征，还是一种随着文字、书籍和现代媒体的发展而逐渐退化的古老本能展开了探讨。主持人提出，在人类发展出喧嚣的现代文明之前，或许大家都拥有这种“安静的沟通方式”。他以狼群为例，狼群在捕猎时展现出的高效协同令人惊叹：一只狼负责将驼鹿驱赶到特定的狭窄走廊，而其他狼则在更高处的地形设伏，适时俯冲包抄。这种各司其职的复杂战术，除了学习经验外，似乎需要某种更深层次的即时通讯方式。 演讲者对狼群的高智商表示赞同。主持人进一步补充道，正如军队中训练的马里努阿犬（Belgian Malinois）等军犬展现出了惊人的智慧、需要持续的脑力刺激一样，野生狼群的智力与大脑活跃度恐怕是这些温顺宠物的百倍以上。世界上大多数的动物、植物甚至昆虫，或许都以某种人类尚未理解的方式共享着这种意识的连接。 ### [50:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=3011s) 萨满、人类进化与远隔千里的心灵感应 在探讨意识的非局域性（non-local）以及它是人类生来就有还是后天演化的问题时，发言者指出，人类通过进化被塑造成专注于“此时此地”的生物。如果在远古时期，人们整天神游太虚，思考百万年后的冥王星，那么根本无法注意到眼前正准备吃掉自己的老虎，这种特质在漫长的生存竞争中早就会被无情淘汰。但在历史上的特定群体中，有一些人能够打破这种局域限制，他们被称为“萨满”。在部落中，萨满扮演着极其关键的角色，他们能预知下周十英里外会有食物，但他们往往无法照顾好自己，思想总是神游在外，因此需要整个部落的悉心照料。随着现代社会充斥着各种让人分心的事物，除了少数土著社会，这种能力在普通人身上已经逐渐退化。 发言者分享了他为澳大利亚政府演讲的一段趣闻。当时现场有许多部长和军方高层，当他结束关于心灵感应的长篇大论后，一位代表当地土著群体的女部长走到他面前，淡定地表示：“我们几千年来早就知道这些了。”在没有电话的澳洲内陆，土著人正是通过这种文化中根深蒂固的心灵感应进行沟通的。因为他们身处相对孤立的环境，不需要时刻防备老虎的突袭，且有这种迫切的生存沟通需求。现代人由于不再需要这种能力，它便像肌肉一样萎缩了。 * **进化选择**：专注于当前环境是生存的必需，过度思考远方事物（如冥王星）的基因会被进化“修剪”掉。 * **萨满特质**：古老部落中的萨满拥有感知远方事物的能力，但生活自理能力差，需部落供养。 * **澳洲土著事例**：澳大利亚内陆土著在没有电话的情况下，长期利用心灵感应在文化和日常中进行联络。 --- ### [52:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=3138s) 远程遥视、基因遗传与 BetterHelp 广告 既然这种感应能力在现代人身上萎缩了，那么“远程遥视”（remote viewing）在某种程度上就像是重新学习一种人类曾普遍拥有的技能。发言者认为，这在很大程度上取决于基因。古代祖先中拥有这种特质和能力的人，将这些基因传给了后代，因此今天仍有一些人保留着这种独特的天赋。 随后，节目切入了一段关于 BetterHelp 的赞助广告。广告提到，夏天是充满冒险的季节，但由于日程混乱和过度消耗，也容易让人精疲力竭。因此，花点时间照顾自己、尝试心理咨询非常重要。BetterHelp 拥有超过 30,000 名专业心理咨询师的网络，已为全球数百万人提供匹配服务。广告鼓励听众在夏天学会在心理咨询中寻找支持，拒绝无谓的消耗，并提供了专享的 10% 优惠折扣码。 --- ### [53:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=3230s) 越战搜救奇才与拉斯维加斯的“最大超心理学实验室” 广告结束后，发言者以乔·麦克莫尼格尔（Joe McMoneagle）为例，进一步说明了这种能力的家族遗传性。麦克莫尼格尔曾是军中负责深入敌后执行搜救任务的尖兵，神奇的是，他的团队总能成功找到目标并全员生还。他的秘诀在于在战场上运用敏锐的直觉，决定走哪条路、避开哪个危险路段。后来军方在招募具有此类特殊能力的人才时，往往会问两个问题：“你在战斗中是不是从未受过伤？”以及“你以前有没有过类似的超自然经历？”麦克莫尼格尔不仅自己有，他的姐姐也同样拥有，这再次印证了这种特质具有家族基因的支撑。 随后，发言者讲述了自己在内华达大学拉斯维加斯分校（UNLV）任教时的经历。《纽约时报》当时注意到了他的研究，并从趣味人物故事的角度进行了报道，称在拉斯维加斯工作的超心理学家是个绝妙的组合。因为拉斯维加斯堪称“世界上最大的超心理学实验室”，成千上万的赌徒每天都在试图用纯粹的精神意志去干扰和影响本质上随机的博弈系统。 * **乔·麦克莫尼格尔的传奇**：敌后搜救从未失手，靠直觉避开危险，其姐姐也拥有相同能力。 * **军方筛查机制**：通过询问战场幸存率和既往超自然体验来甄选具有特异功能的潜在士兵。 * **拉斯维加斯的隐喻**：摇骰子、渴望特定结果的赌博行为，本质上与超心理学实验室里用纯粹意念影响随机系统的实验如出一辙。 --- ### [55:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=3331s) 满月与赌场大奖的奇妙统计学 在 UNLV 期间，发言者甚至从一家小型赌场的总经理那里拿到了极为罕见的珍贵数据。由于总经理对他从事的研究很感兴趣，竟大方地提供了赌场所有的老虎机大奖（jackpots）以及桌面游戏的数据。经过详细的数据分析，发言者发现了一个惊人的现象：在满月（Full Moon）前后的正负一天内，老虎机开出大奖的频率明显更高，派奖金额更大，桌面游戏的玩家表现也更好。 这一发现完美契合了古代神秘学和魔法传说中关于满月带来神秘力量的说法。发言者当时开玩笑地对总经理说：“这事儿你最好别对外张扬，否则大家都会挑满月那天来。”总经理却大笑回应：“让他们来呗！”因为在拉斯维加斯，一切规则都是经过精细设计的，赔率永远对赌场有利，即便知道了这个满月规律，玩家也顶多是“输得慢一点”而已。但无论如何，这种统计学上的微小波动确实真切地留在了数据里。 * **赌场数据合作**：某小型赌场总经理破例提供了完整的 Slot Machines 和 Table Games 数据。 * **满月效应**：数据分析显示，大奖的发生率和派奖额度在满月日前后一天（$\pm 1 \text{ day}$）达到峰值。 * **赌徒困境**：利用该规律无法战胜精心设计的赌场赔率，但确实可以降低输钱的速度。 --- ### [56:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=3409s) 硅谷 Interval Research 的“蓝天”蓝图与迈向诺蒂克科学研究所 在 UNLV 的任期结束后，多亏了《纽约时报》的曝光，发言者的命运迎来了转折。此前他在普林斯顿写的那本无人问津的书，突然接到了众多出版商的邀约电话。新书出版后，迅速引起了 Interval Research 机构的注意。该机构由微软联合创始人保罗·艾伦（Paul Allen）于 1990 年资助成立，是一项为期十年的研究计划，旨在探索互联网大潮下的未来世界（即“有线世界”）。他们从苹果、施乐帕克（Xerox PARC）和麻省理工学院（MIT）实验室挖来了上百名顶尖人才。 发言者被邀请前往主持一项特异功能（SAI）的研究项目，并获得了在 UNLV 时十倍的预算以及三倍的薪水。在 Interval Research，几乎所有项目都涉及核心专利保护，如今许多被人们视作理所当然的技术都发源于此。他的项目被归类为“蓝天”（blue sky）投机性项目，目的是向实验室的所有人表明机构在挑战科学极限。十年的研发在 2000 年画上句号，发言者随后在硅谷与几位同事创立了一个名为“边界研究所”（Boundary Institute）的非营利组织。然而由于互联网泡沫破裂（dot-com crash），该机构在一年后因资金匮乏而停摆。随后，他受邀加入了诺蒂克科学研究所（Institute of Noetic Sciences），并在那里快乐地工作了 25 年，回到了他大学时代就梦寐以求的意识前沿研究领域。 * **Interval Research**：保罗·艾伦出资的硅谷传奇孵化器，汇聚百名业界精英，主导技术前沿。 * **待遇飞跃**：发言者在硅谷获得了相较于大学 10 倍的研发预算和 3 倍的薪酬。 * **学术轨迹**：普林斯顿 $\rightarrow$ UNLV $\rightarrow$ Interval Research $\rightarrow$ 边界研究所 $\rightarrow$ 诺蒂克科学研究所。 --- ### [59:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=3569s) 总统卡特证实的“地图寻物”与核轰炸机坠毁事件 主持人随后将话题带回了具体的研究成果上，询问在远程遥视的实际操作中，最令人震惊、且无法通过任何常规手段实现的成功案例是什么。发言者举出了一个当年曾被吉米·卡特（Jimmy Carter）总统公开承认的经典军事行动。当时，美军一架携带着绝密核武器的轰炸机在非洲某处茂密的丛林中坠毁，由于当地植被极为茂密，卫星和空中侦察根本无法穿透树冠，没人知道飞机确切的坠落地点。由于担心核弹落入他人之手，军方高层十万火急地求助于远程遥视者。 在这些遥视者中，有一位叫弗兰（Fran）的女士，她非常擅长定位——这在远程遥视里属于极高难度的科目。弗兰实际上是一位“探矿者”（dowser），通常人们会拿着木棍在地上找水，但她擅长的是“地图探矿”（map dowsing）。为了防止泄密，实验人员不会给她提供真实的地图，而是给她一张白纸，上面只有一些映射到真实地理坐标的“X”标记。在对非洲、对轰炸机一无所知的情况下，弗兰施展了她的能力，在纸上画了一个标记说：“我觉得在这里。”军方顺着这个坐标摸过去，果然在距离标记仅几公里的范围内找到了坠机地点，并从附近的土著口中证实了当时有东西从天上掉下来。卡特总统卸任后在被问及任内是否遇到过什么真正怪异的事情时，亲口引用了这个例子。 * **非洲坠机搜救**：核轰炸机在茂密树冠遮蔽下坠毁，常规卫星与空中搜查手段完全失效。 * **弗兰的盲测**：通过高度抽象的“白纸地图探测法”，精准锁定了坠机点，误差仅数公里。 * **卡特总统的见证**：卡特总统在公开场合亲自承认了这起通过超自然手段寻获坠毁核武器的奇迹。 --- ### [01:01:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=3716s) 卡特的哭泣传闻、白宫披露风波与潜艇深海的心灵感应 主持人随后提到了卡特总统曾有过的目击 UFO 经历，以及坊间流传卡特在听取关于外星生命的绝密汇报后因信仰崩塌而痛哭流涕的传说。发言者坦言听说过这些传闻，并推测卡特作为一名虔诚的宗教信徒，那些信息很可能极大地冲击了他的宗教世界观。主持人附和道，近期也有传闻称白宫准备进行重磅的“大披露”（disclosure），且一批牧师已经提前接受了简报，以便安抚信众。发言者对此表示完全有可能，并提到自己与雅克·瓦莱（Jacques Vallée）以及加里·科尔曼（Garry Nolan）等著名的 UAP/UFO 研究专家熟识多年。他指出，UFO/UAP 领域与超心理学领域非常相似，政府为了转移公众注意力，在其中散布了海量的虚假信息。 为了进一步揭示真相，发言者分享了他曾在海军战争学院（Naval War College）讲述心灵感应时的经历。演讲结束后，两名独立的潜艇指挥官同时向他透露了一个一模一样的真实事件。在一次潜航演习中，一名潜艇水手从梦中惊醒，坚决要求艇长立刻浮上水面，因为他梦见家里出大事了。当时由于处于演习状态，艇长予以拒绝，直到演习结束潜艇上浮后，水手才获准给家里打电话，果不其然，在他惊醒的那个时间点，他的家里确实发生了变故。 发言者强调，这两起事件在两艘不同的潜艇上发生，且没有任何“假阳性”（即报假警）的前例。更具有科学研究价值的是，当时潜艇处于至少 300 米以下的机密深度。在如此深的海底，电磁波根本无法穿透，因此这种感应绝非电磁信号。此外，能被选拔为潜艇兵的人，心理素质极其过硬，绝无幽闭恐惧症或幻想症。这意味着，即便是心理结构极度稳定的普通人，在做梦这种“意识状态改变”（altered state of awareness）的情况下，也能突破物理屏蔽，接收到远方的感知。发言者笑称，他每次去军方演讲前都担心将军和舰长们会觉得他是疯子，但恰恰相反，这些身处一线、见惯了各种未知现象的高级军官，对他的研究完全赞同。 * **卡特痛哭传闻**：外界盛传卡特总统因得知颠覆其固有宗教信仰的外星生命真相而情绪崩溃。 * **虚假信息策略**：政府在 UAP 和超心理学（SAI）领域长期采取散布杂音、转移视线的策略。 * **深海潜艇感应实验**：潜艇在 $\ge 300\text{ meters}$ 极深水下（普通电磁波无法穿透的物理盲区），水手通过梦境精准感知远方家属的变故，且零误报。 * **军方态度**：潜艇指挥官、将军和海军高级将领由于掌握一手现实案例，对心灵感应等现象的接受度远超传统学术界。 ### [01:06:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=3999s) 贝尔实验室的“非官方”秘闻与保密特区 在军队或生死攸关的极端环境下，人们往往更容易展现出对直觉的绝对信任。这种直觉决策能力是他们能够晋升并承担关键责任的核心原因，这也解释了为什么有些大胆的超心理学研究在军方高层中没有遇到预期的阻力。话题随后有趣地转向了贝尔实验室的传奇色彩。传闻中，贝尔实验室不仅是科学圣地，更是罗斯威尔外星飞船坠毁事件后，军方进行“逆向工程”（back-engineered）的秘密基地。早年间一家名为美国计算机公司（American Computer Company）的网站上，甚至专门设立了页面详细阐述这些阴谋论：比如声称贝尔实验室特意建在军事基地附近，名义上是保护纽约，实则是为了封锁其核心的绝密逆向工程研究。 尽管正史能够完美解释现代光纤和激光技术的演进脉络，但这些都市传说依然让人着迷。在这些超越“最高机密”的受限访问计划（Special Access Programs）中，保密制度极其严苛。这种体制带来了一个巨大的心理困境：你可能正与同事并肩作战，却对彼此手头的工作一无所知。以大名鼎鼎的“星门计划”（Stargate Program）为例，虽然如今已有四卷厚重的《星门档案》（Stargate Archives）公之于众，记录了大量血肉模糊的细节，但涉及军方核心人员与特定方法的关键档案，恐怕永远都无法见光。研究人员在走廊里、茶水间里通过闲聊摸索真相，甚至在向哈尔·普霍夫（Hal Puthoff）等知情人求证时，也常常只能得到一句干脆的“这我不能说”。 ### [01:09:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=4190s) 超能力与信息透明的冲突：被宗教清洗的基因 这种“双重生活”给身处其中的科学家带来了极大的心理撕裂感。在保密大楼内部，大家都在热烈地研究和体验各种玄妙的“通灵”（psychic）现象；而一旦走出大楼，他们必须立刻融入外部世界的游戏规则，甚至要附和大众的观点，主动承认“这全都是胡扯”。然而，保密制度最大的讽刺在于，超心理学研究的正是如何打破秘密。在具备顶级天赋的遥视或心灵感应者面前，物理世界上没有任何东西能够被屏蔽，一切信息都是透明的。主流社会之所以至今仍对这些话题贴上污名标签并散布假消息，正是因为统治阶层无法想象一个“毫无秘密可言的社会”将如何运转。 科技或许正在将人类推向这种绝对透明的终局，但手段绝非埃隆·马斯克的 Neuralink 脑机接口，而是通过人类自身的基因和意识觉醒。几年前，加里·诺兰（Gary Nolan）向研究团队提出了一个关于“通灵家族”遗传学的问题。为了寻找所谓的“超能力基因”（更可能是一种多基因特征），团队启动了名为“Psi Genes”的实验。他们通过互联网招募了 3000 名声称拥有家族遗传超能力的人，经过极其严格的筛选和面对面面谈（以确保他们不是精神错乱），最终获取了其中 13 位的 DNA 样本。实验结果令人大吃一惊：这些超能力者的基因全部属于最普通的“野生型”（wild type），没有任何异样；相反，作为对照组的普通人，其内含子序列（intron sequence，即过去被称为“垃圾 DNA”、实则控制基因表达的表观遗传部分）却表现出了显著的突变。这意味着，普通人的基因被某种机制“关闭”了对超能力的感知。 更具颠覆性的发现来自于对不同社会遗传结构的研究。数据显示，受基督教影响越深、时间越长的国家，普通人基因中这种“关闭超能力感知”的内含子突变就越普遍。这在历史上完全说得通：中世纪的宗教裁判所（The Inquisition）在数百年的时间里，有系统地搜捕并肉体消灭了所有具有预知、治愈或其他超自然能力的“女巫”和异能者。这种长达数世纪的非自然选择，实际上是对人类基因库进行的一场极其残酷的“反向优生学”定向剪枝。教会允许自身体制内的魔术存在——例如神父主持的圣餐礼仪式本质上就是一种合法的魔法操纵，但任何存在于教会掌控之外的异能、幻象或另类实践，都会被铁腕抹杀，以确保其绝对的统治权力和意识形态垄断。 * **Psi Genes 实验样本数据**：初始通过网络招募 3,000 人，最终深度筛选并提取 DNA 13 人。 * **内含子序列（Intron Sequence）功能**：占人类数十亿碱基对的绝大部分（仅 50,000 个左右用于制造蛋白质的被称为外显子），现已知其负责表观遗传，扮演控制基因开启或关闭的“开关”。 ### [01:15:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=4539s) 历史上的肉身漂浮与断代之谜 历史上并非没有逃过清洗的异能者。天主教圣徒中不乏由于自身神职身份而获得庇护的奇人。例如被称为“飞行员守护神”的库比蒂诺的圣若瑟（Joseph of Cupertino），曾有成千上万的目击者（包括教皇乌尔班八世）看到他飘浮到 30 英尺的高空，甚至在教堂的椽木间穿行。由于他本身就是神父，最终裁判所与他达成协议：将他安置到一个偏远落后的地方，条件是“不得再在任何人面前展示这种能力”。无独有偶，西班牙神秘主义者圣德兰（St. Teresa of Avila）也曾详细记录过自己处于深度精神狂喜时，被一股狂暴的力量从脚底托起的经历。她甚至为此感到极度尴尬，不得不命令身边的修女强行把她按在地上。 当被问及为什么如今没人能用 iPhone 拍下真正的肉身漂浮时，超验冥想组织（TM organization）的“瑜伽飞行”（yogic flyers）项目给出了一个有趣的社会学解释。该项目曾公开展示过四位顶尖男子的“飞行”，但目击者发现，他们实际上只是在全莲花坐姿下，依靠惊人的爆发力向外“弹跳”大约两英尺半，这本质上更接近于一种高强度的增强式训练（plyometrics）。当被质问为什么没有人真正漂浮滑行时，宗师玛哈里希（Maharishi）回答道：“因为有太多人认为这是不可能的。”这种根深蒂固的社会集体潜意识（zeitgeist），已经成为了阻碍超自然现象在现代显现的社会学心理屏障。 ### [01:18:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=4727s) 意念弯曲汤匙与 3 万英尺高空的恐惧 正是由于几次打破常规的亲身体验，才促使原本在普林斯顿和贝尔实验室工作的正统科学家走出传统实验的“盒子”，转而提笔撰写关于魔法的书籍。在实验室里，科学家通过统计学和随机数生成器只能观察到极其微弱的超心理效应，但这些效应的极限究竟在哪里，没人知道。其中一次震撼的经历便是“用意念弯曲汤匙的碗部”。在一场勺子弯曲派对上，面对一位声称仅靠触碰就能让勺碗变形的女子，抱着“这简直太荒谬了”的拆穿心态，科学家在模仿其手势时，竟然在毫无知觉、手指未留下任何压痕的情况下，将一把 1961 年产的坚硬钢勺直接弯曲了 90 度，并在随后的惊呼声中彻底将其折叠。 这场经历带来了长期的精神震撼。在随后乘飞机回家的旅途中，当看着手中另一把一模一样的勺子时，这位科学家心中突然涌起了一股巨大的恐惧：“我正坐在一个 3 万英尺高空的金属铁皮罐子里，而我甚至不知道自己是怎么做到的。”他深怕自己的意识一旦失控，会不小心把飞机的机翼也给“用意念弯曲”了。虽然至今无法完全解释意识的作用机制，但后来的冶金学研究表明，当人类能够瞬间对金属施加 50 到 70 磅的脉冲式冲击力时，确实会引发金属内部晶格结构的某种突变。 ### [01:22:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=4947s) 弯曲勺子的物理对抗与“意念变形”体验 演讲者深入探讨了他用意念弯曲勺子的神奇经历。他解释说，在特定状态下，金属的晶粒边界会发生瞬间软化，并保持极度柔软的状态大约 20 秒。在这短暂的窗口期内，“你真的只需要像这样用大拇指和手指一捏，就能把它压过去”，这也是他当时实际的操作方式。随后，金属会瞬间重新变硬。然而，究竟是什么引发了最初让金属软化的力量，目前科学上完全没有解释。对话者对此感到难以置信，坦言自己握着勺子时根本做不到这一点，并询问这是否就是当初那把勺子，演讲者确认这就是那把普通的勺子。 随后，对话者试图亲自动手尝试，他发现勺子其实是有韧性的，并用力将其拉直。演讲者指出，将勺子拉直需要耗费极大的力量，“必须使出浑身解数”。为了验证这种力量的差距，演讲者让对话者尝试用特定姿势——大拇指在下、手指在上——仅用单手的一根手指去弯曲勺子。由于勺子呈壳状结构，这种形状自带天然的抗弯曲性，因此在没有杠杆借力的情况下，单凭手指极其难以将其折弯。对话者在屡次尝试未果后，不得不承认这太难了，并开玩笑说如果有一个夹具或者允许他双手齐上、全身使劲或许能做到，但单凭手指是绝对不可能的。 - **金属软化窗口**：晶粒边界软化后，金属会像腻子（putty）一样保持约 20 秒的极度柔软状态。 - **结构抗性**：勺子的勺部和颈部具有“壳状结构（shell shape）”，这种几何形状本身会强烈抵御弯曲。 - **力量对比**：普通人必须使用双手、借助杠杆原理并耗费极大的力气才能勉强改变其形状，而演讲者当时仅用一根手指和拇指便轻松将其捏弯。 --- ### [01:24:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=5076s) “尖叫向火”：疯狂的动机与传统魔法的运作机制 演讲者透露，他当时处于一种极其诡异且强烈的动机状态中。当时他参加的是一个会议，主办方承诺，如果谁能在不借助外力的情况下完成这个动作，就能获得一枚印有 "Certified Warm Former"（认证热成型师）字样的徽章。这个充满幽默感的搞笑徽章引发了全场大笑。对话者提到，他曾听说有人能通过揉搓勺颈来做到这一点，但后来对方承认那只是个魔术戏法，并非魔法。而演讲者强调自己对勺颈不感兴趣，他挑战的是抗弯能力极强的壳状部位。 为了得到这枚“愚蠢的徽章”，演讲者陷入了一种超乎常理的执念。他想象着第二天自己穿上西装、佩戴徽章在会议上演讲的画面，内心深处产生了一种奇特的自我表现欲。他坦言自己平时并不是一个自大或爱自我吹嘘的人，但那一刻，“如果我不做成这件事，宇宙就会毁灭”般的强迫感吞噬了他。这种极端的、毫无理性可言的“需要”而非“想要”，恰恰契合了传统魔法的运作原理。魔法的生效往往依赖于信念、动机和想象力的多重叠加。演讲者将这种能够促成超自然现象发生的极致动机状态称为“尖叫向火（screaming at fire）”，它与长期冥想开悟是达到这种境界的两条不同途径。令人惊奇的是，当他成功做到并拿到徽章的那一刻，这种强烈的执念瞬间烟灭云散，宇宙仿佛又恢复了平衡。 - **动机的核心要素**：传统魔法的运作需要信念（belief）、动机（motivation）和想象力（imagination）的共同作用。 - **两种精神路径**：一种是长期的冥想（long-term meditation），另一种则是演讲者所谓的“尖叫向火（screaming at fire）”——一种爆发式的、极端的精神驱动力。 - **心理状态的主观体验**：在成功获得徽章后，那种不可理喻的偏执和迫切感在瞬间完全消失。 --- ### [01:27:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=5256s) 微观心灵感应与左右脑的理性障碍 当被问及后来是否在其他环境下尝试复制这种状态时，演讲者笑称自己在飞机上试过，但现在不敢了，因为他自己也搞不懂最初是如何做到的。不过，他后来用航空级别的四分之一英寸铝条进行过几次测试。这种铝条极度坚硬，原本平放在桌上绝不会晃动。在没有徽章带来的那种疯狂动机下，他通过类似的精神状态，成功让铝条产生了微小的形变，使其能够产生不易察觉的轻微摇晃，移动距离大概只有几分之一毫米。 演讲者进一步提出，这种现象与“微观心灵感应（micro PK/microkinetic events）”非常相似。它的本质是在极其微观的原子层面上改变了“概率结构（probabilistic structure）”。如果能精准聚焦于金属的某一条带状区域，就能让其晶粒瞬间发生位移。然而，这种状态要求意识不能带有任何分析性的思维。演讲者表示，如果自己当时处于理性的分析状态，这件事情绝对不会发生。这正如直觉的吊诡之处：一旦你过度思考、试图去定义它，你的感知就会扭曲并阻碍它的呈现。在普遍意义上，这对应着左脑（主管分析、语言，维持现实世界的稳定性）与右脑（关注形式、功能，是遥视和多数超心理学现象发生的区域）之间的对立。 - **微观心灵感应（Micro PK）**：在原子层面上改变物质的概率结构，从而引发可观测的物理改变。 - **铝条实验数据**：演讲者曾让航空级 $1/4$ 英寸厚的坚硬铝条产生了“几分之一毫米（a fraction of a millimeter）”的微小形变。 - **大脑分工假说**：左脑的分析理性负责维持现实的稳定，而右脑则是遥视（remote viewing）和绝大多数精神力量的源泉。 --- ### [01:30:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=5425s) 212个心灵特征基因片段与“双面向一元论” 话题随后转向了演讲者主持的“心灵基因（Psi Genes）”研究，目前该研究的第二阶段成果已经发表。演讲者指出，这类基因研究就像研究精神分裂症的遗传基础一样，通常需要成千上万的病例组和控制组进行比对。由于缺乏巨额资金支持，他们巧妙地利用了来自 23andMe 和 Ancestry 等基因检测公司的外显子组（Exome）数据。通过让参与者填写关于超自然经历的调查问卷，并与基因片段进行关联分析，他们成功发现了 212 个与心灵经历显著相关的单核苷酸多态性（SNPs，即基因片段）。其中一个特定片段的关联概率竟然达到了惊人的一百万分之一（1,000,000:1），这意味着它极有可能是真实存在的，且该片段在解剖学上与大脑中的多种活动密切相关。演讲者开玩笑说，如果听众里有谁能拿出 1000 万美元，他们就能利用现有的技术彻底揭开这个谜团。对话者随即打趣道：“埃隆（马斯克），你手头有闲钱吗？投点过来吧。” 在探讨个体生物学、基因、经历与意识的关系时，演讲者提出了一种被称为“双面向一元论（dual aspect monism）”的哲学观点，这正是他新书副标题《心智如何编织现实的织锦》所表达的核心。他认为意识与物质世界并非孤立，而是像一幅织锦一样交织在一起。物质与心灵并非两个独立的世界，而是共同衍生自一个未知且统一的“本源世界”。心理学家卡尔·荣格（Carl Jung）将这个本源称为“一元世界（Unus Mundus）”。在荣格的理论中，这个统一的世界因为“意义（meaning）”而分裂出了心灵与物质这两个面向。因为它们同出一源，所以像一枚硬币的两面一样紧密相关。 - **基因研究成果**：通过分析外显子数据，研究人员发现了 **212 个** 与超自然经历相关的单核苷酸多态性（SNPs），其中最显著的一个关联概率高达 **一百万分之一**。 - **双面向一元论**：主张心灵（mind）与物质（matter）是同一个不可知的统一本源分裂出来的两个面向。 - **荣格的一元世界（Unus Mundus）**：由于“意义”的作用，统一的世界分裂为心灵与物质，从而解释了两者之间的高度相关性。 --- ### [01:33:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=5620s) 从詹姆斯·韦伯望远镜到量子力学的唯心主义 frontier 对话者指出，“意义”是一个高度主观的概念，而演讲者也承认荣格从未对“意义”下过确切的定义。这个不可知的统一本源不仅能分裂出心智与物质，理论上还能分裂出无数种其他面向，比如其他世界、其他宇宙甚至是外星人。面对对话者关于“这包含太多‘我们不知道’了”的感叹，演讲者回应道，这正是科学的前沿。科学的核心在于观察并建立理论去解释现象，但它无法回答终极的“为什么”（例如电子为什么带有特定的电荷）。 在可观测宇宙的边界，诸如量子力学中的量子叠加态、量子纠缠以及被爱因斯坦称为“幽灵般的超距作用（spooky action at a distance）”等现象，在普通人看来完全就是魔法，颠覆了我们日常生存的所有规则。演讲者指出，人类的日常经验是狭隘的、以人类时间尺度为中心的。几千年前人类抬头只能看到模糊的光点，而如今通过詹姆斯·韦伯望远镜（James Webb Space Telescope），我们知道可观测宇宙中至少有 3000 亿个星系。人类的宇宙观随着工具延展感官而发生着日新月异的变化。 最后，演讲者强调，他之所以对意识的本质和前沿如此着迷，是因为如果没有意识，我们甚至无法感知任何事物的存在。在某种程度上，是意识创造了这一切。他提到，如果推向极端的唯心主义（Idealism）——即认为物质世界完全是从意识中涌现出来的——你会发现，几乎所有量子力学的奠基人（如普朗克、薛定谔等）都是唯心主义者。这些发展出人类历史上最成功物理理论的科学家，不仅相信万物的本质是意识，而且他们中的大多数人同时还是神秘主义者，曾广泛阅读并深入研究东方哲学。这种对古老东方传统和神秘主义的深刻共鸣，在当今最前沿的物理学家群体中依然存在。 - **宇宙视界的拓展**：借助詹姆斯·韦伯望远镜，现代科学估计可观测宇宙中至少存在 **3,000 亿个星系**（300 billion galaxies）。 - **物理学家的思想共性**：量子力学的诸多奠基人普遍持有唯心主义（Idealism）立场，并且深度涉猎东方哲学与神秘主义（mysticism）。 - **工具与现实**：科学史上每当有新仪器（如望远镜、显微镜）延展人类的感官，未曾想象过的全新现实领域就会随之开启。 ### 精神传统对通灵现象的压制与控制 在探讨宗教文本中被历史和语言扭曲的真相时，发言者指出，天主教乃至整个宗教界普遍存在一种奇怪的现象：它们一方面承认超自然“魔法”的存在，另一方面又告诫信徒不要过多关注。发言者分享了自己与著名导师萨古鲁（Sadguru）的对话。作为一名研究通灵现象的科学家，发言者曾向萨古鲁表达了自己的困惑：为什么几乎所有的瑜伽和精神传统都警告人们要远离通灵，这是否意味着科学家的研究是在浪费时间？ 萨古鲁用了一个生动的比喻来回应：想象一个从未坐过车的人，坐在车里喜欢把手伸出窗外感受风的吹拂，但如果车子驶近一棵树，他的手臂就可能被齐根撕断。这个故事背后的核心逻辑是，通灵现象蕴含着凡人无法掌控的强大力量，因而在缺乏了解时盲目触碰是极其危险的。然而，发言者笑着坦言，这种警告反而激发了他作为科学家的好奇心，“这只会让我更想去揭开它的谜底”。另一位讲述者则一针见血地指出，宗教传统让人“忽略它”的传统极其荒谬，其本质目的很可能是为了维持意识形态的绝对控制，防止人们跳出教会设定的框架去质疑其教条。 - 在基督教和天主教教义中，此类通灵或“魔法”行为被明确列入教义问答并被打上“恶魔化”的标签，以此禁止信徒接触。 - 发言者透露，现今政府和军方高层中仍有许多人坚守这种“恶魔论”观点，这也是UFO等神秘现象长期被刻意压制和边缘化的核心原因之一。例如，政客J·D·万斯（JD Vance）就曾公开表达过他认为UFO是恶魔的观点。 --- ### 瑜伽修行的本源与基因改造的设想 除了对未知的恐惧，精神传统压制通灵能力的另一个原因在于这种力量具有极强的诱惑性，而人性往往是脆弱的。发言者赞同这一观点，并指出在瑜伽传统中，修行者在最终获得通灵能力（神通，Siddhis）之前，必须经历前三到五年的严格训练，核心目的就是学会克制自我的欲望与傲慢（Ego）。发言者顺便纠正了西方对瑜伽的刻板印象，指出西方盛行的各种拉伸和高难度动作，其最初设计仅仅是为了让修行者的身体足够强壮，从而能够以莲花坐姿连续冥想八个小时——因为只有在冥想开始后，真正的精神修行才拉开序幕。 基于对通灵基因（psi genes）的浓厚兴趣，发言者在七年前与几位同事共同创立了一家名为 Cognenics 的公司。他们的宏大设想是，在抛开伦理争议的前提下，能否利用基因工程技术显著提升人类的感知、认知和记忆能力，从而让普通人无需像苦行僧那样在洞穴里苦修30年，只需通过基因编辑手段就能快速达到相同的精神境界。如今，这一设想正逐步走向现实。他们开发出了一种通过鼻腔吸入递送RNA干扰（RNA interference）的独特方法，药物可以直接穿过鼻腔进入大脑，下调特定的受体。 - 这种基于RNA的基因疗法并非一劳永逸，其效果可以维持数月，之后需要每两到三个月重新进行鼻腔喷雾治疗。 - 尽管该技术的终极愿景指向通灵能力的开发，但Cognenics公司目前商业上的首要聚焦领域是攻克认知障碍症（阿尔茨海默病），重点解决患者的短期记忆丧失问题。 --- ### 赛洛西宾的临床启示与RNA靶向疗法的突破 发言者提到了一项发表在《前沿神经科学》（Frontiers in Neuroscience）上的震撼案例：一名80岁的日裔美籍晚期阿尔茨海默病患者，原本已失禁、丧失语言能力并完全依赖看护，但在服用5克赛洛西宾（Psilocybin，一种魔菇提取物）后，虽然经历了最初的躁动和沉睡，却在第19小时奇迹般地恢复了完整的语言表达能力，甚至能够清晰回忆起多年的往事，并在随后的几周内恢复了生活自理和情感互动。赛洛西宾作为 $5\text{-HT}_{2\text{A}}$ 受体的激动剂（Agonist），在促使受体高度表达后引发大脑的补偿机制，进而使该受体遭到下调。 Cognenics 公司的核心技术正是绕过了赛洛西宾导致的严重幻觉阶段，直接对 $5\text{-HT}_{2\text{A}}$ 受体进行下调。这种精准的RNA干扰疗法不仅能显著提升记忆力，还能同时将认知障碍患者常伴有的焦虑感降低近 100%。在被问及该药对健康人群有何影响时，发言者表示目前尚未获得FDA的临床试验许可。当面对主持人关于“是否有团队成员偷偷在自己身上尝试”的戏谑追问时，发言者笑着清了清嗓子予以否认，幽默地表示“就算有人试了也绝对不能承认”。 - **动物实验数据**：该疗法已在小鼠、大鼠及非人灵长类动物（猴子）身上完成测试。通过正电子发射断层扫描（PET scan）和放射性标记追踪，证实药物能精准穿过骨骼屏障进入大脑边缘系统（Limbic system）和海马体。 - **实验效果**：在老年或正常小鼠的实验中，记忆力均实现了 100% 的提升，同时伴随着近 100% 的焦虑缓解。 - **递送机制**：与吸食可卡因类似，该药物依赖特定的分子大小，通过特制的雾化喷雾系统精准喷射到鼻腔深处的裂隙，进而渗透骨骼直接作用于大脑。 --- ### 新技术的潜在风险与预想不到的后果 这项技术从诺提克科学研究所（Institute of Noetic Sciences）的通灵基因项目中孵化而来，目前正以一种非常务实的商业方式推进，旨在造福数以百万计的认知障碍患者。然而，伴随着未来可能向“人类功能增强”领域延伸的趋势，团队也保持着极大的审慎。发言者透露，公司内部已经聘请了专门的伦理学家，共同审视这项技术可能带来的社会与道德冲击。 主持人询问该技术在最坏的衍生情况下会引发什么后果。发言者引用了历史的教训进行说明：他曾结识过反式脂肪（Trans fats）的发明者，那位发明家最初满怀善意，认为这种脂肪可以替代传统脂肪以造福人类，但结果却演变成了一场健康灾难。这正是所有新兴技术都无法完全避免的“意外后果”（unintended consequences）。目前的临床前研究受限于动物模型，科学家很难完全推断出小鼠或大鼠在用药后的心理状态。 - **潜在滥用风险**：鉴于该药物对正常人的记忆力同样有显著的提升作用，团队十分担心它会沦为像利他林（Ritalin）那样被学生群体滥用的“聪明药”。因此，发言者强调该药未来绝对不会作为非处方药（OTC）在药店发售，必须凭严格的医生处方获取。 - **灵长类实验副作用**：在目前进行的猴子实验中，已经观察到了一些微小的行为异常。测试中有两只猴子表现出了极强的攻击性，只要有人靠近就会显露出明显的敌意。 ### [01:53:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=6794s) 鼻喷雾的社会实验与大脑的“免费午餐” 谈到某种化合物的临床实验，主讲人分享了一项令人震惊的发现：两只原本充满攻击性、动辄向人龇牙咧嘴的猴子，在接受了单一剂量的这种化合物后，整整两天都表现得非常温和。这证明了该物质具有极佳的抗焦虑效果（anxiolytic effect）。对话者不禁畅想，如果把这种以鼻喷雾形式存在的药物推广到全社会，让每个人都使用，那大家岂不是就能和睦相处、消弭冲突，甚至在一个全新的领域建立连接？那场面该有多么美好。 然而，主讲人立刻展现出科学家的严谨与理智，指出必须先搞清楚这会带来哪些“非预期后果”（unintended consequences）。他深刻地提醒道，人类的大脑面对任何药物都会产生补偿机制，“生物学上没有免费的午餐”。对于没有健康问题的人来说，这种干预可能会带来无法预知的负面影响。不过，他们的研究初心是针对那些目前无药可医的患者，比如市场上的现有药物大多只是效果不佳的刺激剂。主讲人坦言，自己的父亲就是因痴呆症（dementia）去世的，父亲拥有包括法学学位在内的五个学位，头脑极度聪慧，却靠做平面艺术家这种务实的工作谋生；到了痴呆症晚期，父亲甚至因为无法追踪剧情而连电视和有声书都无法观看。这种智力退化对一个极其依赖头脑的人来说是残酷的，这也成为了主讲人坚持研发、试图为他人挽回短期记忆的动力。 - **猴子实验细节**：两只极具攻击性的猴子在注射单剂量的化合物后，整整两天保持温和状态。 - **药物形式**：该化合物目前设计为一种鼻喷雾（nasal spray）。 - **家庭背景与动机**：主讲人的父亲拥有5个学位（包括法律学位），晚期因严重痴呆症无法观看电视或听有声书。 --- ### [01:55:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=6935s) 他心通的诱惑与心灵改变的闪变效应 对话者抛出了一个极具思辨性的假设：如果主讲人真的研发出了一种能赋予人类无可争议的、真正的“心灵感应能力”（psychic ability）的补充剂，他是否会选择暂停公布？主讲人毫不犹豫地给出了肯定的答复。他提到自己曾向著名灵性导师萨古鲁（Sadhguru）透露过他们在心灵感应方面的研究，萨古鲁当时就警告说这绝对是个坏主意。大众普遍认为心灵感应只是“接收”他人的想法，但它实际上是一条双向通道——这意味着你同样可以向别人的大脑“注入”想法并控制他们。这种力量对绝大多数人来说过于具有诱惑性，如果没有经历过像长期冥想的僧侣那样放下小我（ego）的严格训练，贸然拥有这种能力将是一场灾难。 主讲人进一步指出，他之所以对“心智科学”（noetic sciences）感兴趣，是因为人们在经历某种体验（无论是通过赛洛西宾还是其他方法）时，往往会发生戏剧性的性格转变。这种转变就像是“创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）的积极面”：他们的认知被彻底颠覆，突然间变得极具亲社会性（pro-social），充满慈悲心并渴望服务和帮助他人。哪怕这些人在此之前是个彻头彻尾的混蛋，这种改变也会在瞬间发生并牢固地维持下去。主讲人认为，理解“为什么仅仅通过看到一个关于自身、人类以及宇宙本质的更宏大图景，就能让人发生如此巨变”是极其核心且重要的科学课题。 --- ### [01:57:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=7074s) 终结寄生虫与心理变态的“全连接”社会 对话者敏锐地指出，要想安全地拥有真正的超自然能力，必须将“迷幻体验中的自我消融（ego death）”与提升能力的药物结合起来，否则就会出现利用超能力操控他人的心理变态。虽然古希腊的神秘学校（mystery schools）曾通过药物让人体验这种自我的打开与转化，但主讲人澄清说，完全的“自我消融”并不准确，因为人类作为具身系统（embodied systems）仍需要自我来维持运转。更准确的说法应当是“对自我的审视与控制”，就像教导愤怒的孩子不要付诸行动一样，通过正念冥想来了解并约束自我。随着研究的推进，人类可能会迈向一个社会互动范式彻底颠覆的新领域。 当然，这种颠覆必然会遭到那些既得利益者的强烈抵制。对话者和主讲人探讨了科技带来的行业巨变和权力洗牌。以 GLP-1 药物（如 Ozempic 和 Wegovy）为例，十年前无人知晓，如今已发展为数万亿美元的庞大产业，有约 3900 万美国人正在使用。如果未来出现一种在认知层面产生确切疗效的科学补充剂，那么现有的政治宣传、媒体洗脑和企业控制都将彻底土崩瓦解。那将是一个全新的、高度合作的社会，所有的“社会寄生虫、心理变态（psychopaths）和反社会人格者”都将被彻底暴露。人们可能会惊恐地发现，原来有这么多重要机构其实一直被这群人控制着，许多非营利组织也不过是维持控制的骗局。正因如此，这种变革绝不可能一蹴而就，它会彻底重塑司法、政治、经济和资源分配的规则。 - **GLP-1 药物数据**：全美目前约有 3900 万人使用此类药物，该产业已达数万亿美元规模。 - **社会影响**：认知提升补充剂的大规模普及将使传统的政治宣传、控制手段和“ Horseshit ”（胡扯）式的伪装彻底失效。 --- ### [02:04:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=7488s) 蜂群思维的科幻启示与面对面连接的现实引力 为了形象化这种全连接的社会，主讲人提到了科幻美剧《众生一体》（*Pluribus*，此处应为 *Omniscient* 或类似题材剧集的口误提及）。在剧中的“蜂群思维”（hive mind）里，所有人连接在一起，任何人都可以在瞬间拥有外科医生般的专业技能，生活似乎变得井然有序。不过对话者开玩笑说他并不喜欢这种设定，他更喜欢剧中那个“喝醉了对所有人大喊大叫的女士”，因为那才是更具辨识度、更有血有肉的人类。他们探讨了科幻作品（如《星际迷航》中的博格人）为何总是把蜂群思维描绘得十分恐怖——因为它在消灭自我的同时，似乎也抹杀了创造力和个人表达。但如果换个“杯子半满”的乐观视角来看，全连接或许能让我们集体变得更有创造力：当你遇到问题时，不再是向 Perplexity 这类 AI 提问，而是直接向宇宙或集体意识寻求修理汽车化油器的方法，这在效率和和平层面上无疑是巨大的飞跃。 最后，对话者感慨于科技的日新月异。如果对 30 年前的人说，未来每个人都能随身携带一个拥有 24 小时续航、能随时查询全人类历史、数学和代码信息的手机，别人一定会认为你疯了；早期的科幻小说甚至没有预测出互联网和智能手机的普及。面对未来 10 到 30 年的技术演进，对话者强烈坚持所有重要的对谈必须“在线下亲自面谈”。他认为即便和爱德华·斯诺登（Edward Snowden）通过 Zoom 进行过很棒的远程播客，但屏幕背后总归缺少了某些东西。当两个人真正坐在同一个房间里 proximity（近距离）交流时，大脑之间会产生一种奇妙的连结，并与所有听众产生共鸣，这是电子设备无法替代的。然而，手机无处不在的代价和补偿机制，同样也是一个无法忽视的硬币反面。 ### [02:08:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=7696s) AI时代下的教育担忧与学术“幻觉” 现在的老师们对AI的发展感到有些恐慌。由于过度依赖各类AI工具，当下的年轻一代似乎正在失去独立写作与思考的能力。更糟糕的是，如果人们开始盲目信任Perplexity或任何其他AI系统，将会陷入严重的麻烦。因为这些AI工具远非完美，它们频繁出现“幻觉”，经常向用户提供完全错误的信息。 谈到这里，对话中引用了一个最近发生的真实案例：一名律师在法庭辩护中引述了多个判例，这些判例结构严谨、看似完美无瑕，但实际上在现实世界中根本不存在——它们全部是由AI凭空捏造出来的。这位律师满心以为自己胜券在握，结果法官却直截了当地指出他所说的没有一件事是真实的。这种过度依赖设备的现象导致人们不再以同样的方式吸收和消化信息。 - **AI的局限性**：会产生“幻觉”并提供错误信息，无法替代人类的纪律性思考。 - **真实案例**：一名律师因使用AI生成虚假判例而遭到法庭法官的当场驳回。 --- ### [02:09:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=7756s) 纪律性思考与AI在科学研究中的定位 作为一名科学家，AI确实让工作变得“极其轻松”。在日常的基因研究中，团队会频繁使用Claude Code等工具，这让科研效率大幅提升。在这些先进的AI代码工具出现之前，编写出能够精确执行特定任务的程序需要消耗大量的时间和极高的人类技术。然而，科学家本身已经是经过严格训练的“纪律性思考者”，而非思维尚未成熟的在校学生。 每当向AI寻求写作或研究帮助时，具备专业背景的学者一眼就能看出AI知识库的漏洞。当被追问知识来源时，AI通常会回答说它抓取了整个互联网的数据，但它显然抓取地不够好。一旦被指出漏掉了某些关键文献，AI就会立刻礼貌地道歉：“哦，对不起，我没注意到那个部分。”这暴露出AI算法追求速度的本质，它们往往只抓取最表层的网络信息，其中甚至可能混杂着Reddit网民的恶搞帖子或由青少年撰写的维基百科条目。 - **Claude Code的应用**：在基因研究和代码编写中起到显著的催化作用，极大提高了工作效率。 - **知识库的挑战**：AI数据源可能包含Reddit恶搞帖或青少年编写的维基百科，缺乏深层验证。 - **算法的缺陷**：设计上追求高速运行，导致其往往只提取表面数据，面对专业质疑时经常道歉。 --- ### [02:10:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=7836s) 历史的交替：从神经网络到长视频的复兴 AI技术目前仍处于应用的初级阶段。这就好比印刷术刚发明的时候，当时出版的大多数书籍居然都是关于“如何识别女巫”的荒谬内容。虽然人们寄希望于技术会在发展中自我修正，但当前的危险在于AI已经开始在进行自我编写，长此以往，人类终将彻底失去对系统内部运行逻辑的掌控。这种不可解释性在20世纪80年代神经网络刚兴起时就已经初现端倪。当时使用神经网络训练数据时，节点和权重在网络内部对信息进行了编码，虽然它学习得非常好，但人类根本无法提取或理解它究竟是如何得出结论的。 尽管技术带来了喧嚣，但人们对长视频和长音频播客（Long-form podcasts）的狂热追捧却令人感到欣慰。在这个普遍抱怨现代人注意力缩短、沉迷于TikTok短视频和Instagram Reels的时代，长格式对话的流行证明了大众对深度思考和精神刺激的饥求。这就像饮食习惯：把垃圾食品摆在面前，大多数人会顺手吃掉；但如果是有纪律、有思考能力的人，他们能够克制欲望，选择鸡蛋和维生素等健康食品。未来的教育或许应该转向引导学生理解个人心理学和自律的价值，让人们明白“AI只是在提供数据，它既没有让你变得更聪明，也没有给你带来更多知识”，人类必须学会将数据转化为行动。 - **神经网络的不可解释性**：早在20年代80年代，神经网络的权重（weights）和节点（nodes）就表现出人类无法理解和提取的黑盒特性。 - **现代媒介的反差**：在短视频泛滥的当下，长格式播客的流行反映了深度受众对高浓度思维刺激的渴望。 - **教育的未来演变**：需要从单纯灌输知识转向传授自律、思维结构以及如何消化AI数据。 --- ### [02:14:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=8042s) 技术恐惧与人类历史的非线性发展 每当新科学技术出现时，社会总会陷入恐慌。电视刚诞生时，人们害怕大众会整天盯着屏幕，事实上确实有很多人这么做了；互联网同样带来了极大的分流与分心。但不可否认的是，人类现在拥有了前所未有的获取信息的渠道，甚至能在一个长达三小时的播客里探讨极其硬核、孤僻的科学或历史话题。对此，对话双方持乐观态度，因为人类这一物种具有极强的韧性，每个人（甚至包括同卵双胞胎）身上都携带着大约11%左右的基因突变，正是这种多样性让我们在面对彗星撞击或文明灾难时得以存活。 谈及文明的兴衰，埃及金字塔等古代遗迹总会引发无尽的遐想。人类总是傲慢地认为文明的发展是从穴居人到现代社会的完美线性过程，但这显然不符合事实。自然界中几乎没有任何事物是线性的。如果今天爆发核战争，全球只剩下5万幸存者，人类可能需要再花上10万年才能重新建立起高度发达的技术社会。而现代人类进入高科技社会才不过区区几十年，就已经面临着巨大的生存危机。 - **电视与互联网的历史镜像**：虽然带来了娱乐消遣和注意力分散，但也极大地拓宽了人类获取知识的边界。 - **人类物种的韧性**：每个人体内独特的基因突变比例，是人类在灾难中免于灭绝的生物学底层逻辑。 - **文明的非线性**：金字塔等奇迹挑战了“穴居人到现代人”的线性进化论，暗示历史上可能存在高度发达但随后消亡的周期性文明。 --- ### [02:18:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=8320s) 外星人猜想、趋同演变与秘鲁神秘头骨 在探讨人类文明的未知阶段时，不明航空现象（UAP）和地外生物成为了绕不开的话题。有人猜测它们可能是来自未来的未来人，回到过去是为了像做实验一样观察人类，防止我们把地球彻底搞砸。然而，科学家Hal Puthoff提出的“超地球人”（Ultraterrestrials）假说更具说服力——这些生物并非来自未来，而是来自地球的过去，它们是一群在百万年前就已经高度分化并掌握了先进科技的古老文明分支。 这一假说可以用自然界中的“趋同演变”（Convergent evolution）来解释。在内华达大学拉斯维加斯分校（UNLV）附近的鸟类博物馆里，陈列着来自北极的大海雀（Auks）和来自南极的企鹅（Penguins）。尽管它们属于完全不同的鸟类物种，并且在南北两极独立演化，但由于相似的生存环境，它们在颜色、体型和轮廓上进化得几乎一模一样。这解释了为什么传闻中的外星人（如所谓的“诺迪克外星人”）大多长着酷似斯堪的纳维亚人的类人面孔（Humanoid）——因为这种身体结构是由完美的进化规律在类地环境中塑造而成的。 随后，对话转向了现实中发现的奇特考古证据。在秘鲁等地区，考古学家发现了许多外形极为怪异的拉长形人类头骨。这些头骨的脑容量比现代人类大出30%，并且完全没有矢状缝（Sagittal suture）。尽管主流学术界将此类现象归咎于古代拉长头部的“束头”（Head-shaping）习俗，但这引发了更深层次的思考：这种习俗最初是否是为了模仿某种在当时真实存在的高智商未知生物？ - **超地球人假说**：由Hal Puthoff提出，认为UAP现象的主角不是未来人，而是来自地球历史深处、比现代人类先进数万甚至百万年的古老地球文明。 - **趋同演变实例**：北极的大海雀与南极的企鹅在相互隔绝的环境中进化出了近乎相同的形态与配色。 - **秘鲁神秘头骨特征**： * 脑容量比现代人类大出30%。 * 缺少人类特有的矢状缝（Sagittal suture）。 * 呈现出显著的纵向拉长形状。 ### [02:22:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=8576s) 拉长头骨之谜与超维生物的深海假说 对话从讨论一些神秘的拉长头骨（elongated skulls）开始。讲者们让助理杰米（Jamie）在网上搜索相关图片，特别是那些“没有矢状缝”（no sagittal suture）的拉长头骨。当一张诡异的头骨照片弹出来时，大家都感到十分震惊，直呼“这看起来根本不像人类，但它是真实的头骨”。虽然有人提出这可能是通过后天束头等手段塑形的，但讲者指出，那些完全没有矢状缝的头骨极为反常。因为所有人类婴儿的头骨都是具有可塑性的，随着大脑的发育，矢状缝是头骨生长必不可少的结构。更不可思议的是，经测量，其中一些头骨的脑容量比普通人类更大，这绝不是单纯的后天塑形或压迫所能改变的。 随着对头骨解剖学特征的深入探讨，他们发现这些头骨的枕骨大孔（脊柱与头骨连接的位置）比正常人要靠后得多。这种结构上的根本差异，暗示它们可能是一种由于基因适应而诞生的“另一种人类”，并且曾与我们的人类祖先共同存在过。看着屏幕上一张带有Instagram水印的真实馆藏头骨照片，大家陷入了深思：如果这不是人工重塑的结果，那么他们是谁？或者，古人之所以要痛苦地束头塑形，是否就是为了模仿这些在他们眼中更为“高等”的生物？这种奇特人类的消亡引出了更具科幻色彩的假设：他们或许并未彻底消失，而是作为“超维生物”（ultraterrestrials）生活在避开人类视野的深海之中。 在高度发达的文明中，生物实体甚至可能不再是必需的，这解释了它们为何能在没有氧气、压力巨大的海底生存，彻底摆脱了对外部环境的依赖。讲者们由此联想到了詹姆斯·卡梅隆的经典电影《深渊》（The Abyss），片中正是讲述了潜水员在深海中发现未知发光文明的故事。事实上，美国国会议员蒂姆·伯切特（Tim Burchett）在做客该播客时就曾透露，官方已经注意到深海中存在5个有不明活动持续发生的特定区域。从逻辑上讲，如果一个外星或跨维度文明想要在不干扰本土社会的前提下观察地球，浩瀚且不为人知的海洋绝对是设立基地的最佳选择，而频繁被目击的“跨介质飞行器”（transmedium crafts，即能飞又能潜水的UFO/USO）也印证了这一点。 - **解剖学异常**：某些拉长头骨缺乏人类必备的矢状缝，且其枕骨大孔（Spinal column enter）的位置比正常人类显著靠后。 - **脑容量差异**：部分发现的拉长头骨脑容量超出普通人类范围，排除了纯粹依靠人工束头（Cranial binding）改变形状的可能。 - **深海秘密区域**：根据国会议员蒂姆·伯切特在该节目中的爆料，官方目前掌握了深海中至少有5个存在持续异常活动的地点。 --- ### [02:27:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=8834s) 星际迷航的愿景与“不干涉”的北桑提内尔岛法则 讲者们打趣地聊起了一种能飞又能游的“跨介质生物”——企鹅，笑称它也许就是外星生物的一种形式。随后，话题转向更严肃的社会学假设：如果人类文明发展到可以造访一个处于当今人类文明阶段的外星社会，我们一定会前去观察，甚至可能会出手阻止他们引发核战争。这触发了关于《星际迷航》（Star Trek）中“最高指导原则”（Prime Directive）的讨论——即不干涉低级文明的自发发展。虽然剧中的主角们总是打破这一规则，但这个科幻设定在现实中却有迹可循。 现实世界中最好的例子就是“北桑提内尔岛”（North Sentinel Island）。这个岛上的土著部落至今拒绝与现代文明接触，而国际社会也严格立法禁止任何人登岛，任由他们按照自己的轨迹繁衍发展。讲者感叹，也许高等文明对地球的态度正是如此。面对深海中那些无法解释的超高级智能迹象，讲者坦言自己的工作需要对“未知和模棱两可”（ambiguity）抱有极高的包容度，他非常享受这种在充满未知的迷雾中摸索的乐趣，并拒绝了许多“金手铐”（高薪稳定却枯燥的工作）的诱惑。 - **星际迷航情结**：讲者开玩笑称自己的个人使命之一就是“让《星际迷航》变成现实”，包括实现人体传送。他特别提到瓦肯人（Vulcan）虽然是最理性的生物，却能进行感官相融的“心灵融合”（Mind meld）。 - **现实不干涉案例**：北桑提内尔岛作为一个被现代法律保护、严禁外人进入的“未接触部落”栖息地，被用作解释外星文明为何不公开露面的类比。 --- ### [02:31:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=9080s) 硅谷隔墙奇遇：瑜伽睡眠与四重共时的“真实魔法” 在节目的尾声，讲者分享了一个收录在他新书中的震撼亲身经历，以此证明人类意识和意念的边界远比想象的要宽广。在离开Interval公司后，讲者在硅谷旁的洛斯阿图斯（Los Altos）创办了一家名为“边界研究所”（Boundary Institute）的非营利组织。有一天，他偶然换了一条路线步行上班，发现了一家名为“PsiQuest Inc”的公司，当时他只觉得好笑，因为自己正在做“Psi”（超心理学/特异功能）的研究，而这家公司的名字竟然撞了字（后来发现是Personnel Services Incorporated的缩写）。 几周后，他再次改变散步路线，惊讶地发现紧挨着自己办公室的隔壁，挂着一个小小的牌子，写着“PsiQuest Labs（PsiQuest实验室）”。一个猎头人力公司为什么需要实验室？讲者连续几周在工作之余去敲门、透过百叶窗张望，里面总是空无一人。终于有一天，里面亮起了灯，讲者敲开门准备做自我介绍，结果开门的男子在看到他的那一瞬间惊掉了下巴，脱口而出：“迪恩·雷丁（Dean Raden）！” 更诡异的在后面。这位名叫迪恩的男子（也是超心理学领域的同行）解释说，全世界做这个研究的也就40人左右，分布在五六个地方。他当时正处于一种名为“瑜伽睡眠”（Yoga Nidra）的修行状态中——这是一种每隔3小时清醒、3小时睡眠，循环往复24小时的特殊状态。在这种非同寻常的意识状态下，他运用了带有“魔法色彩”的专注意念，在脑海中不断勾勒“迪恩·雷丁推门进来”的画面，试图显化（manifest）他的出现。结果在清醒走动时，讲者真的推开了这扇门。讲者惊叹道，自己明明是凭借“自由意志”选择的办公室、选择的散步路线和敲门时机，却冥冥中被对方的意念拉扯了过来。 当讲者走进对方的实验室时，轮到他自己惊掉下巴了： > “我在我们办公室那面共用的墙这侧的白板上，刚刚画了一张我们想要的特殊椅子的设计图，还有特殊的屏蔽室和设备。而当我走到墙的另一侧，他的实验室里竟然摆着一模一样的东西。” 这是一种惊人的“四重共时性”（four-part synchronicity）：两个拥有相同意愿的人，在同一时间、同一地点，用同样的设计图和意图将彼此“拉”到了物理世界的交汇点。这次经历促使讲者深入研究了瑜伽传统中关于专注意念的“魔法”面向。他指出，现在许多前沿科学实际上正在与这些古老的“真实魔法”产生重合。它虽然不像《哈利·波特》里的魔法那样夸张，但它确实是客观存在的。在轻松愉快的氛围中，讲者将自己的著作《魔法科学》（The Science of Magic）送给了主持人，双方相约下次带上特殊的“鼻喷剂”继续连麦探讨，在一片欢声笑语中结束了本次对谈。 ## Notable quotes > [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=1s) 要想成为一名职业音乐家，本质上必须成为一名“运动员”，因为音乐家是靠身体来谋生的。 — Dean Radin > [11:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=702s) 唯物主义完全无法解释主观体验。这成为了当今科学界的头号未解之谜。 — Dean Radin > [08:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=529s) 我们要讲科学，我们要数据。但诡异的是，这方面其实是有数据的。 — Joe Rogan > [08:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=529s) 我们在世界上体验到的这些东西，是无法放在秤上称重的，是无法用卷尺去测量的，也无法测量其密度，但它们确实存在。 — Joe Rogan > [16:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=1006s) 因为我们知道这不可能，所以根本不看数据。 — Dean Radin > [43:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=2618s) 任何你脑海中能叫得出具体名字的东西，大概率都不是目标本身。 — Dean Radin > [50:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=3011s) 我们几千年来早就知道这些了。 — 澳大利亚土著女部长 > [41:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=2461s) 每个人都有一发写着自己名字的子弹，而我的那一发现在躺在保险箱里，绝对不会再拿出来。 — 雷丁博士的实验室同事 > [01:15:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=4539s) 因为有太多人认为这是不可能的。 — Maharishi > [01:18:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=4727s) 我正坐在一个 3 万英尺高空的金属铁皮罐子里，而我甚至不知道自己是怎么做到的。 — Dean Radin > [01:24:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=5076s) 如果我不做成这件事，宇宙就会毁灭。 — Dean Radin > [01:55:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=6934s) 生物学上没有免费的午餐。 — Dean Radin > [02:31:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo&t=9080s) 我在我们办公室那面共用的墙这侧的白板上，刚刚画了一张我们想要的特殊椅子的设计图……而当我走到墙的另一侧，他的实验室里竟然摆着一模一样的东西。 — Dean Radin ## Mentioned Dean Radin, Joe Rogan, Gilbert's syndrome, Alison Krauss, Charlie Daniels Jr., Institute of Noetic Sciences, Edgar Mitchell, Hal Puthoff, Russ Targ, Yuri Geller, Bell Laboratories, Stargate Program, Joe McMonigle, Ingo Swan, PEAR Lab, Neuralink, Gansfeld, Ed May, Robert Bigelow, Jimmy Carter, Jacques Vallée, Garry Nolan, Joseph of Cupertino, St. Teresa of Avila, Maharishi, Carl Jung, Unus Mundus, James Webb Space Telescope, Sadhguru, Cognigenics, Claude Code, Tim Burchett, Edward Snowden, The Science of Magic [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uk0_1yqdJo)

[0:01] Dean Radin: 要想成为一名职业音乐家，本质上必须成为一名“运动员”，因为音乐家是靠身体来谋生的。 [11:42] Dean Radin: 唯物主义完全无法解释主观体验。这成为了当今科学界的头号未解之谜。 [8:49] Joe Rogan: 我们要讲科学，我们要数据。但诡异的是，这方面其实是有数据的。 [8:49] Joe Rogan: 我们在世界上体验到的这些东西，是无法放在秤上称重的，是无法用卷尺去测量的，也无法测量其密度，但它们确实存在。 [16:46] Dean Radin: 因为我们知道这不可能，所以根本不看数据。 [43:38] Dean Radin: 任何你脑海中能叫得出具体名字的东西，大概率都不是目标本身。 [50:11] 澳大利亚土著女部长: 我们几千年来早就知道这些了。 [41:01] 雷丁博士的实验室同事: 每个人都有一发写着自己名字的子弹，而我的那一发现在躺在保险箱里，绝对不会再拿出来。 [75:39] Maharishi: 因为有太多人认为这是不可能的。 [78:47] Dean Radin: 我正坐在一个 3 万英尺高空的金属铁皮罐子里，而我甚至不知道自己是怎么做到的。 [84:36] Dean Radin: 如果我不做成这件事，宇宙就会毁灭。 [115:34] Dean Radin: 生物学上没有免费的午餐。 [151:20] Dean Radin: 我在我们办公室那面共用的墙这侧的白板上，刚刚画了一张我们想要的特殊椅子的设计图……而当我走到墙的另一侧，他的实验室里竟然摆着一模一样的东西。

[0:01] Joe Rogan: you look like maybe 15 20 years younger than you're supposed to look. [6:31] Dean Radin: Exploring the frontiers of consciousness, [66:40] Dean Radin: Whether the idea came from somewhere else, that's that I don't know. [66:40] Hal Puthoff: Well, I can't talk about that. [69:42] Dean Radin: They weren't trying to pull people for talent but get rid of the talent. [82:27] Dean Radin: I felt if I don't do this, the universe will end. [87:36] Dean Radin: I'm pretty sure if I was being analytical at the time, it would not have happened. Miraculous as the mushrooms may seem, the study authors note that the patient's improvements were temporary and psilocybin did not reverse the disease as her neurodegeneration remained. [148:34] Dean Radin: let them develop the way they shall develop. [148:34] Dean Radin: very high tolerance for ambiguity.

[0:01] Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. [0:03] >> The Joe Rogan Experience. [0:06] >> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY [0:08] NIGHT. All day. [0:12] >> Thank you for being here. [0:14] >> Good to be here. [0:14] >> I'm excited [music] to talk to you. Did [0:17] you maybe manifest this conversation [0:19] somehow? [0:19] >> Maybe. [laughter] [0:22] Um I've seen a bunch of your talks [0:24] online and um the first of all let's [0:28] start from the beginning like what what [0:30] is your background? [0:32] >> Uh I thought I'd give you a 40 45 year [0:37] arc. [0:37] >> Okay. [0:38] >> In about 3 minutes. [0:39] >> Perfect. [0:40] >> Because then there's a lot of places you [0:41] can get into it. So I started out as a [0:44] musician violin [0:46] uh up until about halfway through [0:48] college. And then I realized to be a [0:51] musician means you have to be an athlete [0:53] because you're making your living with [0:54] your body. No one told me that up [0:58] through until I finally decided I don't [1:00] think I want to make my living with my [1:02] body because I've never been very [1:04] strong. And more importantly, you also [1:05] need to have a lot of stamina and I [1:07] didn't have that. [1:08] >> And you weren't interested in gaining [1:09] it. [1:10] >> I I couldn't. I I have a genetic [1:13] mutation that that creates it uh like [1:17] most people when they exercise you feel [1:19] really good afterwards. I feel really [1:21] exhausted and I never understood why [1:23] until many years later I realized that I [1:26] have something called Jill Bear syndrome [1:28] which is a mutation of a liver enzyme [1:31] and you have no recovery time. [1:34] >> Whoa. [1:35] >> Yeah. So, [1:36] >> is there anything they can do for that [1:38] >> other than something like genetic [1:40] engineering, which I've never heard [1:41] anybody try yet? The answer is no. [1:44] >> I've never heard of that condition [1:45] before, I don't think. [1:46] >> Yeah, it's uh there's some missing [1:48] enzymes and more importantly the Billy [1:50] Rubin, which is unconjugated Billy [1:53] Rubin, you have way too much of it. So, [1:56] there's an upside and a downside. The [1:57] downside is that there you you can't [1:59] recover from exercise quickly, and so [2:02] there's a lot of fatigue [2:03] >> that happens. The upside is that [2:06] unconjugated Billy Rubin is an [2:08] antioxidant. It's one of the most [2:11] natural antioxidant. So, my [2:14] cardiovascular system is like a [2:15] 20-year-old. [2:16] >> Oh. So, you got your pros and your cons [2:19] with this. [2:20] >> Yeah. [2:21] >> Have you ever tried exercising in very [2:24] small doses, like throughout the day? [2:27] >> Well, I I walk every day, so that's [2:29] that's my primary exercise. [2:31] >> That's always great exercise. If I walk [2:33] too fast, too hard, I will feel it for [2:37] the next three or four days. [2:38] >> Wow. Um, so too fast, too hard, too [2:42] long. [2:42] >> Yeah. [2:43] >> So, what if you do like two push-ups and [2:45] then just do two push-ups like four [2:47] hours later and then two push-ups like [2:49] four hours later? [2:50] >> I can do that. Yeah. [2:51] >> Yeah. [2:51] >> I can do seven push-ups. [2:53] >> Yeah, maybe that's the move. Maybe the [2:55] move is just make yourself do things [2:57] very lightly throughout the day just to [2:59] keep your bone mass and all that Yeah. [3:02] >> good stuff that we lose when we get [3:05] older. [3:06] >> Yeah. [3:07] >> You know, but it sounds like there's a [3:08] pro the cardiovascular benefits. Pretty [3:11] sweet. [3:11] >> Yeah. So, when you get to a certain age, [3:13] your your doctor says, "Let's take a uh [3:16] cardiac calcium scan to see what what [3:20] are your arteries doing." And the the [3:22] range is from zero, so they don't see [3:24] anything in there, up to 100 where [3:26] you're basically about to die. So I my [3:29] doctor did said, "Does do that because [3:31] your cholesterol is like off it. It's [3:34] way too high." And I have zero. [3:37] >> Oh wow. [3:38] >> And say, "Well, how how could you have [3:40] zero?" Because I'm 74. I should not be [3:43] zero, but I do. And it's because of [3:44] this. [3:44] >> You look really good for 74. [3:46] >> Thank you. [3:47] >> You do. you you look like maybe 15 20 [3:51] years younger than you're supposed to [3:52] look. [3:53] >> Yeah. So that's the other advantage of [3:55] this particular mutation is longevity. [3:58] >> Damn, son. [3:59] >> Well, that's good. There's a positive to [4:01] it. [4:02] >> So violinists Oh, can I ask you this? [4:05] Totally unrelated. What is the [4:06] difference between a violin and a [4:07] fiddle? [4:09] >> Well, a violin is a career track towards [4:12] concert violinist. So classical music. [4:15] >> So it's how you play it. It's partially [4:17] how you play it, but it's mostly about [4:20] the nature of the music that you're [4:21] playing. [4:22] >> So, is it just how it's referred in [4:24] different cultures? Like in southern [4:26] music, it would be a fiddle. [4:28] >> It's also style. [4:29] >> It's style and it's also the the [4:31] intonation. Like if you're if you're did [4:34] like I did, I transitioned from [4:36] classical violin when I knew I wasn't [4:38] going to do that as a career into [4:40] bluegrass fiddle and banjo. [4:42] >> Oh. So I actually ended up playing 25 [4:45] years, the last five years being [4:47] bluegrass. And so there I actually had [4:50] to learn not to play that well. Like you [4:54] have you it sounds better for bluegrass [4:56] if you're a little bit off tune and [4:58] you're not you're not holding it right [5:00] and it's [5:01] >> authentic. [5:02] >> Yes. [5:02] >> Scratchy something to it. [5:04] >> So in fact in graduate school I uh I was [5:07] in the competition for the Illinois [5:09] State Fiddler Contest. And so I was [5:13] probably 25 or something at the time. [5:16] Uh, and Allison Krauss was like a like a [5:19] teenager and she was in the same [5:20] competition and I lost miserably and she [5:24] was incredible even at that time. [5:26] >> Who is she? [5:27] >> Allison Krauss. [5:28] >> I don't know who she is. [5:30] >> Sorry. [5:31] >> She she is a [5:32] >> Do you know who she is, Jamie? [5:33] >> Yeah. [5:33] >> Yeah. She's a very very well-known uh [5:36] somewhere between country singer, but [5:39] she plays the violin and the fiddle and [5:41] is a fantastic voice. [5:42] >> I'm out of the loop. I'm sorry. [5:44] >> Yeah. If you heard if you heard one of [5:46] her songs, I'm sure you would know it. [5:47] >> Yeah. If you made me name a fiddler, I [5:50] would say, [5:52] well, [5:54] the devil went down to Georgia was the [5:56] first time like America really [5:57] understood like popular culture like the [6:00] fiddle got introduced. Is that fair to [6:02] say? [6:03] >> Yeah. Yeah. [6:03] >> Like that for a lot of people that song, [6:06] that Charlie Daniels Jr. song, right? [6:08] That's that's the fiddle. [6:11] >> Yeah. That's like [6:11] >> Is that good? [6:12] >> Well, yeah, it's pretty good. It's a [6:14] little bit like fiddle on steroids, but [6:16] Yeah. [6:17] >> But I mean, like as a fiddler, do you [6:19] hear that or is it like only for the [6:21] unwashed masses to think that's good? [6:22] >> Oh, no. [clears throat] That it's good. [6:24] Good fiddling. Yeah. [6:26] >> Yeah. It's fiddling around. [6:27] >> It's a beautiful instrument. Sorry for [6:29] the sidetrack. So, um [6:31] >> Okay. So I I did that for for 20 years [6:34] or so and then in the middle of college [6:36] I decided I think I want to get a job [6:39] where I could use my mind instead of my [6:41] body. So I switched into electrical [6:43] engineering. Uh why? Because I like to [6:45] take stuff apart and I I used to make [6:47] things in high school. Uh so then I [6:51] didn't know what I wanted to do after I [6:53] got my degree. So I went on to get a [6:54] master's in electrical engineering and [6:56] then I didn't want to be an electrical [6:58] engineer anymore. So, I got a PhD in [7:00] experimental psychology. [7:02] And so, it it sounds like like flipping [7:04] back and forth between lots of different [7:06] things. And it kind of is, but you'll [7:09] see that my career is a little bit like [7:11] a game show and that uh you're presented [7:14] with this is what you could do like [7:16] forever. Or you can choose door number [7:19] two. And I almost always chose door [7:21] number two because like I I would do [7:24] this for a while and say I sort of [7:25] understand that now I want to do [7:26] something different. Door number two. So [7:30] in the as a senior in college uh I [7:34] learned about this place called the [7:35] Institute of Noetic Sciences which was [7:38] started by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar [7:40] Mitchell who was the six man on the moon [7:43] and on the way back to the earth he had [7:45] a mystical experience and so today a lot [7:48] of people who go into space talk about [7:50] the overview effect and he was one of [7:53] the first to talk about it openly even [7:55] though all of the other astronauts had [7:57] it. It expresses itself in different [7:59] ways. So people generally will turn from [8:02] whatever they were, it's a [8:04] transformative experience and they [8:06] become different. And so in his way of [8:10] expressing that after the mystical [8:11] experience and thinking what in the [8:13] world is that because he felt one with [8:15] the universe literally [8:17] he decided to create this institute that [8:20] would study what he had been studying [8:22] for outer space but for inner space to [8:25] to explore inner space. So I remember in [8:28] college reading about this new institute [8:30] and their motto was uh the exploring the [8:34] frontiers of consciousness and I thought [8:37] that sounds like something I want to do [8:40] but there wasn't any place to do that [8:42] other than this one institute. So I [8:45] always had in the back of my mind that [8:47] that's that's where I want to end up. [8:49] >> Is that term noetic? I know I've heard [8:51] it before but I I never looked it up. [8:52] >> Noetic. So knowetic is [8:57] uh a feeling of intuition except that it [8:59] carries a sense of certainty that the [9:01] intuition is correct. [9:03] >> So intuition is knowing something [9:05] without knowing how you know it. It just [9:07] sort of arrives but it's knowing with [9:10] with certainty and more often than not [9:13] the certainty is correct. So people talk [9:15] about downloads in meditation and other [9:17] places that's what that is. This is a [9:20] subject that [9:22] up until I would say last couple decades [9:26] was pretty openly dismissed by rational [9:29] people. Right? There's there's almost [9:31] like um a desire to dismiss it like a [9:36] desire to define the world in much [9:38] clearer terms where you it's maybe [9:41] ego-driven. You're in control of your [9:43] own destiny and then there's certain [9:44] factors that are out of your control and [9:46] just this is how it is and this is life. [9:48] deal with it. And all this mystical woo [9:50] woo magic that people have been [9:53] talking about for some strange reason [9:54] for thousands of years that we just [9:56] dismiss and we dismiss it um under the [10:00] narrative of science. We're talking [10:02] about science. We're science people. We [10:04] want data. But there is data. That's [10:06] what's weird. And if you're willing to [10:09] look a little preposterous, which I [10:11] certainly am, uh I think it's a good [10:13] thing to do every now and then. [10:15] take a chance and try to figure [10:18] out if the world is exactly constructed [10:22] the way you've been told because it [10:24] might not be. There might be some [10:26] weirdness to it all. And it seems like [10:27] we all agree. We all agree there is some [10:30] weirdness. You could chalk it off to [10:33] coincidence when you think about a [10:34] person and you haven't thought about [10:36] them forever and all a sudden they call [10:37] you. There's there's some weirdness in [10:39] the world. [10:41] There's some weirdness in the world like [10:42] knowing not to do something and then [10:44] something happens. [10:46] And there's some weirdness in knowing [10:47] something's going to happen and you [10:49] ignore that feeling and then something [10:50] terrible happens. You're like, "Fuck, I [10:52] knew I shouldn't have gone there." [10:54] There's there's weirdness in the world. [10:57] And it's not necessarily just pattern [10:59] recognition and un understanding [11:03] scenarios because you've experienced [11:04] them before. There's something to that, [11:06] too. That's part of it, too. But there's [11:08] also something else. There's some weird [11:10] connection that people have. There's a [11:12] thing that when you know someone's mad [11:13] at you and they don't say anything, [11:14] you're like, "What is this weird [11:16] energy I'm getting off this guy?" [11:17] There's some stuff we're we're [11:19] experiencing in the world that you can't [11:21] put on a scale. You can't put a tape [11:23] measure to it. You know, you can't you [11:26] can't measure its density, but it's [11:28] there. There's something. And we have a [11:31] very limited amount of senses in terms [11:33] of our ability to see, feel, touch, [11:35] smell. It's not enough. there probably [11:38] some other stuff out there we don't have [11:40] the tools to measure but it impacts us [11:42] >> but we do have the tools to measure. So [11:44] that's what attracted me to the rest of [11:47] my career because exactly for the same [11:50] reason you just said that people have [11:52] experiences oftenimes they feel pretty [11:54] strange and so they start looking for [11:56] well what what is that? So if you go to [11:59] a uh like a conventional science [12:01] spokesperson, they will echo back [12:03] exactly what you were saying. It's [12:05] coincidence. It's a it's frailty of [12:07] memory, all of that stuff. [12:09] >> But I learned early on, even in college, [12:12] that there is a branch of science that [12:15] has studied these things. I mean, it's [12:17] been going on since the late 1800s, that [12:19] there scientists have been interested in [12:21] these kinds of phenomena. And science is [12:23] really really good at taking even [12:25] strange subjective experiences and [12:28] figuring out is that a coincidence or is [12:30] that what what is that? Is it real? That [12:33] attracted me. So and it it partially [12:36] came out of reading a lot of science [12:38] fiction. So your science fiction is [12:40] saturated with these kinds of stories [12:42] where the the element of the story is [12:44] revolving around some kind of psychic or [12:46] noetic thing. [12:47] >> The force. [12:48] >> Yeah. [12:49] the force uh in in Dune, the series [12:53] Frank Herbert's Dune series, the whole [12:55] thing about spice. Why did they have to [12:57] take spice? Because that's the only way [12:59] you can navigate when you're you're [13:01] jumping through wormholes. Like you [13:03] needed to know what you're about to [13:04] expect in the other side. It just [13:06] saturates novels and science fiction. [13:09] It's there. And generally if if you have [13:12] a topic that people are paying attention [13:14] to like that and are very popular, it's [13:17] because something is resonating like if [13:19] if if it was so strange that nobody even [13:22] had a way of thinking about it, it it [13:24] wouldn't be popular. But it is and it's [13:27] perennially popular. So So I took the [13:30] science fiction interest and as even a [13:33] younger kid about fairy tales, which is [13:34] saturated with these things, too, and I [13:37] thought, well, that I wonder if that's [13:38] real. But then you kind of get shuttled [13:41] into a scientific career. And one thing [13:44] that happens for fledgling engineers and [13:46] scientists and for a lot of other [13:48] academics is that you're being taught a [13:50] set of assumptions about the way that [13:52] the world works called materialism or [13:55] physicalism. And the thing is you're not [13:58] taught that that is a set of [13:59] assumptions. You take it for granted [14:01] after a while because after you go [14:03] through college for 20 plus years and no [14:05] one ever mentions that we're working [14:08] under a set of assumptions materialism [14:11] and no one ever talks about the [14:13] philosophy of science which is all about [14:15] studying the assumptions and are they [14:17] correct. [14:19] Once you do start studying the [14:20] philosophy of science you find out that [14:22] there's lots of different ways of [14:23] understanding reality. And so there's [14:26] the whole materialistic side which is [14:28] really really good at explaining aspects [14:31] of the physical world. It it gives us [14:33] these kinds of technologies, [14:35] but it doesn't explain subjective [14:37] experience at all. And so that's that's [14:40] like a existing number one mystery in [14:43] science today because you have to [14:46] challenge the idea that materialism is [14:48] all there is. And so people have weird [14:51] experiences. They're talking about a [14:53] more comprehensive way of understanding [14:54] reality. That's what's going on. And so [14:57] that's that's why I end up writing a [14:59] book like this. So the magic here is not [15:01] stage magic. It's it's the real magic [15:05] which we don't have a name for yet. [15:07] >> When they first started studying this in [15:08] the 1800s, what were they specifically [15:11] trying to isolate or figure out? [15:13] >> Well, just like today, people would see [15:15] apparitions. They would have the sense [15:17] that there were telepathic connections [15:19] between people. uh they'd have [15:21] precognitions. And there was the [15:23] beginning of figuring out ways of using [15:26] experimental science to be able to study [15:28] these things under controlled [15:30] conditions. And and the word control is [15:33] important because it means you exclude [15:35] coincidence by the design and you [15:37] exclude leakage of information. You [15:39] exclude all kinds of things. So the only [15:41] thing left over is if that telepathic [15:45] thing was real, then we'd be able to see [15:47] it in the lab. And the short story is [15:50] yeah, so we're now 150 years past that [15:52] and we have very very strong evidence [15:55] that telepathy does exist. [15:57] >> So what was the first evidence that they [16:00] they were able to get out of these [16:02] initial experiments? [16:04] >> They used to call it thought [16:05] transference. And so the methods they [16:07] were using then would not pass muster [16:09] today. They they would have like two [16:12] kids who said we we can we can do [16:14] telepathic transfer between us. And then [16:17] many times it would find that the kids [16:18] were using some kind of signal. And so [16:21] that that wouldn't work today. Today [16:23] people have to be strictly isolated. Uh [16:26] neither can know what the target is that [16:28] they're trying to transfer to the other [16:30] person. And we do lots and lots of [16:32] replications with lots of people. And so [16:34] that that then forms a body of evidence [16:38] where it becomes extremely difficult to [16:40] think of what the flaw might be. And in [16:42] fact, if you ask skeptics about it who [16:44] know the literature, their usual [16:46] response now is either uh there's no [16:49] plausible flaw that they can identify [16:52] because a lot of time has been spent to [16:54] figure out what might be a flaw. [16:56] >> And the second response, which is more [16:58] recent now, is we're not even going to [17:00] look at the evidence because we know [17:01] it's impossible, which is no longer a [17:04] scientific argument, but that's that's [17:06] the approach. We're not going to look at [17:07] the data. [17:08] >> That's silly. [17:08] >> Yeah. Well, it's really silly when you [17:10] consider the intelligence agencies have [17:12] spent an enormous amount of money and a [17:14] considerable amount of time studying [17:16] remote viewing. Like why why would they [17:20] invest that much time in nonsense? Why [17:22] would they invest that much time in [17:24] something where there's no evidence [17:25] whatsoever and they've never achieved [17:27] positive results? That doesn't seem to [17:29] be correct. [17:30] >> No. If you just if you listen to the [17:32] stories of the guys like Hal put off and [17:34] all these different people that have [17:35] been involved in these remote viewing [17:37] experiments, they had actionable data [17:40] that they they they derived specifically [17:43] from remote viewing. I don't understand [17:45] it. I can't I've never done it. I've [17:47] never attempted it. I don't know if I [17:49] can do it. I did it once. Uh we we had [17:52] an experiment on a television show that [17:54] I did where we had this guy who claimed [17:56] to be a remote viewer remote view this [17:58] area and it was he was off but it was [18:00] also under duress with cameras. Like is [18:03] that the state of mind that you want to [18:05] be in when you're trying to remote view? [18:07] No, that's not ideal at all. And that is [18:09] a factor a major factor in whether or [18:13] not you can understand intuition is [18:16] where where what is your state of mind. [18:18] Are you in a place of complete anxiety [18:20] and fear? Or are you totally relaxed and [18:23] focused on what you're doing? Is there [18:25] any distractions? Is there a jackhammer [18:26] nearby? Is there a dog barking? What is [18:29] there something that could interrupt [18:30] this state of mind that you're trying to [18:32] achieve? Because there's different [18:35] states of mind. We know this. We can [18:37] measure this. We can measure the brain [18:38] waves. We can we can we understand that [18:41] the state of mind, it's not a static [18:43] thing like a toaster, you know? It's not [18:45] on or off. There's a bunch of different [18:47] going on in your brain, in your [18:49] mind at any given time. And so the idea [18:52] that remote viewing, which is some very [18:56] bizarre connection that some people have [18:58] to reality that's nowhere near local, [19:02] they can describe things in detail, talk [19:04] about submarines that are being [19:06] constructed in the Soviet Union. Like [19:09] it's there's weird to that. And if [19:11] you dis if you just dismiss that, you're [19:14] being a fool. there's something there. [19:17] And the only way anybody figures out if [19:20] there's something there is if you study [19:21] it. If actually intelligent people are [19:24] willing to look a little foolish and [19:26] spend some time studying it. This [19:27] episode is brought to you by Visible. [19:29] How many of you are currently listening [19:31] to this podcast on your phone? If you [19:34] are chronically online, like most of us [19:37] are these days, your wireless network [19:39] should be too. With Visible, you get [19:41] unlimited 5G and unlimited hotspot. All [19:46] powered by Verizon's 5G network. The [19:49] perks of big wireless for half the cost. [19:53] Visible isn't just a wireless plan. It's [19:56] unlimited wireless designed to keep you [19:59] connected and no contract holding you [20:02] back. Switch today at visible.com. [20:05] plans start at just $25 a month. Or get [20:09] our premium Visible Plus Pro plan and [20:12] save $10 on your first month when you [20:15] use promo code Rogan, an exclusive offer [20:18] for podcast listeners. [20:21] >> Right. So that brings us to my next job. [20:24] So after I got my my doctorate, I [20:26] started working at Bell Laboratories. [20:28] >> So it was the biggest laboratory in the [20:31] world at the time. It was still a Bell [20:32] system. And because I was interested in [20:35] these kinds of things, for some of my [20:38] time at Bell Labs, I started doing [20:40] little psychic experiments involving [20:42] mind matter interaction and also [20:44] involving precognition. [20:46] So there there's a an ongoing link here [20:50] that goes back to the Institute of [20:51] Duetic Sciences in a strange way. Edgar [20:54] Mitchell was gave the first money to [20:57] SRRI International which is where [20:59] Halputo off and Russ Tar was to do [21:02] remote viewing studies. He also brought [21:04] Yuri Geller to the United States and [21:07] they brought SRI and a bunch of other [21:09] places including Bell Labs. So when I [21:11] was working at the labs I knew that [21:13] there had been people who had seen some [21:15] of the stuff that Geller did and I was [21:17] doing these little psychic things. So I [21:19] asked for permission to be able to [21:21] present some of the work I was doing at [21:23] a annual conference of the [21:25] parasychological association which is an [21:28] affiliate of the largest scientific [21:30] organization in the United States the [21:33] American association for the advancement [21:34] of science. So many people don't know [21:36] that the parasychological association is [21:39] one of the 200ome affiliates of the [21:42] tripleas. It's a legitimate scientific [21:44] organization. So I did this precognition [21:47] test. I asked for permission and I got [21:49] permission not only to give my [21:52] presentation at the conference but to [21:53] use the Bell Labs impremature. So I was [21:56] giving this as some guy from Bell Labs [21:59] talking to this audience. [22:02] Unbeknownst to me there were a few [22:04] people in the audience who came up [22:06] afterwards and one of them said uh if [22:09] there was an opening would be you be [22:10] interested in joining the Stargate [22:12] program. [22:13] >> Whoa. [22:14] >> And so that was an offer I couldn't [22:16] refuse. That's one of these cases of you [22:18] have this door or you have that door. [22:20] Well, that door looked really [22:21] interesting because it was known at the [22:24] time that there were people at SRRI [22:25] doing this sort of thing, but the [22:26] classified portions were a rumor. Like [22:29] nobody knew what was really going on, [22:31] >> right? [22:32] >> So, I took a leave of absence. [22:34] >> That must have been exciting. [22:35] >> Yeah. [22:35] >> You get that offer. Yeah. Stargate. [22:38] >> Yeah. Are you kidding? [22:39] >> Holy [22:41] >> So, I took a leave of absence for one [22:43] year from Bell Labs. And so I went to [22:46] SRI International. [22:48] Hal Putoff was my boss. And then uh Ed [22:51] May when Hal left in 1985, Ed May took [22:54] over. He's it may not be a name that is [22:57] known as well, but he was the director [22:59] for 10 years. Uh and so I worked on that [23:02] project and it took a long time to get [23:04] the clearances because first of all, I [23:07] didn't know anything about [23:08] classification or anything. But I [23:11] figured, well, maybe it's just secret. [23:13] No, it's just top secret. No, it's top [23:16] secret SEI. No, it's top secret SEI [23:20] special access program, which means [23:22] there's literally a book that you have [23:25] to sign and you can see all the other [23:26] people who have signed that book, [23:28] special access means even if you have a [23:31] top secret clearance, you cannot know [23:32] about this place. You cannot know about [23:35] the code word. You can't the code word [23:38] was classified. So I mean which seems [23:41] kind of odd because if you have a code [23:43] word it's not saying anything but [23:45] nevertheless that's how it worked. [23:47] >> Wow. [23:48] >> So we were the research side of people [23:50] who talk about Stargate. Mostly they're [23:52] talking about the military side, the [23:54] operational side. Well, we knew what [23:56] they were doing but our mission was [23:59] different. Our mission was figure out [24:01] those questions that you're asking. How [24:02] does this stuff work? Like is it real? [24:05] Yes. Some people are very talented. uh [24:09] what are the limits of it? Can you block [24:11] it? Can you shield it? Can you do [24:13] camouflage? And one of the main areas [24:16] was what's the difference between [24:18] someone like Joe McMonicle who's a [24:20] superstar in this area. Why is he any [24:23] different than anybody else? Because [24:25] like when I first met the Ingo Swan and [24:28] Joe and a bunch of other people, they [24:30] were the kind they were so different [24:32] than my stereotype of Madame Zodiac that [24:35] that they like I say, you got to be [24:37] kidding. these people are remote [24:38] viewers. They're just like guys and [24:41] gals. [24:43] And so every method was used to try to [24:45] figure out is it psychological [24:47] difference? Is it physiological? Is it [24:49] medical? What what is it? And the answer [24:51] was we couldn't find anything. Now there [24:54] may be some background about the people [24:56] themselves. But in terms of finding out [24:59] something that we could use to select [25:01] because the the army and others were [25:04] interested in getting lots of other [25:05] people who would be talented too. [25:07] >> So was there was no consistent factors? [25:09] >> No, there wasn't wasn't anything. [25:11] >> Wow. [25:12] >> So [25:13] >> that seems crazy [25:14] >> except maybe talent. Two things talent [25:17] and openness. So talent is natural [25:20] talent. It's it did partially based on [25:22] genetics. And openness is a [25:24] psychological trait where you're simply [25:26] open to experience. So people who tend [25:28] to be to to have like a certain way of [25:31] thinking about things and not not open [25:33] to other stuff, they block it. They [25:36] could block it real good. People who are [25:38] open to experience and willing to try [25:39] new things, they in general tend to do [25:42] better. So that brings us to talent, [25:46] which I'll get to a little bit later, [25:48] especially about the genetics of talent. [25:51] So we didn't have the genetic tools at [25:53] the time. Now we do have the genetic [25:55] tools. And so we've done a couple of [25:57] studies looking for what we call the [25:59] syene. [clears throat] So we've we think [26:02] we're on to something. Okay. So so I [26:05] work on Stargate for a year. Uh the go [26:08] back to Bell Labs and almost immediately [26:10] get another invitation. It's one of [26:12] these doors open again. How would you [26:14] like to go to Princeton? Because at [26:16] Princeton at the time was the Princeton [26:18] engineering anomalies research [26:20] laboratory. It was the a lab doing cyber [26:23] research that was headed by the dean of [26:25] the school of engineering. And so that [26:28] lab went almost for 30 years doing mind [26:31] matter interaction doing remote viewing [26:32] and a bunch of other stuff at Princeton. [26:35] So my position was in the psych [26:38] department because that's where I had my [26:39] PhD, but to lead a program among many [26:44] departments, one of which was the pair [26:46] lab. And the idea was uh in order to [26:50] have any chance of beginning to [26:52] understand this stuff, you need to pull [26:53] in every discipline because it's way too [26:56] big. It's it's too complicated for a [26:58] single discipline. So we had the [27:01] philosophy department and the psychology [27:03] department and civil engineering and the [27:06] pair lab and a bunch of other [27:08] departments. My job is to sort of corral [27:10] it together to create multiddisciplinary [27:13] research projects and I was told in day [27:16] one that's impossible. You this is a job [27:18] you cannot do. Well why? I mean we had [27:21] the money for it and the answer is that [27:25] in the academic world you succeed within [27:27] silos. you know an enormous amount about [27:30] a very particular kind of topic. Like [27:33] even in the psych department there you [27:35] have cognitive psychologists, perceptual [27:37] psychologists, social psychologists and [27:39] on and on and on. They don't even talk [27:41] to each other because it's outside of [27:44] your discipline, outside the little [27:45] silo. My job was to sort of mash it [27:48] together and it was ridiculously [27:50] complicated. [27:52] >> Was there resistance? [27:54] >> Oh my god, resistance is not quite [27:57] strong enough. [laughter] [27:58] It's like uh each one of the departments [28:01] was getting money from this big grant [28:02] that we had. So they were willing to [28:04] play the game, but when it actually came [28:05] down to doing some kind of a cross [28:07] filtering [28:09] no [28:10] >> why didn't they want to collaborate? [28:13] >> Because everything of value in the [28:15] academic world is in your silo. [28:18] >> And so if you're trying to work across [28:19] silos, again, even within the same [28:21] department, [28:23] >> social psychology and perceptual [28:25] psychology might not even talk to each [28:26] other. and they their offices are right [28:28] next to each other. But that's simply [28:30] the way [28:31] >> insane. [28:31] >> Yeah. But it also it sort of makes sense [28:33] when you think about it to become an [28:35] expert in something takes 20 years from [28:38] from the university and then the rest of [28:40] your academic career just to keep up [28:42] with it. So it kind of makes sense that [28:45] you don't want to start turning your [28:47] attention off to something else because [28:48] you're not in that department anymore. [28:50] So it it's a problem and it's always [28:53] been there. It's not getting any better [28:55] either. Well, it seems like there should [28:56] be a way to fix that. The ultimate goal [28:58] should be whatever we're all working on [29:01] collectively should benefit mankind. And [29:03] if you're in the psychology industry, [29:06] which you are, if you're teaching [29:08] psychology, if you're working on [29:10] psychology, you should want to get [29:12] involved in this. The fact that they're [29:13] all siloed off like that seems insane. [29:15] >> Yeah. So the the approach that's [29:17] sometimes taken in the academic world is [29:19] to create a center center for the study [29:21] of fill-in- thelank that brings in [29:23] people from different disciplines and [29:25] then they're kind of forced together [29:26] >> but these people from dis different [29:28] disciplines probably are already working [29:29] on important stuff to them and this is [29:31] taking away from their time. [29:34] >> It it could be except that uh depending [29:37] on the nature of the work it may be [29:38] something that requires another [29:40] discipline. So you might have somebody [29:42] in computer science who's working on [29:43] that. And then you have somebody in [29:45] psychology who's interested in the human [29:47] side. Like how do you connect the [29:48] computer and the people [29:50] >> well there's a subdiscipline called [29:51] human factors. That's where I was [29:53] working in Bell Labs because I had [29:55] engineering and psychology. So you kind [29:57] of mash those two together and then you [29:59] could actually learn some new stuff [30:00] that's of value to both. And also you [30:03] that's how you create new disciplines. [30:04] That's how the discipline of [30:05] neuroscience began. So you go back now [30:09] it's more like 60 to 70 years ago. [30:11] Somebody noticed that you have all these [30:14] people in biology and all these people [30:15] looking at cells and people looking at [30:18] things having to do with with the [30:21] nervous system that were all different [30:23] disciplines. So a a large foundation [30:26] came along and said I think we need to [30:29] create a discipline of the [30:30] neurosciences. [30:32] and they threw enough money at it to [30:34] bring people together and that formed a [30:36] new discipline. So I work in the area of [30:39] consciousness studies which is only now [30:42] starting to become its own discipline. [30:45] >> Because before that it was maybe a few [30:47] philosophers interested in it and [30:48] anesthesiologists and that's it but it's [30:51] changing. [30:52] >> So when you were at Princeton what what [30:54] specifically did how did you start it? [30:56] Like what what specifically were you [30:57] working on initially? [30:59] Well, besides trying to get people to [31:01] talk to each other, which was [31:03] frustrating, a [31:03] >> big task. [31:04] >> Yeah. So, one of the things I did was [31:06] metaanalysis. So, this is a way of [31:09] taking results of individual experiments [31:12] that are similar to each other like [31:14] telepathy experiments and putting them [31:17] all together with a statistical method [31:18] to see whether independent people are [31:21] able to replicate the same thing. It's [31:23] called metaanalysis. Meta meaning it's [31:25] like an analysis of analyses. And so it [31:28] answers two questions. One is if this is [31:31] really real in a scientific sense, then [31:34] other independent people ought to be [31:36] able to do the same experiment and get [31:37] the same result. So that's one part. The [31:40] other part is if you do have a lot of [31:42] people doing the same experiment, then [31:44] what is the overall result? It's like [31:45] one gigantic experiment now. So I I did [31:49] a number of metaanalyses, [31:51] ended up writing a book on it that [31:53] nobody wanted to buy. So it just sat [31:55] there. uh and then I was doing [31:57] experiments on precognition as as part [32:00] of my job and because of my engineering [32:02] background I was using the ver the [32:05] latest version of machine learning at [32:07] the time which was neural networks and [32:09] applying it to the data from the pair [32:11] lab to see if uh you know when you do an [32:14] experiment involving mind matter [32:16] interaction usually use a random number [32:18] generator and you ask somebody this [32:21] thing is you tell them this is going to [32:23] push out a whole bunch of bits random [32:25] bits and I want you to make more one [32:27] bits than zero bits. That's your task. [32:29] So they press a button and they get some [32:31] kind of result. And now make more zero [32:33] bits and now don't do anything. So this [32:35] is a uh three different kinds of tasks [32:38] in one session. And so what what they [32:41] were finding was that in general if you [32:43] run a lot of people and this kind of [32:45] task, yes, their intention makes the [32:48] bits go in the direction that you want. [32:50] So you aim high, it goes up, aim low, it [32:53] goes down, so on. So the question then [32:56] is not everybody can do that. Some [33:00] people get the opposite result. So some [33:03] people get really good on making it go [33:05] high but they can't make it go low. So [33:07] the idea came about that there's s [33:09] something like a signature [33:11] that was from each person. People had a [33:14] way of interacting with the machine that [33:16] made it do certain things that was [33:18] unique to them but overall it worked [33:20] out. So I started using neural networks [33:22] to see if I could train a neural network [33:26] to tell who was doing the task based on [33:29] how the random bits were working. And it [33:32] turns out you can. So when I left [33:34] Princeton because it was getting way too [33:37] frustrating, I took that idea [33:38] >> just trying to get people to work [33:39] together [33:41] >> trying to to do this multidisciplinary [33:44] teams. It Yeah. And as I told you the [33:46] first day I was there for the job. I was [33:49] told by the way you have you have an [33:51] impossible job. It's necessary though [33:53] because this was part of the grant. What [33:56] you're doing is part of the grant. So [33:57] you have to do it anyway. And I I did it [34:00] for three years and then I decided I I [34:01] don't want to do that anymore. [34:04] But so I went back to to industry but I [34:06] I specifically told the people I was [34:08] interviewing with I want to pursue this [34:11] like this is the beginning of a [34:12] technology where that will have a [34:15] machine identify who you are and your [34:17] intention [34:19] kind of like neuralink except there's no [34:21] connection there's nothing going in the [34:23] brain it's purely intention so I did end [34:26] up working for a company outside of [34:28] Washington DC where part of my work was [34:31] doing exactly that we're using for [34:33] advanced neural networks with random [34:35] number generators and got to the point [34:37] where uh we're about to set a patent for [34:41] this device because it worked. And the [34:44] head of the organization at the time was [34:46] a retired general who had a buddy who [34:48] was an admiral and he said the the [34:50] Navy's interested in this for kind of [34:53] for obvious reasons. They want ways of [34:55] communicating with submarines. [34:58] So, uh, at that point, we're like right [35:01] on the edge of doing that and we get [35:02] bought by another company. And the new [35:05] company said, "You're not going to work [35:06] on that anymore." So, the wheels [35:09] internally started. It was like golden [35:11] handcuffs. A lot of money. Let's I mean, [35:14] it's a very good position, but I didn't [35:16] really want to do that anymore. [35:18] >> Did they have a re was it a profitable [35:20] issue? [35:21] >> The vice president in charge of the lab [35:24] did not believe that it was possible. [35:25] >> Oh god. He also didn't look at the data, [35:28] >> of course. [35:28] >> So, he said, "No, we're not going to do [35:30] that." [35:30] >> He doesn't want to be silly. [35:32] >> Yeah. So, I I mean, it's so frustrating. [35:34] You have that it worked. We have a thing [35:36] here. It's working. No, he just he [35:38] didn't want to do it. [35:39] >> Oh, that's so frustrating. [35:40] >> Yeah. So, few years goes by. I kept [35:43] doing all this stuff on the side now [35:45] outside of work because it was just too [35:48] interesting to drop. Uh my there was a [35:51] recession. This was 1992. There was a [35:53] recession. uh part of my department was [35:57] laid off, including myself. So, [36:00] unbeknownst to most people at the time [36:02] that the Stargate program uh and by the [36:06] way, it wasn't called Stargate then. [36:08] There's a lot of code words involved, [36:10] but it's just known as Stargate, so I'll [36:12] use that. That program was giving [36:15] classified contracts to other people [36:18] around the world, including at the [36:20] University of Edinburgh in Scotland. So, [36:23] we had a colleague at the University of [36:25] Edinburgh who was creating an automated [36:27] Gansfeld testing system. This is a [36:29] telepathy system where you press a [36:31] button and the people are involved and [36:33] everything is automated. It's kind of [36:34] getting the human out of the loop except [36:36] for the two people in the experiment. [36:39] Well, the man who was developing that [36:41] unfortunately died. And so, this was an [36:43] unfinished project. So, I went to Ed May [36:46] who was director of Cart Stargate at the [36:48] time and I said, "Well, can I go there [36:50] and finish the project?" Yeah, sure. [36:53] Okay. So, I went to the University of [36:55] Edinburgh for about a year and I worked [36:58] on this project to finish the automated [37:00] telepathy system and they've run many, [37:03] many, many people through that system by [37:05] now. [37:07] Um, and so while I was there, I finished [37:10] that pretty quickly. I was started to [37:12] develop the presentiment experiment and [37:15] you had Julia Mos on the show recently. [37:17] Mh. [37:17] >> So she was I think she was talking about [37:19] this experiment where you can see if [37:24] somebody's body is reacting to something [37:26] in the future that is unanticipated [37:28] that's random. Well, I I was developing [37:30] that at the time. This would have been [37:31] around 93 or so. And like uh and so let [37:37] me let me tell you a story about the [37:40] kind of effect that gave me the idea to [37:43] do this experiment. [37:45] So, the the usual way that people talk [37:47] about it is that you're you drive to [37:49] work the same way every every day, [37:50] thousands of times, and you have a a [37:53] traffic light that you're coming up to, [37:54] and it's green, and normally you start [37:56] accelerating towards it because you want [37:58] to get through the light. Something [38:00] tells you today there's something wrong. [38:02] I don't know what it is, but I'm going [38:04] to slow down. And you keep slowing down. [38:06] The cars behind you are beeping and [38:08] saying, "What? What's going on?" [38:10] You get almost up to the intersection [38:11] and a truck blast through their red [38:13] light and you would have been hit [38:15] broadside if you didn't slow down. So [38:17] you have this momentary shock of relief [38:20] realizing that you just saved your life [38:22] by paying attention to that little voice [38:23] inside your head. So I thought, okay, [38:26] let's simulate that in the laboratory. [38:29] Well, we can't put people in danger, but [38:31] we can do emotional tests like that. So [38:35] you wire somebody up looking at skin [38:37] conductance or pupil dilation or brain [38:40] waves all kinds of things in your [38:41] nervous system [38:43] and then you just record that [38:44] continually tell them press a button and [38:47] then they're going to see something on a [38:48] screen. So it could be a very calm [38:51] picture or it could be a very emotional [38:53] picture. So emotion can split in two [38:56] ways. It could be a very negative [38:58] picture like picture of surgery or an [39:01] explosion or something or it could be a [39:03] positive like a smiling baby. So the two [39:06] different veilances they're called and [39:08] you don't know which is going to come up [39:10] because a true random number generator [39:12] is a thing that decides after you press [39:14] the button then it decides what it's [39:16] going to show you. So nobody knows in [39:18] advance including the experimentter. So [39:20] I set up an experiment to do that. Uh [39:23] and by this time I already I'd left [39:26] Edinburgh. I had to make a decision then [39:28] again do you want to go back into [39:30] industry and I had an offer from Oakidge [39:32] National Labs which would have put me [39:35] back in the classified world or this [39:37] other opportunity which was to uh work [39:40] at at the University of Nevada funded by [39:43] Robert Bigalow who's probably best known [39:45] for the OAP. [39:46] >> He's been on here before. [39:47] >> Yeah. So Bigalow is very generously [39:51] said, "Yeah, I'll I'll pay for your way [39:53] to go into the university there." And I [39:55] was able to run my own lab. So one of [39:57] the very first things I set up then was [40:00] first of all, I want to continue working [40:02] on this neural network or machine [40:04] learning method for making a technology [40:07] of intention. That was one of the [40:09] things. But the other one was this [40:10] presentiment experiment. So I ran that [40:13] experiment and it was unbelievably good. [40:16] Like it's it's normally you have little [40:18] statistical effects. This is like in [40:21] your face. Holy smoke. This is a big [40:23] thing. Big big uh pre presentiment [40:26] effects. Like if skin conductance one [40:30] and a half seconds before you well you [40:33] press a button you wait 5 seconds then [40:35] it selects a picture. So one and a half [40:37] seconds before the picture is selected. [40:39] If it's emotional you start to become [40:41] emotional. If it's calm you remain calm. [40:44] So that difference beforehand we call [40:47] the presentiment effect. It's your body [40:49] somehow or unconscious knowing what [40:52] you're about to see. Just like [40:53] approaching a light and slowing down. [40:56] Something is telling you something. [40:58] So we did that experiment and I told [41:01] this to one of the guys at the at the [41:02] center I was working at and he told me a [41:04] story which is far more interesting than [41:10] than not going through a red light. So [41:12] the story is this. [41:14] So he used to go hunting with his [41:16] buddies and they had a whole bunch of [41:18] guns. His favorite gun was a sixshot [41:22] revolver, a double-action revolver. And [41:25] so the way that he he would take all the [41:26] bullets out, he'd clean the whole thing [41:28] out. And he put in 1, two, three, four, [41:30] five bullets and leave the hammer over [41:32] the empty chamber so it wouldn't get [41:33] jostled accidentally. So he he's [41:36] cleaning the gun, he's putting in bullet [41:38] 1, two, three, four. where he picks up [41:39] the fifth bullet and he has that feeling [41:43] something about this bullet isn't right. [41:45] So, he didn't put it in, left it aside, [41:47] put the hammer over cylinder six and [41:50] then they went hunting. So, this is now [41:53] two weeks in advance. They they come [41:56] back from hunting. His pistol wasn't [41:57] used and a bunch of other guns weren't [41:59] used, but they do what you should not do [42:01] after you go hunting, which is starting [42:04] to drink. So, they're all getting a [42:06] little bit too tipsy and drinking too [42:08] much, and a fight breaks out between two [42:11] people there. One of them picks up my [42:13] friend's gun, points it point blank at [42:16] somebody else, like right in their face, [42:18] and my friend is now looking with horror [42:20] because the trigger's getting pulled. [42:22] The hammer's going back, the cylinder is [42:25] turning, and he's trying to intervene [42:26] now. He steps right in front of the gun, [42:30] and it goes click. [42:32] The hammer hit. It hit that fifth [42:34] chamber because it rotated from six to [42:37] five. [42:38] >> Whoa. [42:39] >> So he realized with horror at that [42:41] moment that if he had not taken out that [42:42] bullet, he would be shot in the head. [42:45] And so the afterwards he said, "Everyone [42:48] has a bullet with their name on it and [42:50] mine is in a safety deposit box and I [42:53] know exactly where it is and it's not [42:54] coming out." [42:55] >> Wow. [42:56] >> So that's a real life version of this [42:59] which is two weeks in advance. In the [43:01] laboratory, we can only look seconds in [43:03] advance. [43:04] >> Also, you should have the intuition and [43:05] not go hunting and drinking with psychos [43:08] that are willing to shoot somebody in [43:09] the face over an argument. [43:11] >> Nevertheless, yeah. So, so what happens? [43:14] Uh yeah. So [43:16] >> that's crazy though. [43:17] >> So that but see this is this is where we [43:19] want to go in these kinds of [43:20] experiments. You need like real life [43:22] stuff that you can actually test in a [43:24] controlled way in the laboratory. But [43:27] there's all kinds of ethical reasons [43:28] obviously why you can't do that. But I'm [43:31] pretty sure that if we're able to do to [43:33] get something at that level in the [43:35] laboratory, we would have much much [43:36] stronger results than we currently do. [43:38] Now, when it comes to things like remote [43:42] viewing and being able to be open and [43:47] being able to actually pull it off and [43:50] actually [43:52] remote view things that you can prove, [43:55] wh what is the state of mind these [43:58] people are trying to achieve is and what [44:00] is the protocol for achieving that state [44:02] of mind? [44:03] >> It depends on whether you're naturally [44:05] talented or not. So, uh, Joe McMmonicle [44:09] and a few others that that I know, uh, [44:13] if if you, uh, were to ask them at, uh, [44:17] at breakfast, uh, [clears throat] could [44:19] you remove you what I have in I have a [44:21] hidden folder over here, they would [44:23] continue eating and tell you the answer [44:24] immediately. So, for them, it doesn't [44:26] take much at all. And in fact, what Joe [44:29] would say, and I I have I have some [44:31] pictures from what Joe had done. Joe [44:34] would say that uh if he knows in the [44:36] afternoon he's going to do a remote [44:37] viewing he'll get all the information in [44:39] the morning like instantly it'll just [44:41] it'll just be there and then he has to [44:43] wait until the you know the whole thing [44:45] plays out but it's like bang you got it [44:48] so it's a matter internally of simply [44:50] knowing I need to get this information [44:51] and it happens immediately for people [44:54] who don't have that natural talent you [44:56] go through training where and by by the [44:59] way almost everybody can do this but it [45:01] does require some training now So for a [45:04] an average person the training typically [45:07] is to not name an impression which is [45:11] really tough. So you have a target which [45:14] may which may be somewhere in the world [45:16] maybe a person somewhere maybe in an [45:18] envelope something like that. [45:20] You're taught uh the you will have [45:23] something come to mind. You know that [45:25] that's the target. You have no idea what [45:27] it is but you know that there is a [45:28] target you're going to have to describe. [45:30] So name the first thing that comes to [45:31] mind but not the without naming it. So [45:34] you start little scribbles and then you [45:36] have more complicated scribbles and you [45:38] start adding feelings and senses that [45:42] are associated with these scribbles. [45:44] Eventually you get to the point where [45:45] it's kind of all gels together and then [45:47] you get a a coherent image. The problem [45:50] is that if you tell somebody, I'm going [45:52] to show you a picture in 20 minutes that [45:54] you don't know what it is and you say, [45:56] "Okay, well, just imagine what you're [45:58] going to get and you get a flash of [45:59] yellow, you're instantly going to start [46:02] thinking of bananas." And once that [46:04] happens, you can't not think of bananas [46:06] anymore. So that's what I mean by not [46:08] naming. [46:10] >> So that's one of the very first things [46:11] that you learn is anything that comes to [46:14] mind that you have a name to is probably [46:16] not it. It takes practice, but you can [46:19] get there. [46:20] >> Wow. What was the most impressive thing [46:22] that you ever saw anybody achieve with [46:25] remote viewing? [46:27] >> After I got the clearances, uh, Hal gave [46:31] me the briefing that that everyone gets [46:33] like in in skiffs in Congress and [46:35] presidents, whatever. I got the same [46:37] briefing. So, uh, one picture after the [46:41] other of experiments [46:44] by Joe and by a bunch of other people [46:46] who are not as well known, they [46:48] basically give almost a veritical [46:49] drawing of the target. And these are [46:52] targets that are elsewhere in the world. [46:54] These are targets that are in envelopes. [46:56] These are targets that are in skiffs. [46:58] All of all different kinds of targets [47:00] where nothing about the target is known. [47:03] like I will tell you a five-digit number [47:06] which stands for the target and so all [47:08] you have is a five-digit number. Now [47:10] give me a description of what I'm going [47:11] to show you in two hours and they do it. [47:14] >> So you're putting the number to the [47:16] target. You're just saying like uh [47:18] Moscow is number 654. [47:21] >> A random number. Yes. [47:23] >> And just by you attributing that number [47:25] to whatever this target is, there's a [47:27] connection made. [47:28] >> Yep. [47:29] >> What's happening? How is that? [47:31] >> Yeah. [laughter] So [47:33] >> what's that? [47:33] >> Yeah, we we don't know why that is. Uh [47:37] there are theories about it and the [47:39] theory requires probably stepping away [47:41] from materialism as the only model of [47:44] reality. So there are other models which [47:47] allow for consciousness whatever that is [47:49] because we don't know that either. But [47:51] consciousness seems to have a non-local [47:53] quality. So it's the same kind of [47:55] non-locality that you talk about in [47:57] quantum mechanics. M [47:59] >> so quantum mechanics has entanglement [48:01] which are non-local connections between [48:02] things. Uh it is also through time. So [48:06] connections through space and time. So [48:08] we know that that's a real thing. That's [48:09] what the physical world allows. It is as [48:12] though consciousness whatever that is [48:15] also has that property. It is non-local. [48:18] So if you push it hard enough you end up [48:21] with something like the mo that movie uh [48:24] everything all at the same time. That's [48:26] basically what we're talking about. [48:28] There is an aspect of reality which we [48:30] don't ordinarily see but nevertheless [48:33] connects everything throughout space and [48:36] time. And so if it that were not true [48:38] then things like precognition wouldn't [48:40] work so well, telepathy wouldn't work, [48:42] remote viewing wouldn't work. None of [48:44] that would work. But nevertheless, it [48:47] does work. So that is like a more [48:49] comprehensive way of understanding what [48:51] reality is like. Do you think this is an [48:53] emerging quality in human beings or do [48:56] you think this is an atrophied quality [48:58] that we used to all have before the [49:02] development of written language, books, [49:06] media, all these different things that [49:08] sort of take away this quiet [49:10] communication that people probably had [49:13] with each other. We believe wolves have [49:15] that with each other. Wolves coordinate [49:17] somehow. They coordinate attacks on [49:19] animals. And it could be through learned [49:21] experience, but how do they how do they [49:23] remember it and know what to do? And how [49:25] do each one have specific roles? Like [49:27] one wolf will chase the elk into like a [49:30] certain corridor and the other wolves [49:32] will wait and be on like a higher ground [49:35] and come down and attack. They know that [49:36] they do weird stuff that somehow or [49:39] another requires some kind of [49:40] communication. [49:42] >> Yes. And they're way more intelligent [49:44] than we have usually thought. [49:46] >> Well, think about how intelligent some [49:48] dogs are. [49:49] >> Yeah. you know, like a Belgian malammoir [49:51] or something like that. One of those [49:52] dogs they use for military training. [49:53] Those those dogs are incredibly [49:55] intelligent and they need act. They need [49:58] activities. They need things to [50:00] stimulate them because their brain is [50:01] like firing all day long. Wolf is that [50:04] times 100. [50:05] >> Yeah. And so most animals, plants, [50:08] insects maybe are have consciousness in [50:11] some form. And if that consciousness is [50:12] similar to ours, it is non-local. Do you [50:15] think it's an emerging thing or do you [50:17] think it's a thing that we've always [50:19] had? [50:20] >> I I think that uh we are shaped as [50:22] humans by evolution to not pay attention [50:26] to the there and then because if we were [50:29] paying attention to there and then a lot [50:31] then you may not notice that there's a [50:32] tiger in front of you who's about to eat [50:34] you. And so if you like look over the [50:36] the long span of development of whatever [50:39] it is we are, people who are walking [50:42] around thinking about Pluto a million [50:45] years ago would have been pruned out of [50:47] existence. [laughter] [50:49] So only certain kinds of people [50:51] historically were able to do that. We [50:52] call them shaman. And the shaman as part [50:55] of a tribe were extremely important [50:57] because they knew the food would be 10 [51:00] miles away that way next week. But the [51:03] shaman typically could not take care of [51:05] themselves very well. You know, their [51:06] their minds were off in Pluto and so the [51:10] tribe took care of them. And so today, [51:12] we don't have that very much. There are [51:15] we're distracted by everything. And we [51:18] don't have the same uh kinds of needs [51:21] that they would have had 10 20,000 years [51:24] ago [51:26] uh except in some indigenous societies. [51:29] So one time I gave a talk for the [51:31] Australian government. There was a whole [51:33] bunch of ministers there and people in [51:34] the military and I was talking about [51:36] this sort of stuff and unbeknownst to me [51:38] one of the ministers was representative [51:41] of the indigenous people there. So I [51:43] finished this long talk on telepathy [51:46] uh and and she came up afterwards and [51:48] said well we've known this stuff for [51:51] thousands of years. that's they they [51:53] would use it like in the outback there [51:55] was no phones but somehow they were in [51:57] communication part of the culture. So [51:59] they didn't have the distractions and [52:01] they had a need. So you can imagine a [52:04] more or less isolated culture for a long [52:07] period of time that didn't have tigers [52:09] immediately always trying to capture [52:11] them. They had the need to be able to [52:13] communicate that way. We don't have the [52:15] need anymore. So it atrophies. [52:18] >> Okay. So it atrophies and so with things [52:21] like remote viewing, do you think this [52:23] is almost like a relearning of a skill [52:26] that people had at one point in time? [52:28] >> Yeah. And there's still some people who [52:30] have some of the genetics because all of [52:33] this is basic is devolving back into [52:35] talent. Some people have that talent. [52:38] >> And you think that's a genetic thing? [52:40] >> I think a good chunk of it is genetic. [52:42] Yes. So, it's from people in their [52:43] ancient past that had that quality, had [52:46] that ability, and they've passed on that [52:48] trait. [52:49] >> Yeah. [52:49] >> This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. [52:52] Summer is great, isn't it? It's the [52:54] perfect season for adventures, but it [52:56] can also be pretty exhausting, juggling [52:58] chaotic schedules and trying to make the [53:01] most of summer. That's why it's [53:03] important to take a moment for you. Go [53:06] out for a weekend without planning [53:08] anything and just have fun. Or relax at [53:11] home. Or if you're really struggling, [53:14] try therapy with Better Help. With a [53:17] network of over 30,000 quality [53:20] therapists, they can connect you with [53:22] the right one, just like they have for [53:24] millions already across the globe. [53:27] Together, you can work out what you need [53:31] and how you can enjoy summer to the [53:33] fullest. You don't have to say yes to [53:36] everything this summer. Find support in [53:38] therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at [53:41] betterhelp.com/jre. [53:44] That's betterh elp.com/jre. [53:50] >> So like in Joe McMonicle's case, he was [53:53] one of those guys who did search and [53:54] rescue behind enemy lines and he always [53:57] came back. His team always found their [53:59] guy and they always came back alive. [54:02] and and so well where did that come [54:04] from? Well, he used his intuition in the [54:06] field to decide uh let's not go down [54:09] that road, let's go over here and and he [54:11] was safe. So afterwards when asked when [54:15] there was recruiting for people who had [54:17] some abilities like this, they would ask [54:19] people like that, do you find like and [54:21] you're in combat, you never get hit? [54:23] Okay, let's talk. Uh the other thing of [54:26] course is did you ever have any [54:28] experiences beforehand that suggests [54:30] that maybe you had these experiences? [54:32] Well, Joe did and his sister did too. So [54:36] there suggests again some kind of a [54:38] familial genetic underpinning for why [54:41] people have these experiences. [54:43] So I will continue the story because I'm [54:46] going to intersect with this genetic [54:47] part in a minute. So I'm at UNLV [54:51] u doing all kinds of interesting stuff. [54:54] Uh somehow the uh the New York Times [54:58] learns about what I'm doing. They think [54:59] it's an interesting character story for [55:01] a parasychologist be working in Las [55:04] Vegas because Las Vegas is sometimes [55:07] called the the largest parasychology lab [55:10] in the world. You have a whole bunch of [55:12] people trying to mentally influence more [55:15] more or less random systems like they [55:17] are all the time. [55:19] >> So okay, [55:20] >> it's an interesting way to look at [55:21] Vegas. [55:21] >> Yeah. Well, it kind of is, right? you [55:24] toss the dice, you want a certain [55:25] result. Well, we do that in the [55:26] laboratory, except we don't have a lot [55:28] of money associated with it. Uh, I was [55:31] able to actually get data from one of [55:33] the casinos, the smaller casinos, and [55:36] because the general manager was [55:37] interested in what I was doing. So, I [55:39] said, "Well, could I get all the data, [55:41] as much as you have on jackpots for slot [55:44] machines and also the table games?" And [55:47] a miracle occurred. And she said, [55:48] "Yeah." So she gave us the data, was [55:50] able to analyze it and among other [55:52] things found that jackpots happen more [55:55] often and payouts happened were larger [55:59] and table games did better between one [56:03] one or plus or minus one day from the [56:05] full moon [56:07] which by the way matches magical lore. I [56:10] mean all kinds of things are are related [56:12] to when the full moon happens religious [56:14] effects and all kinds of things. So I [56:16] thought, well, that's interesting. More [56:18] jackpots happen plus or minus the day of [56:21] the full moon. And so I said to the [56:23] general manager, maybe this is something [56:25] you don't want to tell people because [56:27] they'll all start coming in the full [56:28] moon. She said, "Yeah, bring them in [56:32] because all you could do with this [56:34] information was lose a little bit slower [56:36] because everything is, you know, you [56:38] Vegas rigged." [56:39] >> Yeah. It Well, it's not rigged, but it's [56:41] set up in such a way that [56:42] >> the odds are against you. Yeah. [56:44] >> So, you would lose slower, but but [56:46] nevertheless, you'd see that in the [56:48] data. So, there's something interesting. [56:49] Okay. So, I get to the to the end of my [56:52] time at UNLV and a new door opens. And [56:55] partially because I because of the New [56:58] York Times piece, that book that I had [57:01] written at Princeton that nobody wanted [57:03] to buy, I suddenly had publishers [57:05] calling me and saying, "Do you ever [57:06] think about writing a book?" Yeah, I I [57:09] have one. So, I published that book. [57:12] that caught the attention of people at a [57:14] organization called Interval Research [57:18] which was funded by Paul Allen the the [57:21] co-founder of Microsoft. [57:23] So Paul Allen was interested in doing [57:25] what he called uh developing the wired [57:27] world. This was uh this would have been [57:31] started in 1990 as a 10-year project to [57:36] figure out given that the internet was [57:38] going to be a gigantic thing, what do we [57:40] do with it? So this was people that were [57:44] that were poached from Apple and from [57:46] Xerox Park and the MIT lab and all lots [57:49] of places. They brought a hundred people [57:51] together. And so I was invited to do a [57:54] SAI research program there with a budget [57:56] that was 10 times larger than I had at [57:58] UNLV and a salary that was three times [58:01] larger. So I thought, yeah, that's the [58:03] door that I want. So at interval [58:06] everything was proprietary because it [58:08] was all leading into patents that would [58:09] eventually create things and so some of [58:12] the things we take for granted now were [58:13] developed there. Uh I was there not so [58:17] much to develop a psychic technology but [58:20] because a small percentage of the [58:22] projects were considered blue sky. is [58:26] kind of to make sure that everybody in [58:28] the lab realize that we're trying to [58:30] push the envelope hard in developing new [58:33] things. And so it's always useful to [58:35] have a couple of speculative projects [58:37] around. So I worked on that and then uh [58:42] that the 10 years was over in 2000. So [58:44] this was all in Silicon Valley. So a [58:47] couple of us then left to create a [58:49] nonprofit [58:51] uh which which we called the boundary [58:53] institute which would continue the [58:55] research that we were doing and then [58:58] that lasted for about a year because [58:59] there was the dot crash and we couldn't [59:02] raise money to keep ourselves afloat. I [59:05] was invited then to join the Institute [59:07] of Noetic Sciences where I've been now [59:09] for the last 25 years. So the the the [59:13] circle here is here I am in college and [59:15] looking at this this place studying the [59:17] frontiers of consciousness and that's [59:19] where I end up and I've been there ever [59:21] since and no new doors have opened that [59:24] have attracted me. So I'm I'm there and [59:27] I've been having great fun at the [59:29] institute. I interrupted you when we [59:31] were talking about numbers being [59:33] associated with targets and you were [59:35] expanding on actionable data like real [59:39] like what what was the most impressive [59:41] thing to you that you saw that people [59:44] achieve with remote viewing? [59:46] >> Do you mean from an operational sense or [59:48] or [59:48] >> I mean just just for people listening [59:50] like what would be [59:52] the most spectacular example of [59:54] something that couldn't be achieved any [59:56] other way? [59:58] Well, one of the things was actually [60:00] admitted by President Carter way back [60:02] when when they found a a bomber, a [60:06] nuclear bomber that that landed [60:08] somewhere in Africa uh which could not [60:11] be seen from above because of the canopy [60:13] of of all the and and nobody knew where [60:15] it actually landed. [60:16] >> It crashed, right? [60:17] >> It crashed. There was a a bomb on board [60:19] that they did not want anybody else to [60:21] get. [60:23] Um, and so they asked one of the remote [60:25] viewers. In fact, this one they they [60:27] asked several of them, but one of them [60:29] specialized in location, which is very [60:31] difficult for remote viewing. Like if [60:33] you look at a map and you say, well, you [60:34] know, put a dot on the map of where it [60:36] is. That turns out to not be very easy [60:39] even for remote viewers. But this one [60:41] lady [60:43] was very, very good at that. She was a [60:45] dowser. In fact, she was a map dowser. [60:48] So you get a big piece of blank. You're [60:50] saying dows are like those people that [60:51] walk around with the the stick to find [60:53] water. [60:53] >> Yeah. Except map dowsing is you have a [60:56] blank sheet of paper which is linked by [60:58] association to an actual map somewhere. [61:01] You don't you know you don't want to [61:02] give anything away. So you don't use a [61:04] real map. Use a piece of paper which is [61:07] has little X's on it that map onto an [61:09] actual map. [61:10] >> Okay. [61:11] >> So we asked this lady, her name was [61:12] Fran, uh put a mark on the map of where [61:15] this bomber landed. And of course, she [61:18] doesn't know it's Africa. She doesn't [61:19] know anything. She does her thing. She [61:22] puts a mark on the map. It says, "I I [61:24] think it's there." And so they go there [61:26] and they find it within a couple of [61:28] kilometers of that spot. [61:30] >> Whoa. [61:30] >> And so they they originally go to that [61:33] spot. They see natives nearby. So they [61:36] asked the natives, you know, was there [61:38] anything crashing out of the sky [61:39] recently? Said, "Yeah, something [61:41] happened over there. That's where it [61:43] was." Now, what did Carter say when he [61:46] when he spoke about this publicly? [61:48] >> Carter was asked a very similar question [61:51] that did you ever encounter anything [61:53] really weird? So, that's the example [61:55] that he used. [61:56] >> Didn't Carter have a UFO experience [61:59] before? [61:59] >> He had that as well. Yeah. [62:01] >> And Carter was the the folklore is that [62:03] Carter was briefed about something [62:06] having to do with alien life and he was [62:09] so upset that he he started weeping. [62:11] >> Yes, I've heard those stories. Yes. [62:14] >> What do you think about those stories? [62:15] >> It could well be true. Yeah. I mean, so [62:19] here there's actually [62:19] >> Did you ever hear a rumor of what he was [62:21] told? [62:22] >> Uh, no. I don't know what he was told. [62:24] If I had to guess, given that he was a [62:26] very religious person, it probably was [62:28] pushing against his religious beliefs. [62:31] >> Yeah, [62:31] >> that's what I would guess. Well, you [62:33] know, that was the the giant rumor that [62:35] was going around recently that there was [62:37] going to be some big disclosure by the [62:39] White House and that a bunch of pastors [62:41] had been briefed about this to try to [62:43] talk to their flock and and to, you [62:46] know, get ahead of it. [62:48] >> Yeah. Yeah. [62:49] >> You heard that, right? [62:50] >> Yeah. [62:50] >> What did you think of that? [62:51] >> It could well be true. So, I I know [62:54] Jacqu Valet really well. Uh [62:56] >> he's a fascinating guy. [62:58] >> Yeah. And and I know Gary Nolan and [63:00] >> another fascinating [63:01] >> Yeah. I' I've I've wor circles where we [63:04] basically all known each other for a [63:06] long time. uh and the the UFO business [63:09] UAP is very similar in some respects to [63:12] the psychic side be both in that there's [63:16] an enormous amount of misinformation [63:18] that has been pushed by government by [63:20] other places to deflect attention [63:23] >> right [63:24] >> and so there there's lots of examples of [63:26] that um which I mean because of what we [63:31] know now about the UFO thing it's [63:34] relatively easy to see how that could [63:36] have happened for uh for the SAI [63:40] business as well. So just one example, I [63:42] I go to the Naval War College and I've [63:45] given a number of lectures and one of [63:48] them is on telepathy. How do we know [63:50] that telepathy actually exists? There's [63:51] a bunch of different ways of knowing [63:53] that. And so afterwards, two [63:55] subcommanders come up. In fact, that's [63:57] that's the story. That's the opening [63:59] story gambit in my book, The Science of [64:02] Magic. So, the two subcommanders come up [64:04] and they say, "Uh, well, we have a story [64:06] to tell you. These are two independent [64:08] subs." They're the commanders of two [64:10] subs. So, I'm telling them all [64:12] everything we know about telepathy. And [64:14] they say, "Well, one time in we're we're [64:17] submerged. We're under maneuvers. A [64:20] crewman wakes up from a dream and tell [64:22] goes to the commander and says, "We need [64:24] to surface because something bad has [64:26] happened at home." [64:28] Well, we can't. We're under maneuvers. [64:30] next time we can surface. Well, then you [64:32] can call home. So the next time they [64:34] surface, they call home. And sure [64:35] enough, when the sailor woke up from his [64:37] dream, there was indeed something bad [64:39] happening at home. [64:41] So I had So both of the commanders had [64:43] the same story. So I said, well, does [64:45] this happen like every Tuesday? No, [64:48] there were no false positives. It [64:50] happened once and both times it was it [64:52] was correct. That's very important to [64:55] know. Not simply that it happens, but it [64:58] is happening when the submarines are at [65:00] a classified depth, which means at least [65:02] 300 meters, probably more below the [65:05] surface of the ocean where it's [65:06] extremely difficult to get any kind of [65:08] message there. So, it's not [65:10] electromagnetic. We don't know what that [65:12] would be. [65:13] >> What were the events at home that were [65:14] bad? [65:15] >> They didn't tell me the events at home, [65:17] but it was [65:18] >> personal events like some in someone's [65:19] family, [65:20] >> something in their family, something was [65:22] going wrong, [65:23] >> uh, which turned out to be correct. So, [65:25] so one thing is yes, it tells us [65:27] something that's important to know from [65:28] a scientific perspective because they [65:30] are not reachable by ordinary means. [65:33] That's the whole point about having a [65:34] submarine. Very difficult to know where [65:36] they are and get messages to them. The [65:39] other thing is that people who are [65:41] selected to be submariners are [65:43] psychologically extremely stable. [65:46] They're not prone to flights of fantasy. [65:48] They don't have claustrophobia. They [65:50] they don't have any kind of the neurosis [65:52] that you would imagine that somebody [65:53] would need that go into a submarine for [65:56] months submerged who knows where. [65:58] >> Right? [65:59] >> So it means that this happens to [66:00] ordinary people in this case in an [66:03] altered state of awareness namely in a [66:05] dream state but nevertheless they got it [66:07] and there were no false positives. So, I [66:11] was a little whenever I give a talk to a [66:13] new type of group, especially in the [66:14] military, always thinking these guys are [66:17] they think I'm nuts because I'm telling [66:19] them stuff that shouldn't exist by any [66:23] conventional perspective. It's exactly [66:25] the opposite. I'm mostly have talked to [66:28] officers like up to generals and [66:31] admirals and few levels below that. They [66:34] are all completely on board and I began [66:37] to understand why that not only are they [66:39] in in life and death situations and [66:42] that's where these things tend to bubble [66:43] up but also they had to trust their [66:46] intuition and making lots of decisions [66:48] that affect other people and they would [66:50] not have risen through the ranks unless [66:52] they were really really good at it. So [66:55] that that's why I was not getting the [66:57] kind of push back that I expected to [66:59] get. [67:00] >> Interesting. The Bell Labs connection is [67:02] very interesting too. You know, Bell [67:04] Labs is a it's also the source of myth [67:07] and folklore about the Roswell crash [67:11] that they received things from the [67:14] Roswell craft and backgineered it. Do [67:17] you know that whole crazy? [67:19] >> I I know about those stories. I I don't [67:21] know any I don't have any direct [67:23] knowledge of anything. [67:24] >> Never heard anything when you were [67:24] there. There was a company called the [67:27] American Computer Company way back in [67:28] the day and they just would sell, you [67:30] know, Windows computers. You could you [67:33] pick out the hard drive and all this [67:34] jazz online. They'd build it for you. [67:36] >> And they had a whole page of their [67:38] website that was dedicated [67:40] >> to uh Bell Laboratories and Bell [67:43] Laboratories being close to a military [67:46] base, not because the military base was [67:48] really to protect New York City. It was [67:50] really to protect Bell Labs cuz they [67:51] were working all this top secret stuff [67:53] there and that they had back engineered [67:55] some stuff from the Roswell crash. This [67:57] is all like this. [67:58] >> Maybe [67:59] >> it's so fun. Why is that stuff so fun? [68:02] >> Yeah, maybe. I mean, after all, they [68:04] they invented the fiber optics and [68:06] lasers and everything in modern modern. [68:09] >> The fiber optics specifically was one of [68:10] the things that they discussed as being [68:12] something that they discovered. Well, [68:14] there is I mean, if you go to the to to [68:17] the ordinary history, you can figure out [68:19] why that happened. Not that it didn't [68:21] involve reverse engineering anything [68:23] that there's a long history about why [68:25] somebody would have gotten to the point [68:27] to realize that you can do certain [68:28] things with glass. That would be [68:31] interesting. [68:31] >> Mhm. [68:32] >> Whether the idea came from somewhere [68:34] else, that's that I don't know. [68:36] >> It's just interesting. It's just it's [68:38] it's fascinating when you find out that [68:40] there are these very limited access [68:42] programs that are beyond top secret that [68:45] even the president can't find out about [68:46] them. [68:47] >> Yeah. Yeah. And so one of the [68:49] disadvantage of a special access program [68:51] is that you could be working next to [68:53] somebody and are not allowed to talk [68:55] about what they're doing. And that that [68:57] was happening a lot. [68:59] >> So a lot of the Stargate program is now [69:02] public. There's like four volumes that [69:05] that go through great gory detail on [69:07] this called the Stargate Archives. [69:10] Not all of it has been released. So, a [69:12] lot of the military stuff won't will [69:14] never be released because it involves [69:16] people and methods and so on. Some of [69:18] the research side is not released [69:20] either. And so, I know about that [69:22] because I was I was in there. I also [69:26] just by virtue of hanging around other [69:28] people, you learn things that that they [69:31] talk about. So we knew about some of [69:33] those things too. And I know when you [69:35] talking to Halpoff and occasionally you [69:37] would ask him something and he say, [69:38] "Well, I can't talk about that." Well, I [69:40] can't talk about this. [69:42] >> Right. That's a problem. Does that [69:45] frustrate you that you can't openly [69:47] discuss some of these things? [69:50] >> Yes. It was especially frustrating when [69:52] I was working there because we go into [69:54] the building and we're doing all kinds [69:56] of interesting psychic things and you go [69:58] out of the building and it does not only [70:00] doesn't exist that if it ever comes up [70:03] in conversation, you don't say I can't [70:04] talk about it because that would mean [70:06] they know this, you have to go along [70:08] with the game and just agree with [70:10] everybody else that it's all nonsense. [70:12] >> Wow. [70:12] >> So, it's nonsense out there and in here [70:15] we're working on it. So, that kind of [70:17] >> what a weird psychological dilemma. [70:19] Well, even worse, [70:22] the whole point about classification is [70:24] to keep secrets. [70:26] We were figuring out ways that you can't [70:28] keep secrets, right? I mean, the whole [70:31] thing about remote viewing and telepathy [70:32] and all that stuff, there are no secrets [70:35] with the right talented people. Nothing [70:37] can be shielded. Nothing [70:41] >> outside. Everything is all about [70:42] secrets. So one of the reasons I think [70:45] that these topics are still have a [70:47] stigma attached to them and why there's [70:48] disinformation [70:50] is because imagine how the society would [70:52] work if there were no secrets. [70:55] >> Do you don't you think that technology [70:56] is eventually taking us into that [70:58] direction? [71:00] >> Yes, but it's not going to be neurolink. [71:02] It's it's not going to be brain [71:05] computer stuff. It's going to be the [71:07] real thing. You so you think technology [71:10] will aid us in achieving the real thing? [71:13] >> Yes. [71:13] >> How so? [71:14] >> Okay. So, [71:17] one day we're talking to Gary Nolan. Uh [71:20] Gary says, "Uh, have you ever looked at [71:22] the genetics of of highly talented [71:25] people? There's a lot of folklore out [71:27] there that there are people who are [71:29] psychic who come from psychic families [71:32] and then there are people who don't have [71:33] anything psychic and don't have anybody [71:35] talking about psychic stuff [71:38] that suggests genetics. So this was a [71:40] couple years ago. We decided to do an [71:42] experiment that we call side genes. [71:45] We're looking for the psychic gene. More [71:47] likely a polygenetic trait but [71:49] nevertheless something about genetics. [71:52] So, we do an experiment where we recruit [71:55] 3,000 people using the internet who say [71:58] that they're psychic from psychic [71:59] families. And then we do all kinds of [72:01] vetting to make sure that they are who [72:03] they say they are and they have some [72:05] talent. And we get their DNA. Uh we only [72:08] had enough money to find out of the [72:10] 3,000 people 13 because we also did [72:13] face-to-face interviews to make sure [72:15] they weren't nuts. So, we get their DNA. [72:17] Then we find match controls and we do [72:20] standard methods of comparing the two [72:23] the two sets of genomes. And so we found [72:26] something that we didn't expect which [72:28] was that the psychics were all so-called [72:32] wild type. They didn't have any unusual [72:35] things happening in their their DNA. The [72:38] controls had a significant effect in an [72:41] intron sequence. So when you you have [72:44] you have DNA, it's billions of base [72:45] pairs. Only about 50,000 of them produce [72:49] proteins. It's the e called the exo. [72:51] It's a portion that creates our body. [72:53] It's it's that stuff. All of the rest of [72:56] it used to be called junk DNA because [72:58] they didn't know what it it did. It's [73:00] the intron sequence. It's the thing [73:02] between the genes [73:04] that now we know is the epigenetic [73:07] portion. It's the portion of the DNA [73:09] that turns genes on and off. These [73:12] controls had a mutation in their intron [73:15] sequence. So they were turning something [73:18] off. We still don't know exactly what it [73:20] is, but something about their makeup was [73:23] turning off psychic sensitivity. And so [73:26] one of the people on our our project was [73:28] a specialist in the genetics of [73:31] societies. Different societies have [73:33] different genetic makeup. And he found [73:36] that to our surprise there too that [73:40] countries that were exposed to [73:41] Christianity, the longer they were [73:44] exposed, the more this intron sequence [73:46] was there, the mutation. We started [73:49] thinking, well, how does that make any [73:51] sense? Then suddenly we understood [73:54] the uh the Inquisition had [73:57] systematically looked for people over [74:00] hundreds of years who had these [74:01] abilities and then they killed them. And [74:04] so You think about this is a uh a none [74:08] evolutionary method but nevertheless a [74:10] pruning of a portion of humanity. So [74:14] they were getting rid of people who had [74:15] this and what were left over were people [74:17] who had this no psychic stuff at all. [74:21] >> So [74:22] >> yeah, so it's like a a eugenics in an [74:25] opposite direction where they weren't [74:27] trying to pull people for talent but get [74:30] rid of the talent. And you can see it in [74:32] the in the genome. [74:33] >> And this is directly connected the to [74:35] the Inquisition because so the [74:38] Inquisition [74:40] this is [74:42] what what were they like who were they [74:43] targeting specifically? [74:45] >> They were targeting witches. So the [74:47] witches were once I mean an awful lot of [74:50] innocent people were caught up in that [74:52] as well. [74:53] >> But people who were known as healers [74:56] were people who had precognition. And of [74:58] course, the the church at the time was [75:00] just concerned that somebody's going to [75:02] come along that's going to attract our [75:04] followers away from us. So magic was [75:08] okay within the church, within the [75:09] bounds of the church. If a priest is [75:11] anointed in a certain way, they can do [75:13] magic. The whole ceremony of the [75:15] Eucharist is a magical practice. It's [75:18] okay. Outside of the church, it was not [75:20] okay. And so it was a very heavy-handed [75:23] way of ensuring that the power would [75:26] remain in the church. So by enforcing [75:28] their Christian ideology, they [75:30] eliminated anybody that had any [75:32] alternative powers or visions or [75:37] anything weird, any other kind of [75:38] practices. [75:39] >> Yeah. And so the the case of the [75:42] Catholic saints is very interesting like [75:44] uh Joseph of Certino was said to have [75:47] levitated and also to do by location [75:50] very psychic things. [75:52] He was very he was lucky in a sense that [75:57] he was already a priest. Uh lots of [76:00] people thousands of people saw him [76:02] levitate and he made basically a deal [76:05] was made with the Inquisition that you [76:07] now need to go to this place out in the [76:09] middle of nowhere and don't show this [76:11] anymore to anybody because we don't. So [76:13] when you say he could levitate like how [76:14] high [76:15] >> there are stories of him levitating 30 [76:17] feet [76:19] >> sometimes drifting into the rafters of [76:21] churches in front of astonished crowds [76:23] and even Pope Urban the eth [76:25] >> you could read more about it in his [76:27] extraordinary life through Franciscan [76:29] media [76:31] >> yeah St. Teresa live [76:33] >> the patron saint. Go back, please. The [76:35] uh often called the patron saint of air [76:37] travelers. [76:38] >> Yeah, why not? Right. We're all [76:40] levitating. [76:41] >> Well, that is cra the most famous [76:43] levitator in Catholic history. So, [76:44] there's other levitators. [76:45] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. There there's a book [76:47] called [76:48] >> How come nobody could do that now? [76:50] >> Uh there were stories that people can do [76:52] it now, but so far in the laboratory, we [76:54] haven't been able to see this. [76:57] >> So, there's a book called [76:58] >> Stop. Stop. Please go back. Um [77:01] [clears throat] this one, St. Teresa of [77:02] Aila. Yeah. A Spanish mystic who [77:05] famously recorded that her levitations [77:06] occurred unexpectedly during states of [77:08] deep spiritual rapture. She described [77:11] the sensation as a violent force lifting [77:13] her up from beneath her feet and was so [77:15] embarrassed by it that she instructed [77:17] fellow nuns to physically hold her down. [77:21] >> Whoa. [77:22] >> Dozens. Dozens. [77:23] >> Francis of Aisi. But it's like do it [77:27] now. [77:29] Why do you think people don't do it now [77:30] and film it on their iPhone? [77:32] >> Well, so the TM organization had a city [77:35] program, the city yogic powers [77:38] >> and and they had this whole thing for a [77:39] long time about yogic flyers. So one [77:41] time I went to the university where they [77:44] were going to show the four best yogic [77:47] flyers. They were all excited about that [77:49] and a few other people. [77:50] >> And so there are four young men who go [77:52] in full lotus position and then hop. [77:55] >> I've seen that. [77:56] >> Yeah. So, so we were like, you know, [77:58] right next to them and seeing hopping [77:59] and the hopping's pretty good because [78:01] you're in a full lotus position and you [78:03] hop around two and a half feet. [78:04] >> It's plyometrics though. [78:06] >> Yeah. Yeah, [78:06] >> it was hopping. So, I I asked them, [78:09] well, why why aren't anybody flowing? [78:11] Why why is the flying not happening? [78:13] There they go. [78:14] >> Right. But [78:14] >> yeah. [78:15] >> Yeah. [78:15] >> So, that's that takes you have to be [78:17] pretty strong to do that. [78:18] >> Yeah. But that's all that is. [78:19] >> Yeah. [78:19] >> Yeah. I know guys who can do that. [78:21] >> So, the Maharishi was asked why why [78:24] don't why isn't anybody flying? And his [78:26] response was there's too many people who [78:28] think it's impossible. So it's it [78:30] becomes like a sociological thing. So is [78:32] that true? [78:34] >> I don't know. [78:35] >> Do you think it's people are are more [78:38] closed-minded to the ideas than anything [78:40] outside the norm? Anything like that? [78:43] Levitation. It's nonsense. So it's like [78:45] it's permeated our our zeitgeists. [78:47] >> Yes. It it also I believe that it can [78:49] act as a block for other people. So what [78:52] one is so you haven't asked yet uh why [78:55] as a scientist who worked at Princeton [78:57] and Bell Labs why am I writing about [78:59] magic it's because of a couple of [79:01] experiences that told me that our [79:03] understanding of psychic effects now is [79:06] like in a box we we generally do [79:09] experiments we get relatively small [79:10] effects they're not gigantic effects [79:13] they're not levitation well maybe it's [79:16] the same thing somebody can make a [79:18] random number generator do something. [79:21] It's you need statistics to see it. [79:23] They're really small, but we don't know [79:25] the limits. So, I've had a few [79:27] experiences that told me I really don't [79:30] know what the limits are. And so, that [79:33] that brings up this. So, bending a bowl [79:36] of a spoon without force, which I did. [79:40] And so, I I brought you a spoon. This is [79:42] the same spoon from the It's from 1961. [79:45] It's this particular. So, I set up this [79:48] I I went to a a spoke spoon bending [79:52] party because [79:53] >> you bent that spoon with your brain or [79:56] your mind [79:57] >> or your consciousness or whatever it is [79:59] >> something. [79:59] >> I mentally did something but I'll show [80:01] you in a minute how we did this. So I [80:03] the reason I did this because I was at [80:04] interval and at the time Russ Tar was [80:07] working for me in EdMay too and Russ [80:11] came back from one of these parties and [80:13] he said he had bent a a rebar a half [80:17] inch rebar [80:18] which that I mean some musclemen can do [80:21] that but you have to be pretty strong to [80:23] bend a rebar and have it stay there. So [80:26] I was thinking that is ridiculous. I [80:28] didn't say that, but I was thinking [80:30] that's impossible. And the same thing [80:33] about this. If you bend the neck of a [80:35] spoon, which is what typically people [80:37] do, a person can do that just and it's [80:40] gone so fast that you you can't see it. [80:42] And then you hide it and you reveal it [80:44] and it looks like you bent it. [80:46] >> So I went to one of these parties and I [80:49] heard that there was a woman there who [80:50] was able to bend the bowl of the spoon [80:52] just by touching it. [80:54] >> Not by itself, but sort of touching it [80:55] and moving it over. And I said, "I want [80:57] to see that because it's ridiculous." [81:00] So, I'm standing in front of this woman [81:02] and she's holding it like this. She has [81:04] a a thumb there and a finger here [81:06] >> and and so she's I I'm waiting for her [81:09] to do it and I'm mimicking her because I [81:12] want to I want to see how she's doing [81:13] it. You know, is it a trick? [81:15] >> So, we're doing that and nothing is [81:17] happening. And then somebody says, "Look [81:19] what you did." And I'm looking, oh, [81:21] somebody did something. No, Dean, look [81:23] what you did. I had bent it 90 degrees [81:26] and immediately look at my fingers. Did [81:27] I do this by force? No. No. No [81:30] indication, no indentation or anything. [81:33] And so the person said, "Bend it all the [81:34] way." So it was halfway and I I [81:37] literally went and went all the way. So [81:41] I So now I have this spoon and I'm sort [81:43] of mindled by it because I know it [81:46] wasn't force. I'm not strong enough to [81:48] be able to do that. Very few people [81:50] would be able to do it. So, I have [81:52] another spoon just like it. And I'm on [81:54] the plane flying home and I'm I'm like [81:57] trying to do it with the spoon and I [81:59] suddenly get a huge shock of fear [82:02] because I'm in a metal tin can 30,000 ft [82:05] up and I don't know how I did it and I [82:07] don't want the wings to suddenly go [82:10] because I'm I'm [82:12] >> I still don't know exactly how, but I [82:14] know the metallergy now. So, it turns [82:16] out that if if you're holding it like [82:18] that and you can do between 50 and 70 [82:21] pounds of force suddenly, like a like an [82:23] impulse, you will cause the the lattice [82:27] that that forms the grain boundary to [82:30] momentarily soften. And then for about [82:32] 20 seconds, it will be really really [82:34] soft. And that that's and and at that [82:37] point, you can literally just take a [82:38] thumb and finger like this, which is [82:40] what I did, and squish it over. [82:42] Instantly tightens up again. But there's [82:44] no explanation for what caused the [82:45] initial force. [82:47] >> No, because I I was holding it like this [82:49] and I I I can't do that. [82:51] >> Can you do that now? [82:52] >> No, I don't I don't know how I did it. I [82:55] do know, however, [82:56] >> can I Is that the actual spoon you did [82:57] it with? [82:58] >> Yeah, this this is the spoon. [82:59] >> Can't feel it. [83:01] >> This is a regular spoon. [83:02] >> Yeah, [83:03] >> it's Yep. [83:03] >> I want to show you. It's pretty easy to [83:05] bend. [83:05] >> I want to show you this other part here. [83:09] >> This is the motivation. [83:11] So, I was told [83:16] Well, more importantly than that is to [83:18] take the full spoon that you have [83:21] because this this is what I was working, [83:23] >> right? This one was already weakened, [83:24] right? [83:24] >> No, [83:25] >> no, but but I mean now it is. [83:27] >> No, that that is the way it is. It's a [83:29] little spongy, but [83:31] >> that's what I'm saying. Like that I just [83:32] did that. [83:33] >> Yeah. You're [83:34] >> straight it out. [83:36] >> Yeah. And you have to apply a lot of [83:38] force to do it. [83:39] >> A lot. Yeah. I got to really strain. [83:41] >> Yeah. And I have fat thumbs. [83:45] But once it's like that, I could kind of [83:46] do that pretty. [83:47] >> Yeah. Well, now of course you you [83:48] smoothed it out. So now try to do it [83:51] without it being in that position [83:53] >> with just one finger. One hand. [83:55] >> No, just like like this. Hold hold it [83:57] like that. [83:58] >> Hold thumb underneath, finger on top. [84:01] Yeah. And and bend it down. [84:03] >> Not the neck. The neck. It's bending the [84:05] neck. Yeah. [84:07] >> The shell shape resists bending. [84:09] >> It's very hard to bend. [84:10] >> Yeah. And more importantly, don't hurt [84:12] your fingers on this. [84:13] >> Yeah, [clears throat] I can't do it. [84:14] Well, I I might be able to do it if it [84:16] was more stable, but it's very hard to [84:18] do. It's not something that's easy at [84:19] all. [84:20] >> With leverage, certainly you can do it. [84:21] But there there was [84:23] >> a clamp. Maybe I could do it. [84:24] >> Oh, yeah. [84:24] >> But I mean, I would want to use both [84:26] hands. I'd want to like get in there [84:27] with my No, [84:29] >> that's not what happened. [84:30] >> But to do it with a finger, that's very [84:32] hard to do. And you don't know how you [84:33] did it. Well, so I was in a very weird [84:36] state of motivation because we were told [84:39] that if you could do that without force [84:42] that you would get this button [84:44] [laughter] [84:46] >> certified warm former. [84:47] >> Yeah. So, so that was called warm warm [84:50] former because you're forming this as [84:53] though it became warm because it feels [84:55] like it feels like putty when it [84:57] actually [84:57] >> that's what I had heard that people do [84:59] with like the necks of them. [85:01] >> Oh, yeah. No, the neck. I wasn't [85:02] interested in the necks. seen a guy do [85:04] that and he told me it was a trick. He [85:05] goes, "I'm not going to tell you how I [85:06] do it, but I'm not using magic. [85:09] >> You could just do it." [85:09] >> And he said he was like doing something [85:11] like rubbing it with his fingers and it [85:12] would like it was a specific type of [85:14] spoon or something like [85:16] >> But even with this spoon, I mean, you're [85:17] certainly strong enough to be able to [85:18] push it over. Yeah. At at the neck, [85:21] >> the shell shape is very difficult. [85:23] >> Yeah. I can't I can't do it. [85:26] >> So, I was told if if [85:28] >> I did it, [85:29] >> but look, [clears throat] I had to use [85:30] both hands. [85:31] >> Yeah. And you you apply leverage and [85:33] you're going to feel it tomorrow in your [85:34] fingers, too. [85:35] >> Nah, I'll be all right. But yeah, this [85:38] is um that's very hard to do. [85:40] >> So if you could do it, you get a button. [85:43] So the next day I was giving a talk to [85:45] this conference. This was held at a [85:47] conference and I imagined myself with my [85:49] suit on with the button and it was like [85:52] some kind of weird ego thing where I [85:54] felt I needed to demonstrate to the [85:56] people in the audience that I can do [85:57] this stuff. And it and it was so strange [86:00] because I I I'm not very egotistical and [86:04] and I'm not self argrandizing either, [86:06] but there was something about getting [86:08] the stupid button that put me in a [86:11] position where I felt if I don't do [86:13] this, the universe will end. I mean, [86:15] that kind of level of obsessiveness, I [86:17] needed the button [86:18] >> for no reason. [86:20] >> Well, I because I needed the button. [86:22] >> I know, but that's kind of crazy. I but [86:24] I I don't know how to [86:25] >> seem like something you would be [86:26] interested in knowing you for the brief [86:28] amount of time that I've known you. [86:29] >> Nevertheless, that is the ca that is the [86:32] the strange state I was in. And it's [86:34] it's relevant to the idea of of how [86:37] traditional magic is supposed to work. [86:40] There's a number of factors involved. [86:41] There's belief and motivation is very [86:44] important, imagination and a bunch of [86:45] other things. So it's very difficult in [86:48] an experiment to create that level of [86:50] motivation. this is not something I [86:53] want. This is something I need. I need [86:56] this to happen. So well, so I got the [86:59] button and the moment I I did that and [87:01] he gave me the button, it all vanished. [87:04] The whole thing about the need was [87:06] suddenly and then everything in the [87:07] universe was okay again. So that's when [87:10] you you know you look into how magic [87:13] works, you build up this sense and [87:16] there's two ways of doing it. One is [87:19] very long-term meditation where you can [87:21] gain certain skills and the other one I [87:23] call screaming at fire. So that the [87:26] image that that evokes you're screaming [87:29] at fire. It's that kind of motivation [87:31] which allows things to unfold that [87:33] otherwise wouldn't happen. [87:36] >> So this state, have you ever tried to [87:39] achieve this state again under any other [87:41] circumstances? [87:42] >> Well, yeah, in the airplane. And now I [87:44] don't do that in the airplane because [87:45] [laughter] I I don't know how I did it [87:47] in the first place. And yeah, [87:49] >> uh I have tried several times since with [87:52] a quarter inch aluminum bar. This is the [87:54] same kind of bar used in aircraft. It's [87:56] very strong, very stiff. And if you you [88:00] start with it flat and it doesn't rock [88:02] at all. And so I was able to make it go [88:04] so that it rocks a little bit. So it [88:06] moved it a probably a fraction of a [88:08] millimeter. Hm. [88:10] >> And using the same kind of thing, but [88:11] without that crazy motivation because I [88:13] didn't have a button. [88:14] >> Did you film yourself ever doing this? [88:16] >> No. [88:16] >> No. Has anybody ever filmed themselves [88:19] doing something like this? [88:20] >> There are some films of people doing [88:22] this. Generally, what you see is it [88:24] breaking like a spoon. A spoon will [88:27] break here and it goep. [88:29] But again, there there was a lot of [88:31] research on this in the 1970s by [88:34] metallurgists and physicists. Some came [88:36] became convinced that it's real and some [88:39] came convinced that it wasn't real. [88:41] >> So there's some kind of energy, some [88:43] unknown energy that you're transmitting [88:46] to that spoon. [88:47] >> I think what what's happening is very [88:49] similar to what's going on with these [88:51] micro PK events, microcysinetic events [88:56] that you're changing probabilistic [88:57] structure at a very deep level at the [88:59] atomic level. And that that would [89:02] actually do it here. If you're able to [89:03] to target a like a strip across here, [89:07] you can momentarily cause the the grains [89:10] to shift. [89:11] >> And the fact that you didn't know you [89:12] did it. [89:13] >> I didn't know how I did it. I just know [89:15] what I wanted to happen. [89:17] >> But did you recognize it was happening [89:18] while it was happening? [89:19] >> No. No. I was too freaked out. [89:20] >> That's what I'm saying. That's like So [89:22] the state of mind was so peculiar. [89:24] >> Yeah. [89:26] >> That you were doing it without even [89:29] focusing on the fact that you were doing [89:30] it. I'm pretty sure if I was being [89:32] analytical at the time, it would not [89:34] have happened. [sighs and gasps] [89:37] >> That's what's so weird about the whole [89:39] idea of intuition is that if you try it, [89:43] if you like really think about it too [89:44] much, then you get [89:47] by your own perceptions in some [89:50] way. Like you you skew the thing. You [89:53] start defining it and you can't see it [89:55] anymore. It's uh in a in a very general [89:58] sense it's right versus left brain. Our [90:01] left brains are analytical. It's it's [90:03] what allows us to do this sort of [90:04] communication. Uh it is maintaining [90:07] stability about the way that we think [90:09] the world works. The right brain isn't [90:11] interested in that stuff at all. It's [90:13] about form and function. That's where [90:15] remote viewing and most psychic stuff [90:17] takes place. And it's not simple as left [90:20] and right brain. It's but it's generally [90:22] a general idea. So the second level of [90:25] our side genes test so this they're both [90:28] published now. So the second one uh we [90:31] need thousands of cases and controls in [90:35] order to do this right like if you're if [90:37] you're studying schizophrenia what's the [90:39] genetic basis use tens of thousands of [90:42] cases and they do they know the genes [90:45] now as a result we we don't have money [90:48] to do that. So, we've got uh data from [90:50] 23 and me and from uh Ancestry and those [90:54] kinds of places that give you your exo. [90:57] So, it's not the full genome, it's a [90:59] portion of it. And we had people fill [91:01] out a questionnaire of what kind of [91:03] experiences you had. And then we're able [91:05] to do an analysis. Is there a [91:07] correlation between the two? And the [91:09] answer is yes. We found 212 SNIPS. These [91:12] are single nucleot nucleotide [91:15] polymorphisms. So it's a piece of of the [91:18] genome 212 correlated with these psychic [91:21] experiences. One of which correlated [91:24] with a probability of a million to one. [91:26] So it pro that one's probably a real [91:28] thing. So what is that snip associated [91:31] with? You go into the atlas and you can [91:33] say well what portion of the body is [91:36] that involved in. And it's involved with [91:38] a whole bunch of different things [91:39] happening in the brain. [91:43] So we So anybody who's listening who has [91:45] $10 million to spare and [laughter] and [91:47] wants us to figure out uh what is the [91:49] rest of the story, we can we can do that [91:50] because we have the technology now. [91:52] >> Elon, you got some cash? Throw it at [91:53] this thing. Um, so do you when you think [91:58] of consciousness, do you think that we [92:00] as individual biological entities are [92:03] interacting with consciousness and with [92:06] different levels of achieving like [92:09] certain aspects of consciousness, some [92:11] of it being genetic, some of it being [92:15] life experience, education, training, [92:18] but that we're just these individual [92:20] biological entities that are tapping [92:22] into whatever consciousness is [92:25] >> uh yes and no. But you see the the uh [92:30] the subtitle how the mind weaves the [92:32] fabric of reality. So I'm I'm viewing [92:35] this as consciousness and the physical [92:37] world are like a tapestry. They're both [92:41] necessary for understanding of reality [92:43] and they're weaved together. They're [92:45] both part of it. You can't have just a [92:47] physical world. Maybe you can't just [92:49] have a consciousness world either. [92:51] They're they're working together. So we [92:53] are that our physical body our [92:55] consciousness are woven together into [92:57] the form that we currently take. So that [93:00] is essentially a philosophy called dual [93:02] aspect monism says there are two there's [93:05] one world of which we don't know what [93:07] that is but two things split out of it [93:10] mind and matter but they come out of [93:13] something that is uniform it's one thing [93:18] so Carl so Carl Young called it the unis [93:20] mundus the one world out of which things [93:23] split well why does it split his idea [93:26] was that it splits because of meaning. [93:29] So meaning is what caused this mind [93:31] matter split. And because they come out [93:33] of the same place, they're tightly [93:34] correlated. Like two sides of the same [93:36] coin. [93:37] >> But meaning being very subjective, [93:39] right? [93:40] >> What is meaning? [93:42] >> Yeah, that's a good question because [93:44] Young did not clearly define what he [93:45] meant by meaning. [93:47] >> We we sort of know what that means, what [93:50] meaning means, but it's in that theory [93:52] at least or the philosophy, it's not [93:54] clearly defined. So when you get down to [93:56] this one thing that these two things [93:58] branch off, what is the one thing? [94:00] >> It's the one thing that that everything [94:02] comes from [94:04] and and also mind and matter are two [94:06] aspects that split. But there's an [94:08] infinite number of other aspects that [94:10] can split out of this one thing. [94:13] So maybe it splits into other worlds. It [94:15] splits in other universes. It splits we [94:17] don't know how. Splits into aliens. We [94:20] don't know. [94:20] >> That's a lot of we don't know. [94:23] >> Yeah. When it comes down to comes down [94:25] to anywhere in science, [94:28] we don't know the leading edge. We do [94:30] not know. And it's largely because [94:32] science doesn't answer why. [94:35] We don't know why. Why does an electron [94:36] have a certain charge on it? We don't [94:38] know. That's the way it is. Science [94:40] observes stuff and then tries to make [94:42] theories to explain it. And sometimes [94:44] we're really good. We can make stuff out [94:46] of it. But when it comes down to brass [94:48] tax, most of the answers are we really [94:50] don't know. And it gets down to the base [94:52] of the observable universe. You get to [94:54] like quantum mechanics and quantum [94:57] theory and particles being connected, [95:01] spooky action at a distance. You get you [95:03] get to the the weird stuff about quantum [95:06] the quantum world and you particles [95:09] being in superp position, moving and [95:10] still at the same time being connected [95:13] over vast distances. Like what? That's [95:16] magic. like whatever the hell that is [95:18] that doesn't seem to follow any of the [95:21] rules of reality that we like average [95:24] people exist in. [95:25] >> Yeah. But our average experience is [95:27] provincial. [95:29] >> It's it's human centric at human time [95:32] scales. [95:32] >> Yes. [95:32] >> And so imagine a few thousand years ago [95:36] you'd look up at in the dark sky and see [95:39] a bunch of stars and a couple of them [95:40] look kind of fuzzy. Well, you didn't [95:42] know they were galaxies. Well, you take [95:44] the the James Webb telescope now and you [95:47] the estimate is at least 3,000 galaxies [95:51] in the observable universe. So imagine [95:53] how your cosmology changes between those [95:56] two. In one case, you're the center of [95:58] the universe and there's some smudgy [96:00] stars, a few of them, five of them [96:01] about. Now we know we are in the middle [96:05] of nowhere in some gigantic universe [96:08] with basically no understanding of the [96:10] rest of it. Cosmology is changing day by [96:12] day. So, I gave a talk on this recently [96:15] about how every time a new instrument [96:18] extends our senses, whole new realms of [96:21] reality open up that weren't even [96:22] imagined before. So, [96:26] the the reason why I'm I'm continuing to [96:29] be so interested in what is the nature [96:30] of consciousness, what is the frontier [96:33] is because without consciousness, we [96:36] wouldn't know anything. Quite literally, [96:38] we wouldn't be aware of anything. So in [96:40] some respects we are creating all of [96:43] this and so something seems weird [96:45] because we we don't have the senses yet [96:47] to be able to actually experience it [96:49] directly. [96:51] >> God is such a fascinating subject and [96:53] the the the concept of consciousness [96:55] interacting with things [96:59] >> less than yes interacting but more so [97:02] that it is everything is built of it. [97:05] It's like it's part of it. Right. So, so [97:08] if you're if you're [97:09] >> it's not just experiencing it. [97:11] >> It is it in a sense. [97:13] >> It is it. [97:14] >> Yeah. If you go all the way to [97:15] full-blown idealism, which is the [97:17] philosophy that everything is [97:19] consciousness, everything. The physical [97:21] world emerges out of consciousness. [97:23] That's idealism. [97:25] It turns out that almost all of the [97:27] founders of quantum mechanics were [97:29] idealists, [97:32] which is pretty odd when you think about [97:34] it. Yeah. The most successful physical [97:36] theory developed so far were people who [97:39] are idealists who felt that everything [97:41] ultimately was consciousness. Not only [97:44] that, most of them were also mystics. [97:46] They read very extensively in eastern [97:49] philosophy. They knew about uh [97:51] mysticism. They were deeply into it. And [97:54] that still is true for leading [97:56] physicists today. Do you think there's [97:58] ancient truths in all that all the [98:01] mystic traditions and all these [98:03] different things that have existed in [98:05] religious texts and [98:07] >> there there is truth there that has been [98:09] distorted by history and language. Yes. [98:13] And it doesn't help that uh the the not [98:17] and not going to pick on the Catholic [98:18] Church but but religion in general has [98:20] said of course there's magic like [98:23] everything is magic supernatural fill in [98:25] the blank. uh but don't pay too much [98:28] attention to it which is which is kind [98:30] of strange especially in the spiritual [98:32] traditions. So I had an opportunity to [98:35] talk to a famous guru called Sadguru and [98:38] I was on okay so I I asked Sadguru uh [98:42] I'm a scientist and I'm studying psychic [98:44] phenomena but within the yogic tradition [98:46] and virtually every other spiritual [98:48] tradition you're told not to do that [98:50] don't pay attention to these psychic [98:52] things for a deflection. So I said, [98:54] 'Well, am I wasting my time as a [98:56] scientist? I mean, what what do I do [98:58] then? And also, why do the spiritual [99:00] traditions say that? And his answer was, [99:05] uh, imagine you're riding in a car and [99:07] you've never ridden in a car before and [99:09] you like the feeling of the air as it's [99:11] going against your arm. Well, it might [99:13] rip your arm off if you go near a tree. [99:16] So the underlying story is you're [99:18] dealing with something which is so [99:19] powerful you don't know what you're [99:21] doing and it's too powerful so don't do [99:24] it. To which I was saying thinking well [99:27] you're saying I shouldn't be doing this [99:29] but that only makes me want to do it [99:31] more [laughter] because like I we need [99:33] to figure out what this stuff is. Right. [99:35] >> Right. The idea that you should just [99:37] ignore it is ridiculous. [99:38] >> But that's what the spiritual traditions [99:40] do. They say ignore it. [99:42] >> Is that so they can maintain control? [99:44] Well, [99:45] >> so they can be the purveyors of [99:47] knowledge and no one goes outside of [99:49] that realm and questions the ideology. [99:53] >> Some of it is that. Yes, that certainly [99:55] within Catholicism, Christianity in [99:57] general. Yes. Don't do don't do that. [99:58] It's written into the catechism like [100:01] don't don't do this magic stuff [100:03] >> because it's demonic. I mean, that's [100:05] kind of beaten in into your head for a [100:07] long time. [100:08] >> Where did that come from? Why demonic? [100:10] >> Because the potential for it going [100:11] wrong? [100:12] >> Because it's not within the bounds of [100:13] the church. That's it. [100:14] >> Yep. Everything else is demonic and it [100:17] will get you. [100:18] >> And by the way, there's still a lot of [100:19] people in our own government and in the [100:22] military who believe that and that is [100:23] one of the reasons why UFOs has been [100:26] deflected. [100:27] >> Oh, JD Vance said he thinks they're [100:28] demons. [100:29] >> Yeah. [laughter] [100:30] Yeah. I mean, so [100:32] >> I can't wait to ask him about that [100:33] again. [100:33] >> The same is true for for psychic stuff [100:35] and UFOs, right? This is demonic people [100:38] like we shouldn't be doing this. [100:40] >> Yeah. So within spiritual traditions, uh [100:43] the other reason given is that the power [100:45] is seductive and people are too weak. [100:48] And so if you gain this power by one [100:51] means or the other, you're going to use [100:53] it badly. And and that probably is true. [100:56] That's why at least within the yogic [100:57] tradition, if you're going through [100:59] through the path where you're eventually [101:01] going to gain the cities, [101:03] you spend probably the first three to [101:05] five years not doing that. You learn how [101:08] to get your ego in check. And so that [101:10] that turns out to be an extremely [101:13] important aspect of the yogic training. [101:15] And the yoga by the way has very little [101:17] or nothing to do with with the whole [101:19] stretching and the maneuvers all of [101:21] that. All of the things that we think of [101:24] as yoga in the west are designed to get [101:27] you strong enough so you can sit in the [101:29] in a lotus position for eight hours [101:31] because that's where the action starts [101:33] in meditation. [101:35] It's not the physical side. [101:38] It is a a reality of the human condition [101:40] that if you give people that kind of [101:42] power and that kind of influence over [101:44] others, [101:46] a a large percentage will abuse it. [101:49] >> Yeah. [101:49] >> Or at least use it to their own for [101:51] their own personal gain to control [101:52] people. And [101:54] >> so [101:54] >> and to set themselves up as being [101:56] godlike or [101:58] >> so here's what I I told Sadguru. So one [102:00] of the projects because of our interest [102:02] in this side genes thing uh it's going [102:05] to be a very complicated series of genes [102:08] and probably intron sequence and so on [102:10] but nevertheless we have the tools we [102:12] can do it if we had enough money uh [102:15] setting aside issue about ethics about [102:17] whether or not it's a good thing to do [102:20] seven years ago a couple of colleagues [102:22] and I formed a company called cognenics [102:26] to see if we could use genetic [102:28] engineering methods to do something like [102:30] that. Could we significantly enhance [102:32] perception and cognition and memory and [102:34] all of that stuff so that you don't need [102:37] to be a monk going into a cave for 30 [102:39] years, but you can take a genetic edit [102:40] and kind of get there quickly? So again, [102:43] setting aside for a moment the ethics [102:45] and the power seduction and all that. Is [102:48] it possible? [102:50] And we now think it's possible because [102:53] we've developed an interasal delivery [102:55] method for RNA interference. You shove [102:58] it up the nose, you snort it up the [102:59] nose, it gets into the brain, and it [103:02] downregulates certain receptors. [103:04] >> Is it a one-time treatment? [103:06] >> It's a multi-time treatment because it's [103:08] RNA. So, our RNA will last for a while [103:10] and then months later you'd have to [103:12] re-up it. You can do it as a one-time. [103:15] >> So, you could literally blast something [103:17] up your nose and it'll affect your [103:20] ability to do this stuff [103:23] >> in principle for psychic things. But but [103:26] we see that that's far in the future. [103:28] What we're doing now as a company is [103:31] addressing dementia. So we're looking [103:33] for ways of how do you how do you fix [103:36] memory loss, especially short-term [103:38] memory loss. It is related to certain [103:40] receptors. Turns out to be the same [103:42] receptors as in psilocybin 5HD2A. [103:45] We can downregulate them. You saw that [103:47] study where that where that um article [103:50] recently about a woman who was uh she I [103:53] believe she had dementia but she [103:54] couldn't speak anymore. She took five [103:56] grams of psilocybin mushrooms and all a [103:58] sudden she could talk. [103:59] >> Yeah. So this this is doing that without [104:02] the hallucinations [104:04] and much much longer. Psilocybin will [104:07] get in and out of your body pretty [104:08] quickly. the RNA interference will take [104:11] will will come up and then stay for [104:13] about a we think a couple of months and [104:16] then slowly begin to to decline. And so [104:18] you you would need to take this this [104:21] treatment a the uh intraasal treatment [104:24] probably every two or three months and [104:27] we don't know about the dosing yet. [104:29] We've done studies with mice and rats [104:31] and now with monkeys so we know it works [104:33] in a primate brain. The next couple of [104:36] steps [104:37] >> when they do the studies with monkeys, [104:38] what happens? [104:40] >> Well, they there are two things that you [104:42] look at. Well, first of all, you want to [104:44] make sure that actually gets into the [104:45] brain. So, you do a radioactive tag on [104:48] the compound itself and then use a PET [104:51] scan, a depositron emission tomography, [104:54] and you can then see does it actually [104:56] get out of the nose and go into the [104:57] brain. The answer is yes. We can track [104:59] where in the brain it's going. We mainly [105:02] want to it to get down to the lyic [105:03] system because that's that's where the [105:06] hippocampus is and where memory is [105:07] encoded. And we know from our studies [105:10] with mice and rats, you get a 100% [105:12] improvement in memory in mice and rats [105:16] that are either aged or normal. So [105:19] normal mouse will get 100% improvement [105:22] in memory exactly at the same time. [105:25] They'll get a almost 100% reduction in [105:27] anxiety. So as you think about a [105:30] treatment for dementia, dementia [105:32] patients get very anxious. So you want [105:34] to calm them down and improve their [105:36] memory. This does both in one shot. [105:38] >> Wow. [105:40] >> Yeah. [105:41] >> And what does it do to regular people [105:44] >> with no no ailments? [105:46] >> We don't know yet. [105:47] >> No one's tried. [105:48] >> Well, we don't have permission from the [105:50] FDA to do clinical trials yet. [105:52] >> Wink wink. Uh if you ask the people if [105:56] you ask [105:57] >> someone must have done it. [105:58] >> No, [clears throat] we haven't tried it [105:59] yet. [105:59] >> Not not a single person has said shoot [106:01] it up my nose. [106:02] >> That would admit it. No. [106:04] >> Oh, that would admit it. [106:05] >> Yeah. [106:05] >> Yeah. [106:05] >> Um [106:06] >> that's my point. [106:07] >> Yeah. So, it actually has pretty much [106:09] the same effect as as psilocybin, but it [106:13] is only doing this one receptor because [106:15] when you take psilocybin, there's all [106:17] kinds of things going on, which is one [106:18] of the reasons you get hallucinogenics. [106:20] Uh so we wanted to do this for people [106:22] who probably wouldn't take hallucinogen. [106:25] Uh it would probably come on faster and [106:27] it would last a lot longer. And for some [106:29] cases like if somebody was terminal and [106:32] they're losing their memory, you can [106:34] make this a permanent edit as well. [106:36] >> I wonder what would happen if you [106:37] combine the two [106:39] whi which two [106:40] >> the RNA and psilocybin. [106:43] >> Uh well we once we get this approved [106:45] we'll have you do it and see what [106:48] happens. [106:48] >> Yeah. Let's find out. Yeah. Yeah. Well, [106:51] yeah. [106:52] >> I'll come back and quit the podcast [106:53] immediately. Like, I've got other things [106:55] to do. [106:56] >> Yeah. No, this would only last for a [106:58] while. I mean, we're specifically making [107:00] it temporary because if somebody had a [107:02] bad trip on it essentially, [107:04] >> right, [107:04] >> it'll it'll eventually go away and so [107:06] it's not a big deal. [107:07] >> But if you continue to do it, like [107:09] brushing your teeth. [107:10] >> Yeah. Well, so one one of our concerns [107:13] is that because this is going to improve [107:15] memory, if you if a normal person who [107:18] doesn't have dementia, would it be [107:19] something that that kids are going to [107:21] try to just snort all the time, right? [107:23] So like rolin, [107:25] uh, that would not be good. So this [107:27] would [107:27] >> or would it be awesome? [107:30] >> Let's put it this way. It probably will [107:31] not ever be OTC. It's not going you're [107:34] not going to be able to buy this at the [107:36] drugstore. [107:38] >> It's going to be have you'll have to be [107:39] prescribed. You have to be prescribed. [107:40] >> You have to find a dirty doctor in [107:42] Tijana. [laughter] [107:44] >> You also you will need uh you need a a [107:48] special kind of delivery system. So you [107:50] think of a nose spray. It's atomizing [107:52] the stuff. It gets down in the lower [107:54] nose. In order to get it into the brain, [107:56] you need to shoot a stream all the way [107:59] up to the back. It's like the cleft [108:00] right up here. And just beyond that is a [108:04] bone that separates it from the brain. A [108:07] compound gets through that bone. Whoa. [108:10] >> So, and it has all to do with how how [108:12] big is the is the compound, [108:14] >> right? [108:14] >> So, similar to like if you snort [108:16] cocaine, it'll get in there. It gets in [108:18] your brain because it's a certain size. [108:20] >> But you can imagine if this just becomes [108:22] a performance-enhancing substance that [108:23] normal people take, you know, [108:26] >> that could very likely happen. Yeah. [108:28] >> Wow. [108:29] >> Yeah. So, I mean, we're we're being very [108:31] careful at this point. We have people on [108:33] board who are ethicists to say because [108:35] we're talking about enhancing human [108:38] performance and human cognition and [108:40] perception. Can we enhance it all the [108:42] way out into extra sensory perception [108:45] ESP meaning psychic stuff? We don't [108:48] know. But as I said, once we find what [108:51] the polygenetic trait is the story of [108:53] the lady who did the mushrooms. [108:55] >> Yeah. So case study published in [108:57] Frontiers in Neuroscience. Researchers [108:59] focused on an 80-year-old Japanese [109:01] American woman with Alzheimer's. Her [109:03] condition had declined over the last [109:04] decade and was reduced to urinary [109:06] incontinents, speaking in single [109:08] syllables, and dependence on caregivers [109:10] for mobility and support. She was then [109:13] given a 5 g dose of magic mushrooms. [109:15] During the initial phase, she was [109:17] agitated, sweated profusely, and entered [109:19] a prolonged sleep state that suggested [109:21] unconsciousness. But around hour 19, she [109:24] began speaking in full sentences, [109:26] recalling life events she had been [109:27] unable to articulate for years. In the [109:30] days and weeks that followed, more [109:31] incredible changes emerged. She regained [109:34] urinary continence even in the evenings [109:36] and began dressing herself. She was able [109:38] to make and maintain eye contact, [109:40] remember social interactions, [109:42] emotionally respond to others, and hold [109:44] lucid conversations. [109:45] >> Right. [109:46] >> And that's one dose. [109:47] >> Yeah. So what is what happens when you [109:49] take this? When you take psilocybin, [109:52] the first effect is that it is a 5HD2A [109:56] agonist. It means it it's souping up [109:58] that particular receptor. But the brain [110:01] notices that and then it downregulates. [110:03] >> You see what it says here? A subsequent [110:05] 3 g dose of psilocybin was given to the [110:07] patient and was followed by increased [110:09] verbal expression, humor, and greater [110:11] walking agility. Yep. [110:13] >> Miraculously, miraculous as the [110:15] mushrooms may seem, the study authors [110:16] note that the patients improvements were [110:19] temporary and psilocybin did not reverse [110:21] the disease as her neurodeeneration rema [110:24] remained. They did not specifically they [110:27] did not specify exactly how long the [110:28] improvements lasted. However, the [110:30] researchers the research does [110:32] demonstrate that some function believed [110:33] to be irrevocably lost to latestage [110:36] dementia may not be gone but merely [110:38] inaccessible and that a mushroom trip [110:40] has the potential to recover it albeit [110:42] briefly. But it sounds like this would [110:44] be even better at that. [110:46] >> Well, this has the hallucinatory [110:49] part in the beginning. The reason why we [110:51] think this works and the reason why [110:53] we're doing a down reggulation of 5HD2A [110:56] is because when you take psilocybin it [110:58] it soups it up. It's an agonist. It [111:01] makes makes it more expressed. That's [111:02] when all the hallucinations and stuff [111:04] happens. Then the brain compensates and [111:07] it starts pushing it back down. So it [111:09] starts suppressing 5HD2A. [111:11] We're doing that directly. So we would [111:14] guess then that if the reason why this [111:16] happened is because of the the reduction [111:18] of hyperactivity which is what involved [111:21] with neurodeeneration that it would [111:24] happen immediately. So you don't you [111:26] don't need that initial push that you [111:28] you're starting right from the get-go [111:30] with the reduction in this 5HD2A. [111:32] >> God that would be a phenomenal gamecher [111:34] for people that are suffering from this. [111:36] >> Yes. And also the same platform that we [111:39] use to deliver this particular uh [111:42] compound can be used with lots of other [111:44] compounds. So the more that psychiatry [111:46] learns about neurodeeneration and about [111:49] memory loss and all that, we can just [111:52] change the compound and change the [111:54] receptors. So yeah, we can do it now. [111:58] >> Wow. [111:59] >> Yeah. So this this now links back into [112:02] the Institute of Noetic Sciences Sai [112:04] genes project which launched this thing. [112:07] So we're launching it in a very [112:09] pragmatic way which could help a lot of [112:10] people keeping in mind that we we can go [112:14] into a place where we're beginning to [112:16] enhance people. Uh that's going to take [112:19] a while to to get there and again we re [112:22] we think carefully about is this a good [112:24] thing or not. [112:25] >> I think it's [112:26] >> why of course why would it be a bad [112:27] thing? [112:28] >> I think it's a good thing. What would be [112:29] the bad part of it when you you know [112:32] tried to look at it in the worst case [112:34] scenario? [112:34] >> What I have in mind is every time a new [112:36] technology came along people think this [112:38] is the best thing ever. Like I met the [112:40] guy who developed trans fats who thought [112:43] he was going to help a lot of people [112:44] because then they wouldn't you know fat [112:46] wouldn't be so bad. Turned out to be [112:48] really bad. [112:49] >> Yeah. [112:50] >> And so unintended consequences when when [112:52] we're developing new things. [112:54] >> Are there side effects that have been [112:56] observed? Uh, not yet. It's partially [112:59] because when you do pre-clinical work, [113:02] there's only so many things you can [113:03] infer about what a mouse or a rat is [113:06] doing. Right [113:06] >> now that we're doing monkeys, [113:08] >> we do know that there were two monkeys [113:10] in our test that were very aggressive. [113:12] They you get clear near them, they'd [113:14] bear their teeth. They don't want you to [113:16] deal with them. [113:17] >> They took the compound and then they [113:19] were chill for two days afterwards [113:22] having the having a single dose. Those [113:24] two monkeys were no longer aggressive. [113:26] So that's the anzolytic effect. [113:28] >> We could pick society. [113:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a nasal spray. [113:32] >> Can you imagine that? [113:34] >> Just give it to everybody and everyone [113:35] just gets along. [113:36] >> Well, I mean, you probably need [113:39] permission, [113:40] >> right? But I mean, if you just like told [113:42] people [113:43] >> that this is available and we we don't [113:45] no longer have to be in conflict with [113:47] each other. [113:47] >> That would be nice. [113:48] >> And we might be able to connect with [113:50] each other on some new realm. [113:51] >> That would be very nice. Yes. [113:54] >> Yeah. And so [113:55] >> it sounds like the the pluses way way [113:59] outweigh what potential negatives could [114:01] be. [114:02] >> We would need need to figure out first [114:03] what the unintended consequences are. [114:05] >> I like how you think like a real [114:06] scientist. [114:07] >> Yes. The the brain [114:08] >> I'm thinking like a person's like let's [114:10] go give it a shot. [114:11] >> No. The brain always compensates of [114:13] course [114:14] >> for any kind of drug. It compensates. [114:16] >> There's no biological free lunch. [114:17] >> No. So it's something would happen and [114:20] maybe good may be bad. We don't know [114:22] yet. [114:22] >> Right. particularly for people that [114:23] don't have a problem. [114:24] >> Right. Right. [114:25] >> Right. We're we're targeting people who [114:26] do have a problem and so far there's no [114:29] treatment for it. I mean, there's [114:31] there's a couple of of things that are [114:32] mostly stimulus stimulators and and they [114:35] don't work that well. My dad died of [114:37] dementia. I saw that happen. M [114:39] >> so I'm thinking if I can prevent that in [114:42] anybody else just to just to get [114:44] short-term memory back because he my dad [114:47] had five degrees including a law degree [114:50] made his living as a graphic artist. So [114:52] he was very intellectual but had a very [114:55] pragmatic kind of job. By the time he [114:57] had advanced dementia he could no longer [114:59] watch TV. And I said well well why not? [115:02] He couldn't track what was happening in [115:05] a show. [115:06] >> He couldn't listen to audiobooks. I mean [115:08] it that's not good. [115:10] >> That's a terrible thing for someone who [115:12] just relies on their mind. [115:13] >> Yeah. [115:15] >> So I rely on my mind. [115:17] >> Yeah. [115:17] >> I don't if I would take this stuff in a [115:20] second. [115:20] >> You would [115:21] >> if if something like that started to [115:22] happen. So yeah, I'm I'm thinking ahead. [115:25] >> Yeah. [115:26] >> U so if we have time I would I'd like to [115:30] explain one other um experience that I [115:33] had which led me into thinking more [115:35] about magic. Can I ask you one more [115:37] question about this? [115:38] >> Sure. [115:39] >> If you developed some sort of a compound [115:43] that [115:44] gave [115:48] real psychic ability, like some [115:51] something that was just undeniable. You [115:53] you could literally communicate with [115:55] people [115:57] and you found out that this is something [115:59] that you could give people as a [116:01] supplement or some sort of a medication. [116:03] What what would you do with that [116:05] information? [116:08] >> Would you pause? [116:10] >> Yes. [116:11] >> Yeah. [116:11] >> Yeah. I would pause for the same reason [116:14] that Sadguru said this is not a good [116:16] idea [116:17] because like I I told him we were doing [116:19] this this research on telepathy. We [116:21] might be able to make people super [116:23] telepathic. He said that would be a bad [116:26] idea. [116:26] >> Why? Because we orly we kn nor normally [116:29] think of being telepathic as as [116:31] receiving other people's thoughts, but [116:34] it's actually a two-way street. You [116:36] could then inject thoughts, [116:37] >> right, [116:38] >> and control people. [116:40] >> Yeah. [116:40] >> And he said that that would be that is [116:43] would be such a seductive power for most [116:45] people that unless they were had [116:48] significant training beforehand, you [116:50] don't want to do that. [116:51] >> Significant training like you were [116:53] talking about the monks. [116:53] >> Ego out of the way. Yeah. go through [116:56] meditation [116:57] and one of the things one of the reasons [116:59] why I'm interested in in the knowetic [117:01] sciences in general is that when [117:02] somebody has an experience whether it's [117:05] psilocybin or some other method [117:08] oftentimes there's a personality [117:10] transformation [117:11] the personality transformation is like [117:13] the positive side of PTSD like their [117:16] mind is blown they become pro-social [117:19] which is the fancy term meaning they [117:21] suddenly become compassionate they [117:22] become more interested in service they [117:24] want to help others. They could have [117:27] been a complete jerk beforehand, [117:28] >> right? [117:29] >> Something changes and it changes in a [117:31] flash and it sticks. [117:34] Well, we probably ought to understand [117:36] why that happens. What is it about [117:39] simply getting an like a larger picture [117:41] of who and what we are and what the [117:43] nature of the universe is. That becomes [117:45] really really important to understand. [117:47] So, we know what happens. We don't know [117:48] why it happens. [117:49] >> Well, that's one of the most fascinating [117:50] aspects of the psychedelic experience is [117:52] the ego death. [117:54] >> Right. Right. Yeah. And so and but [117:57] >> so it's also like you you would have to [117:58] have the two of them together if you had [118:01] ego death induced by psychedelics along [118:05] with some sort of supplemental [118:08] medication that allowed you to achieve [118:10] like legitimate psychic ability. [118:13] >> Yeah. I see you you really want to do [118:15] this. [118:15] >> I'm fascinated by it. Yeah. I would be [118:17] weird I I would be weirded out by it for [118:19] sure. I I mean I don't know how I would [118:21] function if I was the only one who had [118:24] it. That I don't think that would be a [118:26] fun place to be. [118:28] >> You would have to be prepared. [118:29] >> Yeah. I think it would be a real [118:31] struggle. [118:33] >> Yeah. I mean, think about in the old [118:34] days when there were mystery schools [118:36] like in ancient Greece and elsewhere. [118:38] So, everybody would get the drug. They [118:40] they'd have this opening, [118:41] >> right? [118:42] >> Uh some people would be opened and more [118:44] more or less stay open. But there was [118:46] that drug experience that that did an [118:50] ego change. And so they so may you may [118:52] be right that you need to have some kind [118:54] of a knowetic whatever in order to push [118:58] the ego down far enough to realize that [119:00] we are all interconnected, [119:02] >> right? [119:02] >> It's all one thing, [119:03] >> right? [119:04] >> And so [119:04] >> well, I think that idea has to get out [119:06] there more. And I think it is more now [119:09] than ever before. It's it's more of a a [119:12] common discussion that we're all [119:15] connected. Uh I feel like over the last [119:17] few decades that's much more acceptable [119:21] to discuss this concept of us being all [119:24] connected without being dismissed as [119:26] being a kook. [119:27] >> Yep. [119:28] >> Yeah. [119:29] >> Yeah. So this which is part of the whole [119:31] thing of like if you don't believe it, [119:33] if you're completely skeptical, you're [119:35] blocking it, right? And then we have to [119:37] kind of understand that there's real [119:39] evidence that we are all connected and [119:42] this biological [119:45] being that we live in that is you know [119:48] millions and millions of years of [119:49] evolution have led us to this position [119:51] and over the last you know 20,000 years [119:55] it's filled with barbaric acts and [119:57] tribalism. Like all this stuff is [119:58] encoded in us and we have to figure out [120:01] how to squash that and how to move past [120:04] it. move into whatever the next stage of [120:06] the human experience is. [120:09] >> Yeah, we had better do that. [120:10] >> And it better it better involve ego [120:13] death. It it had it can't just be the [120:16] psychic ability because then you're just [120:17] going to have manipulative psychopaths [120:19] that have the ability that other people [120:21] don't. And of course, all these crazy [120:24] people that want to control the world [120:25] and they're the one going to be the ones [120:26] that first have access to it. [120:29] >> Yeah. And I think it's not exactly ego [120:31] death. It's not not a complete right. [120:33] You still need some ego because we're [120:35] embodied systems. We need to operate [120:37] broad term. [120:37] >> It's it's more like a recognition of [120:40] like you teach a kid uh you're really [120:42] really angry. That doesn't mean you need [120:43] to act on it, [120:44] >> right? [120:45] >> You recognize it and like mindful [120:48] meditation, you're learning that you [120:50] Yeah. You can call [120:50] >> control of the ego is a better term. [120:52] >> Recognition of it and control. Yeah. [120:53] >> Yeah. An understanding of it, having [120:55] like legitimate methods that you use to [120:58] keep it in check, [120:59] >> right? [120:59] >> Yeah. And but it's also like [121:03] in sort of encoding in people the [121:05] discipline to be able to do that to to [121:07] because that's also involved in [121:09] controlling the ego, [121:10] >> right? [121:11] >> But having that and we're it seems like [121:14] we're if all these things come to pass [121:16] and this this technology emerges and [121:20] this research continues to bear fruit, [121:22] you're you're looking at the potential [121:24] for a completely different way of human [121:27] beings interacting with each other, [121:28] right? completely different paradigm [121:31] like society moves into a totally [121:33] different realm [121:34] >> right not everybody will are interested [121:37] in that [121:37] >> right [121:38] >> so [121:38] >> a lot of people are very uninterested in [121:40] that in fact and it would with [121:42] their business [121:42] >> actively not interested like in we don't [121:46] want that [121:47] >> right [121:47] >> and we don't want you to have it either [121:48] >> well that's a fear that that's a fear [121:50] that like if you had some real [121:52] breakthroughs that were [121:55] somehow or another going to be a problem [121:57] for powers it be. [122:00] >> Yeah, that's a problem. [122:02] >> Like when you hear about these [122:03] scientists that all all involved with [122:05] the UAP story wind up dead or [122:08] disappearing and people say, "Well, the [122:10] statistically this can't be a [122:12] coincidence. This is a little too weird. [122:13] It's gotten to some weird number. Where [122:16] are you going? We have to look at this." [122:17] >> Yeah. [122:18] >> You know, so you hear the actual White [122:20] House is now talking about it. Like we [122:21] have to look into this. So the way I [122:23] keep myself safe and our other [122:26] colleagues, [122:28] we publish [clears throat] everything we [122:29] do, right? It's all it's all public [122:31] domain. So we're not doing anything [122:32] that's secret. [122:35] >> The and the long-term consequences most [122:37] people don't think about at all. [122:40] >> So So that too, I mean there all kinds [122:42] of technologies that are being developed [122:44] that may have bad consequences in the [122:46] future. Not that many people except [122:48] maybe professional ethicists are [122:50] thinking about is this a good thing or [122:52] not. [122:52] >> Well, just imagine a world where [122:55] something comes along like let's for [122:58] lack of a better example, let's use [122:59] GLP1s, right? GLP1s. Nobody heard about [123:03] Ompic and WGO just a decade ago. Right [123:06] now all of a sudden it's a multi- [123:08] trillion dollar industry. It's gigantic. [123:10] There's something like 39 million [123:11] Americans are on these GLP-1 drugs. [123:15] Imagine if something comes along that [123:19] is beneficial in I'm I'm sure it's [123:22] beneficial to obese people but [123:24] beneficial [123:25] in a cognitive way for people that you [123:29] have real science real science which [123:33] actually achieves a result this result [123:36] becomes a supplement and it becomes [123:38] something widely used and spread. [123:41] Imagine the forms of control that are [123:44] used by society, that are used by [123:47] governments, that are used by mass [123:49] media, that are used by corporations in [123:52] order to pass whatever regulations they [123:54] want. When when you see politicians [123:56] talking, when you see the real agenda [123:58] behind it, all of it would evaporate. [124:01] All the all propaganda would [124:03] be completely useless. [124:06] You would you would enter into a [124:08] completely new cooperative society where [124:10] all the parasites and psychopaths and [124:13] sociopaths would literally be exposed [124:16] >> and you'd have to deal with them. You'd [124:18] probably be terrified to realize how [124:20] many of them are in control of so many [124:21] institutions. [124:22] >> Yep. [124:23] >> And how much of what you've been told is [124:25] complete horseshit. [124:26] >> How many nonprofits are a scam? How many [124:29] how many different things that are [124:30] happening are just happening in order to [124:32] maintain control. [124:34] That's why you can't do this overnight. [124:36] >> Right. [124:37] >> Right. [124:37] >> So the justice system would be totally [124:40] different. [124:41] >> Politics would be totally everything [124:42] would be totally different. [124:44] >> Economics, everything. Yes. Resources, [124:47] everything. [124:48] >> So the there is a TV show kind of with [124:50] this plot. Now the the one called [124:54] Plurabus. [124:55] >> Yes. [124:55] >> Right. The science fiction show. Uh [124:57] which I think is doing a great job in [124:59] illustrating then that people [125:00] >> But it's a nightmare. Well, people who [125:03] are who are involved in the hive mind, [125:05] it's like suddenly everything is fine. [125:08] >> Yeah. I don't like it. I like the lady [125:09] that gets drunk and yells at everybody [125:11] >> because Yeah. Because it's a nice It's a [125:13] nice story. It's like [125:14] >> it's also it's more recognizable. It's [125:16] human. [125:17] >> That's that she's she's us. Yeah. But I [125:21] And of course there's stories like the [125:23] Borg in Star Trek and and the that the [125:25] way of hive mind is portrayed is [125:28] horrific, right? [125:29] >> Why? Because it's egodropping. That's [125:31] why [125:31] >> it also eliminates creativity, [125:34] individual expression. We don't know [125:36] that we don't know. When we think of it [125:37] in the in the show, it does. In the [125:38] show, everybody just becomes a worker. [125:41] >> Not no impurabus. [125:42] >> No, not a worker, but I mean they're all [125:44] connected. They're all like [125:46] everybody can have a skill of a surgeon. [125:49] >> Everybody, right? So, so you have a [125:51] bunch of of naturally creative people [125:53] out there. Well, they all have it now, [125:55] >> right? That's that's the glass half full [125:57] version of it, right? [125:58] >> Yeah. [125:59] >> Right. So would we collectively even be [126:02] more creative? [126:03] >> Right. If instead of, you know, asking [126:06] perplexity a question, you just ask the [126:08] universe a question. [126:09] >> You ask the collective. [126:10] >> You ask the collective how to fix a [126:12] carburetor. [126:13] >> Yeah. And then you know how to do it. [126:16] >> Yeah. So that's So I mean from a point [126:18] of view of efficiency and peace and all [126:20] that stuff, I think it'd be great. [126:23] >> Well, it's also people have to look at [126:25] it this way. just what you have now by [126:28] having a phone and being able to like I [126:31] said just ask perplex perp perplexity [126:33] any question on human history any [126:35] question on mathematics coding anything [126:37] it gives you all the available [126:39] information instantaneously in your [126:40] phone right [126:41] >> if you just said that to someone 30 [126:43] years ago they would say you're [126:44] crazy you look at all the depictions in [126:46] science fiction about the future none of [126:48] them involve the internet none of them [126:49] involve phones none of them involve [126:52] devices that you carry around that have [126:54] 24 hours of battery life that [126:56] can essentially do whatever you want. [126:58] Take pictures, make videos, record [127:00] audio, [127:02] download [127:04] movies, watch them instantaneously. You [127:07] could do anything in these [127:08] things, [127:09] >> right? [127:09] >> And we're just accustomed to it. It's [127:11] just normal. [clears throat] [127:12] >> Imagine a society where this technology [127:16] that you're developing, imagine this. [127:18] You continue this research 10, 20, 30 [127:21] years. What do we have? What what what [127:24] does this look like? What does you and [127:26] me even talking look like? One of the [127:29] reasons why I insist on doing these [127:31] things in person because I think it's a [127:33] very different experience. I just [127:35] intuitively it just feels different when [127:37] someone's in the room. When you're [127:39] having a conversation with someone in [127:40] the room, it's I've had great [127:42] conversations with people through Zoom [127:43] like with Edward Snowden when we do [127:45] podcasts. We have to do it that way for [127:47] obvious reasons. But there's something [127:49] missing. [127:50] People when you and I are talking right [127:52] now, there's something else going on. [127:54] We're we're we're [127:56] our minds are connecting and we're [127:58] connecting somehow with all the people [128:00] that are listening. There's this weird [128:02] thing that happens and it happens when [128:03] people in proximity to each other when [128:05] they're right in the same room with each [128:06] other. There's something to that, [128:09] >> right? So now think of the the downside [128:12] the the compensation for having phones [128:15] everywhere. [128:16] >> Oh yeah. [128:16] >> So you talk to teachers about it and [128:18] they are running scared. [128:20] >> Sure. [128:20] >> Right. Kids don't know how to write [128:22] anything anymore. [128:24] and and not only that, if you start [128:25] relying on on Perplexity or any other [128:28] kind of AI, you're in serious trouble [128:31] because those things are not perfect. [128:33] >> Right. [128:33] >> Right. They have hallucinations. They [128:35] give you bad information. [128:36] >> Right. [128:37] >> I'm sure you saw this uh there was a a [128:39] gentleman who was recently um he was a [128:42] lawyer involved in a case and he was [128:44] citing these [128:45] >> Oh, yeah. [128:46] >> You know that story? Yeah. So, he's [128:47] citing various cases that just didn't [128:49] exist. [128:50] >> Yep. [128:50] >> And he had gotten them from AI. Yeah. [128:53] >> And [128:53] >> it probably looked structurally correct [128:55] except it wasn't actually real. [128:57] >> He thought he had it like beautiful. I [128:59] got this case wrapped up and the judge [129:01] was like none of these things you're [129:03] saying have happened. They're not true. [129:05] >> That's some other world. [129:06] >> Bizarre, right? Well, hopefully that'll [129:09] get ironed out. Right. But the point is [129:11] you're relying now on the device [129:14] >> to do all the thinking for you. Yeah. [129:16] And you're not you're not absorbing much [129:18] of that information. You're not [129:20] absorbing it the same way. I can say as [129:22] a scientist that AI is making my job [129:24] much much much easier. So I use claude [129:27] code a lot. We use it also in our [129:29] genetic research. Uh it it is making [129:33] things more efficient because basically [129:37] for coding up until things like claude [129:39] code it took a lot of skill and time to [129:42] be able to write something that did what [129:44] you wanted to do. [129:45] >> But you're already a disciplined [129:46] thinker. You're not a developing mind. [129:48] Well, not only that, but when I ask uh I [129:51] ask AI to help me write something, I [129:53] immediately see all kinds of things that [129:55] it doesn't know. You know, I say, "Well, [129:57] where did where did you even get that [129:58] information?" It it basically responds, [130:00] "Well, I scraped it off of the entire [130:02] internet." Well, you didn't scrape very [130:05] well because, you know, did you look at [130:07] this and did you look at this and that? [130:09] And it comes back immediately and says, [130:10] "Oh, I apologize. I I didn't I didn't [130:12] look at that part." [130:13] >> Because the algorithms are designed to [130:15] work fast, [130:16] >> right? And so it'll it'll pull like the [130:18] the surface off and usually that's okay. [130:21] >> It could be a troll Reddit post where [130:23] someone's just around. [130:24] >> Who knows what it is? Like half of [130:26] Wikipedia is written by teenagers, [130:28] right? [130:28] >> So yeah. So you you need to already have [130:30] a a knowledge base so they can challenge [130:33] what it's telling you because sometimes [130:35] it's completely off. [130:36] >> Right. Well, this is in the beginning [130:38] stages of this application, right? If [130:40] you think about the beginning stages of [130:42] the printing press, most of the books [130:43] were like how to spot spot witches. [130:46] Yeah, it's true. So, one hopes that [130:48] things will well, of course, the the [130:50] danger at this point is the AI is [130:53] eventually right itself, [130:54] >> right? [130:54] >> And it's already getting to that point [130:56] and then we completely lose what's going [130:58] on. We have no idea, [131:00] >> right? That gets weird. [131:02] >> Yeah, that that was already true with [131:04] the development of neural networks. So, [131:05] I was using neural networks back in the [131:07] 80s when the first idea first came up. [131:10] And so you would you would learn that [131:13] this is related to that and it would do [131:15] it through the neural network training. [131:16] And then you say, well, what did you [131:17] learn? [131:19] You couldn't figure it out because you [131:21] have all of these these weights and [131:22] nodes inside the network that were [131:25] encoding the information, but you [131:26] couldn't then extract out from it to [131:29] say, well, what how do how did you learn [131:30] this? [131:32] It couldn't even tell you how it learned [131:34] it, but it did and it learned it really [131:36] well. So that's a lot of that is going [131:39] on in the AI world too that it's [131:42] learning things really really well but [131:44] it's too complex for us to understand [131:47] right but do you think if you emphasize [131:50] disciplined thinking and teach people [131:52] specifically how to think and how to [131:55] learn and how to do for themselves that [131:58] they could then expand upon that [132:00] knowledge with AI instead of using it as [132:02] a crutch. [132:03] >> Yes. [132:04] >> Yes. [132:04] >> Yes. Is that happening? I haven't seen [132:07] that yet. [132:07] >> Well, I haven't seen it either. But one [132:09] of the things that gives me pause is the [132:11] popularity of long- form conversations [132:13] like this because we have this concept [132:16] about today and about human beings in [132:18] general that we're losing our attention [132:20] span. But yet, what's one of the most [132:22] popular mediums? It's long form [132:24] podcasts. Yeah. [132:25] >> Right. Because I think there is still a [132:26] hunger from a lot of people and whether [132:28] it's people that grew up at a different [132:30] time where they did learn how to think [132:32] and now they're they're missing it and [132:34] then they could find it in long form [132:36] conversations or whether it's just [132:39] always going to be something that some [132:42] people intuitively gravitate towards [132:43] because they need more stimulation than [132:45] they're getting from these simple Tik [132:46] Tok videos and Instagram reels. [132:48] >> Yeah. I think there's like we we have [132:51] this generalization about the [132:53] perceptions of people and oh we've lost [132:55] all of our ability to concentrate like [132:57] we don't care everyone has a short [132:59] attention span I don't think everyone I [133:02] think a lot of people because it's easy [133:04] right if you leave junk food in front of [133:06] a lot of people they will eat it if you [133:09] leave healthy food in front of [133:10] disciplined people they will say I don't [133:12] want the junk food I'm going to have the [133:14] eggs and I'm going to eat healthy I'm [133:16] going to take vitamins I'm going to do [133:17] what I'm supposed to do because I know [133:18] the benefits of it because I'm a [133:20] thinking person, [133:20] >> right? [133:21] >> You may still want the junk food, right? [133:23] >> But you're able to override that. [133:24] >> Yes. You'll discipline thinking, right? [133:26] So I think maybe education will move [133:29] into a realm of being able to understand [133:32] your own personal psychology, being able [133:34] to understand the value of discipline [133:37] and the value of having a structure to [133:40] the way you think and being able to [133:42] apply those things. And then also [133:44] recognizing that whatever this AI is [133:46] doing, it's just giving you information. [133:48] It doesn't make you smarter. [133:49] >> It's not giving you more knowledge. It's [133:51] just giving you data. And you have to [133:53] then learn how to assimilate that data [133:56] in an actionable way where you could use [133:58] it in life, right? And we could teach [133:59] people how to do that maybe. [134:02] >> I hope so. [134:02] >> Yeah. I mean, it seems possible, but [134:04] again, it's like every single technology [134:06] that comes around when television came [134:07] around, people were terrified that [134:08] people were just going to stare at the [134:09] TV all day. And a lot of them did. They [134:11] do. [134:12] >> A lot of them did. But also television [134:14] which led to the internet. Yeah. It's [134:16] definitely distracting people. Yeah. [134:18] Yeah. Yeah. But also we have more access [134:20] to information, more of an understanding [134:22] of so many different things than have [134:24] ever before. And you have the ability to [134:26] have a conversation like this. [134:29] >> A three-hour weird conversation about a [134:32] very esoteric subject. [134:33] >> It's not that weird. [134:35] >> No, I mean it's not weird. And it's [134:37] cool. [134:37] >> It's Yeah, it's different. [134:38] >> It's exciting. I mean, for the people [134:41] that are interested in this kind of [134:42] conversation, this is like food for [134:44] them. They're like, "Oh, exciting, you [134:46] know. I guarantee you a bunch of people [134:48] will see this and see the description of [134:49] it in Spotify and go, "Oo, this going to [134:51] be a good one." [134:52] >> You know, because there's a lot of [134:53] people that have a hunger for [134:55] interesting things. You know, I'm not a [134:58] dooms guy when it comes to technology. I [135:01] have a feeling we're going to sort it [135:02] out, but I think it's going to be a it's [135:05] going to be a bit of a battle, bit a bit [135:07] of a struggle. It's going to it's a new [135:09] thing and you're going to exceptional [135:12] people are always going to exist and [135:14] there's always going to be people that [135:15] aren't going to be willing to just give [135:17] in to whatever this thing is that gives [135:19] them this crutch and just become a blob [135:22] that just presses buttons to get [135:24] information instead of thinking. I think [135:25] people are always going to want to [135:26] think. It's part of what's fascinating [135:28] about being a person is learning new [135:30] things and expanding your understanding [135:32] of things and just pretending you do is [135:35] a it's it's a party trick. But the the [135:37] real people that the real fascination is [135:41] actually learning something that changes [135:42] your perceptions. I think people are [135:44] always going to want that. [135:45] >> Well, I'm optimistic because uh humanity [135:48] at least our species is extremely [135:50] resilient. [135:51] >> Yes. [135:52] >> So all of us have some percentage of [135:55] mutations which is part of the [135:57] resilience. I forget exactly 11% or [136:00] something like that. Every every single [136:02] person even identical twins. Uh that's [136:05] why we can survive an asteroid hit or [136:08] that's why we can survive a mistake that [136:10] happened somewhere. [136:11] >> Yeah. [136:11] >> So ultimately I'm I'm optimistic about [136:13] it. [136:14] >> I am too. But I mean I look back at [136:16] things like you know I mean there's been [136:19] moments in so like you look at the [136:20] pyramids you go okay what happened? [136:22] Where are those folks? [136:23] >> They took off. [laughter] [136:25] >> Yeah. [136:25] >> I don't know. What do you think [136:28] happened? [136:29] >> Uh an asteroid or or I don't know. I [136:33] mean, it could have been the Ice Age, [136:35] right? We we don't still don't know [136:37] exactly how old the pyramids are, [136:38] >> right? [136:39] >> So, it may have been the Ice Age and now [136:41] they all moved to Africa and they're [136:42] Africans now. [136:44] >> Yeah. [136:45] Something something definitely happened. [136:47] Some strange shift. And that's the the [136:50] question is how many times has that [136:51] happened over the course of human [136:52] civilization. We want to think of it as [136:54] been this linear progression from [136:55] caveman to where we are now. It doesn't [136:57] seem to be accurate. [136:59] >> No, I don't think so. But there's a lot [137:00] of people along with the same type of [137:03] people that want to resist the idea even [137:06] if you have data. They don't want to [137:07] look at it because they think it's [137:08] nonsense. There's there's also a [137:09] perception of that like there's no way [137:11] people were more advanced 5,000 10,000 [137:15] 15,000 years ago than they are now. [137:16] That's not possible. [137:17] >> Like well it kind of is. [137:20] >> Yeah. [137:20] >> Kind of. It's not impossible. That's for [137:22] sure. And there seems to be some very [137:25] weird [clears throat] evidence in the [137:26] form of 2,300,000 [137:28] perfectly cut stones that point to true [137:31] north, south, east, and west that were [137:33] put in place by the civilization that [137:35] just emerged out of nowhere with this [137:38] ability. Kind of weird. That's kind of [137:41] weird, too, to pretend it's not and just [137:43] write it off to, oh, people were smart. [137:45] Like, yeah. Yeah. That's it. That's it. [137:49] Seems like they knew some We don't [137:50] know. They they did something we can't [137:53] explain to this day. [137:54] >> Yep. [137:55] >> Like uh I don't know if I would be so [137:58] confident as to be able to say that [138:00] there's a linear progression from [138:01] caveman to us. I don't think that's [138:04] true. [138:04] >> No. Hardly anything in in uh the natural [138:09] world is linear, [138:10] >> which just scares me. If we it all [138:12] up right now and we have a nuclear war [138:13] and there's only like 50,000 people [138:15] left, like how long before we get to [138:18] this position where we're trying to [138:19] almost get past this again? [138:22] >> Yeah. It's like it's rough adolescence. [138:25] >> Yeah. [138:25] >> And so it's true. How long do you need [138:27] to take is do you need a 100,000 years [138:30] of a high technology society? Maybe. [138:32] Well, where are we? Well, like 20 years, [138:35] 50 years. [138:36] >> Yeah. [138:36] >> Into it. And we're Yeah, we're having a [138:39] problem. Well, that's where things get [138:40] really weird when people start talking [138:42] about UAPs and these whatever these [138:45] beings are, if they are real. Like, are [138:48] they us? Are they us from the future [138:51] that is coming back to make sure that we [138:52] don't it up and to sort of hold our [138:54] hand through this experiment and just [138:57] watch and observe on the outside in case [138:59] things go horribly wrong, but allow all [139:01] these mistakes to take place and allow [139:03] this progression to take place and just [139:07] wait it out. I'm a I'm a fan of [139:09] Halputoff's ultraterrestrial idea that [139:12] that these are not from the future. [139:14] They're from the past. They just happen [139:16] to be way more advanced than we thought. [139:19] >> The past? [139:20] >> Yeah. [139:21] >> Like how far in the past? [139:23] >> A million years more, 100,000, something [139:27] like that. Uh it's because you you think [139:31] about uh convergent evolution. So, one [139:35] when I was at UNLV, one of the places [139:37] nearby was a uh ornithology laboratory, [139:41] so birds. So, I would I would went to to [139:45] the museum and I said, "Oh, these are [139:46] very nice penguins here." And the [139:49] director said, "Those those aren't [139:50] penguins." Well, what is that? It looks [139:52] exactly like a penguin. No, those are [139:54] ox. So, there's different birds from the [139:56] North Pole and the South Pole because of [139:59] convergent evolution were shaped to be [140:01] like this bird. And so I mean they [140:04] looked absolutely identical to me [140:06] because I don't know that much about [140:07] penguins anyway. But I, you know, I said [140:09] looks like a penguin. It's not a [140:11] penguin. [140:12] >> Evolved independently in the Wow. [140:14] >> And so why is it that the aliens that [140:17] that we [140:18] >> That's not a penguin. [140:21] >> It's probably an O. [140:22] >> That's crazy. [140:23] >> I know. It's crazy. [140:24] >> That's crazy. [140:25] >> Yeah. So yeah. So we had one of those [140:27] and had an actual a penguin next to each [140:30] other in in the museum. And I thought, [140:32] well, that, you know, what is that? [140:34] >> Wow. [140:35] >> So, a lot of these aliens that people [140:37] talk about are basically like humans. [140:39] >> Ox can fly and swim and they're smaller. [140:43] >> Yeah. [140:44] >> Wow. But they're so similar. Even the [140:47] color. [140:47] >> Yeah. The color, the shape, [140:48] >> the color is crazy. Like, what is the [140:51] benefit of the the whole thing is very [140:54] odd. [140:54] >> So, why do we have so-called Nordic [140:57] aliens that look a lot like people in [140:59] Scandinavia, [141:00] >> right? [141:01] But that would I mean they you think [141:04] either come from a planet that is almost [141:06] exactly Earthlike which is possible I [141:09] guess uh or they've already been here. [141:12] They've been here a long long time. And [141:13] the same for many of the other aliens [141:15] that people talk about. It's they're [141:17] they're humanoid. Well, humanoid is [141:19] shaped by evolution to be in a certain [141:22] place because like we're we're so well [141:25] shaped by evolution that we can go [141:28] outside on an average place and even [141:31] though there's only a couple of miles of [141:33] atmosphere, we're perfectly fine. Are [141:36] you aware of those examples of very [141:38] bizarre heads that they found, skulls [141:40] they found in places like Peru that [141:43] don't have the sagittal suture that have [141:45] a brain capacity that's 30% larger than [141:48] ours? There's some weird skeletons. [141:51] >> Yeah. So Gary Nolan talked about this, I [141:53] think. Yeah. [141:54] >> Mhm. Yeah. Um and there's real examples [141:57] of it. These aren't theoretical. Like [141:59] you can find these skulls that have a [142:01] larger brain capacity. And you know [142:04] they've attributed to a a real practice [142:06] of uh flattening heads of shaping [142:09] skulls. That's a real practice. [142:11] >> But the question has become was did that [142:14] real practice emerge to mimic [142:17] >> a type of creature that was already that [142:19] already existed. [142:20] >> Yep. [142:21] >> The because these skulls see if you can [142:23] find one of them, Jamie. [142:25] >> They're very weird looking. Like they're [142:28] very weird. They're big. They're bigger [142:31] than a normal human skull. They have [142:33] more brain capacity and it's an [142:36] elongated shape. It's a different shape. [142:38] This is not like a science fiction [142:41] theory. This is not like an artist [142:43] rendition. This is an actual real skull [142:45] that doesn't have the sagittal suture. [142:47] No, no, no. That's the alien things. [142:49] These are that's uh that's those uh [142:52] those monstat. That's that thing that a [142:55] lot of people think is a fraud. [142:56] >> That's the skulls they were talking [142:57] about. No. [142:58] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But there's actually [142:59] elongated skulls that they found. [143:01] elongated sk just don't pull in tractal [143:04] mummy. [143:05] >> Um just put in uh elongated skull no [143:10] sagittal suture. There you go. [143:13] >> Like that. That one right there. Like [143:15] what the is that? [143:18] >> That does not look like a person. That [143:20] is a real skull. [143:23] >> Yeah. So some of that is shaping. [143:26] >> Sure. [143:26] >> Right. [143:27] >> Some of it some of these are. But the [143:29] ones without the sagittal suture are [143:31] really weird. [143:32] >> Yeah. [143:32] >> Because that's a thing that all human [143:34] babies have because as your brain grows [143:36] and your head grows, your, you know, [143:38] your your brain your skull is kind of [143:41] malleable. [143:41] >> Mhm. [143:42] >> That doesn't have it. And some of these [143:45] that they found actually have more brain [143:48] capacity. So the shaping of it wouldn't [143:51] change the brain capacity. So some of [143:53] them do have that sagittal crest, that [143:55] sagittal suture. Um, but some of them [143:58] don't. And that one that you showed up [144:00] there, I I hope that's not AI. That one [144:02] doesn't. I think that's real. [144:05] >> Could just be hard to see. [144:07] >> Could be. [144:08] >> Could be. But it's been described by [144:10] people who have examined them as being [144:12] different. There's also the positioning [144:14] of where it connects with the spine is [144:16] different. [144:18] >> Oh, Sarah, that goes right there. Where [144:19] the spinal column enters the bottom of [144:21] the skull is very much further back than [144:23] normal. a genetic adaptation or a [144:26] different kind of person. [144:27] >> Yep. [144:28] >> A different kind of person that [144:29] coexisted. Like look at that one right [144:31] there, Jamie. The Eviron. Click on that. [144:34] That's crazy. [144:36] Like that is really crazy. [144:37] >> That's a replica. [144:40] >> Wild looking. That's a replica. So [144:42] what's the real one? The real one is the [144:43] one that you showed that has Instagram [144:44] on it. That's a real one. [144:47] >> Like that is kind of bananas. Yeah. And [144:50] if that's not done through forming of [144:53] the skull and pushing the skull into the [144:56] new shape, what is it? And were they [144:58] doing that because they were trying to [144:59] mimic something that was superior to [145:01] them? [145:01] >> And that's where it gets weird. Like [145:03] that those real elongated skulls in a [145:06] museum up there right above your cursor. [145:08] Yeah. To the left. Right there. That's [145:11] crazy looking, man. That's really crazy [145:14] looking. And again, that one doesn't [145:16] seem to have that sagittal suture. [145:19] Neither what does that one down there [145:21] that says 118. They're strange. [145:24] So if that was an actual different kind [145:27] of human being that existed along with [145:29] us, [145:30] God, that explains a lot. [145:32] >> Well, they're not here anymore, [145:34] >> right? [145:35] >> And unless they're ultraterrestrials and [145:37] they're living in the bottom of the [145:38] ocean, [145:39] >> right? I don't know about that. But if [145:41] they are if that's them, who knows? I [145:44] mean, [145:45] you could get to a point where a [145:48] civilization becomes so advanced that [145:49] the biological entities aren't necessary [145:51] anymore. And then that would explain why [145:54] they why they could exist at the bottom [145:56] of the ocean, why they could exist with [145:57] no oxygen, why they could they no longer [146:00] become dependent upon their environment [146:03] to survive. [146:04] >> They might have creative environments, [146:07] >> right? [146:08] >> Like the like the movie uh there was a [146:11] movie [146:14] I forget the name now. [146:16] >> What was the premise? [146:17] >> It was that the there's a ship and um [146:21] there's like a missing submarine and so [146:23] they they dive down to it, but then they [146:25] see lights coming up. [146:27] >> Oh, the abyss. [146:28] >> Yes. [146:28] >> Yeah, that was a great movie. [146:29] >> Yeah, [146:30] >> that was a good one. Yeah. Well, there's [146:32] always been stories about I mean Tim [146:34] Bashett, the congressman, came on this [146:36] podcast and was talking about how [146:37] there's five different locations in the [146:40] deep ocean that they're aware of [146:41] activity that things have happened [146:43] there. They continue to happen. [146:45] >> But if you were going to study Earth, if [146:48] you if you had to be like local, like [146:50] where would you go? I mean, if you can [146:51] come here from another dimension or [146:53] another galaxy or wherever you're coming [146:54] from, you'd probably go in the ocean. [146:57] You you'd have trans I mean, they've [146:58] observed these transmedium crafts. [147:01] They're able to fly and go into the [147:02] water. [147:04] >> Isn't that orc that orc thing? Isn't [147:06] that kind of trans medium? It flies, [147:08] swims. [147:09] >> Yeah. [147:10] >> Could be an alien. It's an alien form of [147:12] a of a penguin. [gasps] [147:14] >> But it just at a certain point in time, [147:16] you would imagine if we could get far [147:19] more advanced than we are now, and we [147:21] found out about a society that is at a [147:23] stage where we are currently, for sure, [147:26] we would go visit. For sure we would [147:28] observe and we would also probably try [147:30] to stop nuclear war. [147:33] >> It it is an interesting question because [147:35] the the prime directive in Star Trek is [147:38] you don't mess with them, [147:39] >> right? [147:39] >> Right. But they always do. [147:41] >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, Star Trek is they [147:44] didn't even have the internet. They had [147:46] walkie-talkies. Kirk out. Remember [147:48] >> No, they had the communicator thing. So [147:49] we don't know. [147:50] >> I'm talking about the next generation. [147:51] >> Yeah. We don't know how that worked. But [147:52] >> yeah, I'm talking about the original. [147:54] >> Yeah. No, we were original is pretty [147:56] good though. really good. Yeah. [147:58] Especially when you think about it was [147:59] like the 19 what60s when it came out. [148:01] >> Yep. [148:02] >> Yeah. [148:02] >> Yeah. So, part of my my personal mission [148:05] was to make Star Trek real. [laughter] [148:07] >> That's that's like it's [148:09] >> including beaming people up. [148:10] >> Oh, no. It's like uh the Vulcan, the [148:12] most rational creature on there was the [148:14] one who could do the mind melt. [148:16] >> Yes. [148:17] >> That's why I was thinking, yeah, okay. [148:19] An advanced species. This stuff is taken [148:22] for granted, [148:23] >> right? That's that's where my vision is [148:26] seeing. Yeah. And so that advanced [148:28] species may be us might need a little [148:31] evolutionary push with genetics, but [148:33] yeah, we could do that too. [148:34] >> So in this concept of the [148:36] ultraterrestrial that these things have [148:38] come from the past like how are they [148:40] here? [148:41] >> They've always been here. [148:42] >> They've always been here. So they just [148:44] exist, but they exist in a different [148:46] way. Well, so imagine even given current [148:49] technology, if there was another ice age [148:51] coming and we may have a thousand years [148:53] to prepare, would we be smart enough to [148:56] do that? I don't know. Could we do it? [148:59] Yes, probably could. [149:02] >> Boy. [149:03] >> Yeah. And then so so another thousand [149:05] years passes and you're below ground [149:07] somewhere and then there the cavemen who [149:10] are beginning, well, do we interact with [149:12] them or not? Well, it's an interesting [149:15] question. like we we don't want to get [149:17] involved in all that mess because we [149:19] don't [149:19] >> sort of like how we don't visit North [149:20] Sentinel Island. [149:23] >> Maybe, [149:24] >> you know, like those people that live [149:25] the unconted tribe. [149:27] >> Yeah. [149:28] >> Yeah. [149:29] >> It's like [149:30] >> you're literally not allowed to go [149:31] there. [149:32] >> Let them develop the way they shall [149:34] develop. Yeah. [149:35] >> Wow. [149:36] >> Yeah. I can I can I can accept that. [149:41] Well, there's if if it turns out that [149:44] there is some activity, that there are [149:47] some things that we can't explain that [149:49] are happening from deep in the ocean, [149:51] we're going to have to come up with some [149:52] sort of an explanation. If that is an [149:54] actual intelligent [149:56] species, an intelligent life form, [149:58] something, whatever it is, [150:01] there's got to be some explanation for [150:02] that. So, the ultraterrestrial one is [150:06] just as good. [150:07] >> Yeah, there's an explanation for [150:09] everything. The question is a are we [150:11] smart enough to figure it out and b how [150:15] long will it take? And and both of those [150:18] are complete unknowns. [150:20] But that's I mean that that's yet [150:21] another reason why I like the kind of [150:23] work that I do that you need to have [150:24] very high tolerance for ambiguity [150:27] >> of of which I do. Like I'm I'm okay with [150:29] not knowing a lot of basically [150:31] everything. I I know enough to be able [150:34] to be dangerous, but otherwise I I don't [150:37] mind that I don't know. Well, I am very [150:39] thankful that people like you are out [150:40] there because if you weren't out there [150:42] doing this work and you weren't out [150:44] there expanding on this, I mean, it it's [150:45] really fascinating when the if if [150:47] something like this does emerge, it [150:49] would change the human race. And think [150:51] about the small amount of people that [150:53] are involved in this research. [150:55] >> Tiny kind of kind of crazy. [150:57] >> Yeah, [150:58] >> it's a huge responsibility you have in a [151:00] lot of ways. [151:00] >> Well, fortunately, I also enjoy it. So, [151:02] I I mean, I'm I'm having fun while I'm [151:05] doing this. Uh because otherwise I I [151:08] think I would have chosen some other [151:09] door. I mean I had plenty of [151:10] opportunities to to work with golden [151:13] handcuffs somewhere but I I get bored [151:16] easily and this is the one area where I [151:18] have never gotten bored. [151:20] >> Well, I'm very thankful. Thank you for [151:22] being here too. And tell everybody where [151:24] they get Did you do an audio version of [151:25] this book? [151:26] >> Uh I have an actor do it because I don't [151:28] want anybody to have to suffer with 12 [151:31] hours of my voice [laughter] because it [151:33] won't last that long. Yeah. So there [151:35] there's an actor that does it who's very [151:37] very good. Um and so yeah this is [151:42] there's one other story I want to say in [151:43] this that's in the book. [151:44] >> So this is a synchronicity which again [151:47] gave me the idea that we don't know the [151:48] limits of what we're dealing with but [151:50] it's important. [151:52] >> So I had mentioned that uh after [151:53] interval we started a nonprofit. [151:56] This was called boundary institute. It [151:57] was in Silicon Valley. Uh we found a an [152:02] office park uh in Los Altos which is [152:05] just outside of Silicon Valley. Um and [152:08] so we we found a space like we liked it. [152:11] We decided to get that. So that's where [152:14] our new place would be. So I were close [152:17] enough to where I live so I was able to [152:19] walk to work. I always walked a certain [152:20] way. One day I decided to walk a [152:22] different way and I go past another [152:25] office called Syquest Inc. PSI Quest, [152:29] Inc. And I thought that that's an [152:31] interesting coincidence because we're [152:33] doing SI research and now we have [152:35] Saiquest, Inc. We thought it was [152:37] Personnel Services Incorporated [152:39] something. We didn't know what it was. [152:40] We thought that was funny. [152:43] About three weeks go by and I decide to [152:45] walk you a different way to work. I'm [152:47] going through this office place [152:48] different ways and I notice that right [152:51] next to our office is something with a [152:53] tiny little sign that says Saiquest [152:56] Labs. And so now we're thinking, what [152:59] does a personnel services thing need [153:01] with a laboratory? So I look through the [153:03] mini blinds. There's nobody in there. So [153:05] now I'm determined to find out what what [153:07] are you guys doing? So every day over [153:10] the next couple of weeks, I go past that [153:13] place. I knock on the door and I'm [153:14] looking through the blinds. There's [153:15] nobody there. Finally, one day I see [153:18] somebody in there. Knock on the door and [153:19] I'm going to say, "Hello, my name is." [153:22] The door opens. The guy's jaw drops. [153:25] before I could say my name. And he says, [153:28] "Dean Raiden." [153:30] And then now I'm thinking, "Well, I have [153:32] never seen you before. I don't know who [153:34] you are. How do you know who I am?" [153:37] So he says, [153:39] who says his name? And I I said, "Well, [153:42] what do you what are you doing here?" [153:44] I'm doing what you're doing. What do you [153:46] think we're doing? Cyber search, [153:49] parasycchology, like what you're doing. [153:51] So I I had to sit down at that point [153:53] because we knew everybody in the world [153:56] who's doing this. There's only like 40 [153:58] of us around the world in maybe five or [154:00] six different locations. Here is a SAI [154:03] research laboratory in Silicon Valley [154:05] that no one has ever heard about before. [154:08] And so I said, "Well, how did you know [154:10] who I was?" Even if you knew, you know, [154:13] we had nothing in our our door that said [154:15] it was Cyber Search. It said Boundary [154:16] Institute. [154:18] He said, "I was looking to contact you [154:21] because I want you to be on my board of [154:23] directors, but I didn't know where you [154:25] were and I didn't know how to contact [154:27] you." So, I opened the door and there I [154:30] am. So, I said, "Well, what what were [154:32] you doing?" He was doing an exercise [154:34] called the yoga nidra, which is the yoga [154:37] of sleep, but there's a magical element [154:39] to it as well. So over a course of 24 [154:42] hours, for 3 hours he was awake, 3 hours [154:45] he sleeps back and forth over the course [154:47] of 24 hours. While awake he's picturing [154:51] that I show up [154:53] and so I opened the door and that's why [154:55] his jaw dropped because at that point he [154:57] was awake. He was walking around but I [155:00] showed up and he was trying to make me [155:03] show up. So in a sense he manifested me. [155:06] Now I think I have free will. Like we, [155:08] you know, we freely chose that office [155:11] next door. I freely went to the door. I [155:12] freely did everything. But apparently [155:15] was being pulled by him. So well that [155:19] was strange. [155:20] And so I said, "Well, so how are you [155:23] doing this? What are you doing?" And so [155:25] he gave me a tour of his laboratory. [155:28] That's when my jaw dropped because what [155:30] I had been doing adjacent wall next to [155:34] his without knowing what's going over [155:35] there on a whiteboard. I was drawing a [155:37] special kind of chair that we wanted and [155:39] a special shielded room and equipment [155:41] and everything on the whiteboard. That's [155:44] what he had. The other side of that wall [155:47] is what he had in his laboratory. [155:50] >> Whoa. [155:51] >> Yeah. So, it's like a four-part [155:53] synchronicity where I was drawing to me [155:57] what I wanted. I didn't know it was the [155:58] other side of the wall, but I was [156:00] drawing it into existence. He was in the [156:03] same time drawing me. So, we had the [156:05] same intentions, draw each other [156:07] essentially, and we literally got pulled [156:10] into the same location at the same time. [156:12] >> That's incredible. [156:13] >> Yeah. So it was so incredible that I I [156:16] told the other guys in in our institute [156:20] and in a sense they they understood what [156:22] was happening because they saw the same [156:23] laboratory and stuff. [156:26] After a while we never talked about it [156:27] again but I mean it was so bizarre that [156:31] and and so magical in a sense that we we [156:34] all thought we were doing things of our [156:36] own free will but apparently not. So I [156:40] started looking into yoga nidra the [156:43] magical side of it. It's all about [156:45] intention. It's focused intention and a [156:48] non-ordinary state. And it is it is [156:50] literally a magical practice out of the [156:53] yogic tradition. So yeah, another reason [156:55] why I'm writing about the science of [156:57] magic, the real magic, and showing how a [157:00] lot of the science that we know now [157:02] actually overlaps. [157:03] >> Wow. [157:04] >> It's just it's not at the level of what [157:06] you would get in in Harry Potter. But [157:09] nevertheless, a lot of it is real. [157:12] >> Thank you for telling that story. That's [157:14] awesome. [157:14] >> Thank you for being here, too. This is [157:16] really exciting. I really enjoyed it [157:18] very much. [157:18] >> Thank you. [157:19] >> Um, so the book, The Science of Magic, [157:21] >> Y, [157:22] >> uh, available everywhere. [157:23] >> Thank you. [157:24] >> Yep. [157:25] >> Was this for me? [157:26] >> Yep. [157:26] >> Oh, I got a copy. All right. Thank you [157:28] very much. This is really, really, [157:30] really fun. [157:30] >> Thank you. [157:31] >> Uh, let's do it again. I'm I'm excited [157:33] to hear where you go with this stuff. [157:34] >> Okay. [157:35] >> All right. [157:35] >> Maybe next time I'll bring that nose [157:36] spray. [157:37] >> Let's do it. [music] Bring it. All [157:38] right. Thank you. Bye, everybody. [157:45] [music]