Speaker A
Everything that we know in science today at one point was considered to be magical.
Dr. Dean Radin of the Institute of Noetic Sciences discusses psychic phenomena, remote viewing, telepathy, and whether science can study the connected nature of reality.
Key Takeaways
- Psychic phenomena may be studied scientifically, and past 'magic' often became accepted science.
- Intuitive abilities vary greatly, with a small fraction of people being highly talented.
- Meditation and openness can help people develop inner guidance, but uncontrolled psychic experiences can be disturbing.
- A narrow materialist worldview may limit what researchers consider investigable.
What the video covers
- Dr. Dean Radin, chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, explains noetic sciences as the study of deep intuition that carries a sense of certainty.
- Radin argues that many scientific discoveries were once considered magical, suggesting psychic phenomena may follow the same path toward scientific understanding.
- He warns that uncontrolled psychic ability can be distressing, so people should think carefully before trying to become more psychic.
- Psychic talent is partly genetic and partly shaped by upbringing and beliefs; training can help with meditation but has limits.
- Radin describes his laboratory research on remote viewing, which was part of the Stargate program, and says he saw talented people describe distant events accurately.
- He suggests a rigid, classical materialist worldview constrains scientific inquiry, and that broader ontologies are needed.
- Discussion covers historical telepathy experiments, the Global Consciousness Project, and the idea of a holistic, interconnected reality.
- Radin discusses reported encounters with non-human intelligence and how experiencers interpret them through their own belief systems.
- Psychedelics and other experiences can loosen materialist beliefs, making people more open to these phenomena.
- The conversation ends by noting that people must focus their attention and cannot follow every intuitive signal.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction: Science and the Magical
- 05:30Training Intuition and the Risks of Psychic Ability
- 11:30Academic Worldviews and the Limits of Materialism
- 29:00Historical Telepathy Experiments
- 40:00Stargate, Remote Viewing, and Non-Human Intelligence
- 55:00Global Consciousness and Interconnected Reality
- 80:00Responding to Skeptics and Closing Thoughts
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
People claim that they are receiving downloads from non-human intelligence. Look at the magical traditions, conjuring invocation convocation.
Speaker A
That's been around forever. Most of the remote viewers that I know have described episodes where they weren't trying to contact non-human intelligence, but they would just show up. It happens a lot.
Speaker A
What? There's a fabric of reality that connects everything. Not just connected through space, but connected through time. The question of how do I become more psychic comes up a lot. My usual response is are you sure you want to do
Speaker A
that? Dr. Dean Raiden is the chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, examining sigh phenomena, telepathy, intuition, and the very real possibility that everything in the world is connected.
Speaker A
Stargate was two parts. I was on the research side. Our mission was is remote viewing a real thing? Can we identify people who are really good at it?
Speaker A
Mystics will talk about this stuff. But once I started working on this in a laboratory, my belief system has changed. I had the opportunity of seeing people who were exceptionally talented describe in great gory detail what was happening on the other side of the
Speaker A
planet and be correct. That's the genetic study to do. What's going on? Would it be possible to genetically edit a human temporarily and turn them into a psychically talented person? Jonathan is offering me up as a candidate.
Speaker A
[music] Hi, I'm Valik. And I'm Jonathan Cohen. And welcome to our breakdown. Today we're going to be speaking to Dr. Dean Raiden. He is the chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. This is the place where the research is being
Speaker A
done into psychic phenomena, telepathy, intuition, magic, the possibility that everything in the world is connected and that science actually can examine it in ways that touch the spiritual, the mystical, ancient texts, and the way that we live today. For those of you who
Speaker A
think that there are really only two choices, being a materialist or believing in everything out there, Dr.
Speaker A
Raiden is here to explain the middle path. There is a science. There is a way to study all of the paranormal things that we love to talk about here, but he grounds it in a way that will give you
Speaker A
the confidence to believe that you can absolutely grow your intuition, understand the world, and feel more connected to it. It's an enormously enormously fun and interesting conversation. What a pleasure to welcome to the breakdown Dr. Dean Raiden.
Speaker A
Break [singing] it down. Thank you. happy to be here. We're very excited to talk to you. Um, the science of magic, how the mind weaves the fabric of reality, is um, a terrific starting point kind of, I think, for anyone who's curious about
Speaker A
any aspect of parasychology or paranormal things, supernormal things as as we might call them. Um, I I wonder if you can start by um, we spoke to to Dr.
Speaker A
Wab um, who was a fantastic resource for us. I wonder if you can tell us in your own words what the knowetic sciences are.
Speaker A
Well, the word knowetic, I think William James popularized it way back when and it refers to deep forms of intuition that carry a sense of certainty that the information received is correct. So like any form of intuition, you get
Speaker A
information, you don't know where it comes from, but nevertheless it feels correct. And more often than not, you can check the information and it turns out to be correct. So in cases where it's forgotten knowledge, that's not so
Speaker A
interesting. In cases where it's something that you had no no information about beforehand, like a precognition of something that was unexpected, that then becomes a lot more interesting.
Speaker A
Precognition is an interesting area to explore because as you said, it's something that you would not have otherwise had knowledge about. And I think a lot of people in our audience particularly are interested in is that possible? Am I and if so, how
Speaker A
do I develop a skill set that could be interesting to find world disasters but also like how do I help myself? You know, it's like there seems to be two two streams in this.
Speaker A
Yeah. So, the question of uh how do I become more psychic comes up a lot. And so my usual response on that is are you sure you want to do that? And and so the the reason I say that is because uh I
Speaker A
often get emails from people who are disturbed by uncontrolled psychic ability. So they get precognitions, they get telepathy, they get all kinds of information. And if it's uncontrolled, meaning that they can't control when they get it versus not, that can easily
Speaker A
drive them crazy. And so the the the messages I'm getting is how can I I I need to stop this now.
Speaker A
So there's a downside to being too open. And the case can be made that from an evolutionary point of view, yes, it's really good if you can get information that will save your life, but it's not so good if you're getting all telepathic
Speaker A
connections with your neighbors all the time. That's that's not going to help so much.
Speaker A
So then the question is, well, how can you train that? Well, there's a bunch of tips and tricks that that can be used like learn to meditate. That'll help a lot.
Speaker A
But there's also the element of talent. And so, can you train talent? Probably not. A large chunk of it is going to be genetic and a large chunk will be whatever your family uh allowed you to believe or express. So, people can train
Speaker A
to whatever their asmtote is. they can train up to a certain level. Beyond that, it's very very difficult to get any better. And so when you look at people who are naturally highly talented in in these areas, maybe one in a
Speaker A
thousand people fit that category, which doesn't sound like very much, but I mean considering 8 billion people on the planet, that's a lot of people.
Speaker A
So how can So yeah. So is it useful to become sensitive to things that could actually affect your life or the lives of other people that you care about?
Speaker A
Yeah. And so easiest way to do that is through meditation. And if I'm separating these fields again, if we remove the I want to have precognitive experiences and see world events and just I want to develop an inner guidance. I think that's where a
Speaker A
lot of people are. Can you talk about normalizing what the possibilities are for people to utilize this in their life? Meaning like you you described if we grow up in a in an environment where we're not even allowed to imagine
Speaker A
that this exists, that could be a huge stumbling block to even opening up the capability.
Speaker A
Yeah. What also is a block is going through the academic process for 20 plus years because it it creates a constraint on your worldview.
Speaker A
So it it takes a while to get over that or get through that because that worldview is perfectly fine for some things. It just doesn't it doesn't cover the the entire reality that we live in.
Speaker A
So what what would somebody do then? Well, uh taking a psychedelic will do it under the right circumstances. It'll blow your mind open and open the doors of perception. Uh and we know many cases now of people who are hardcore
Speaker A
materialists, scientists generally uh who had a single experience and then changed like flipped overnight into a different type of person and they become much more interested in and also will experience more of these kinds of phenomena simply because their belief structure has
Speaker A
changed or at least has loosened up. One of the reasons I got interested in magic uh is because magic first of all is a placeholder word for we don't exactly know what's going on but there seems to be something there and that has been
Speaker A
true throughout all of our history. Everything that we know in science today at one point or another was considered to be magical. So we're slowly moving in a direction where what we used to call magic I would now call mostly various
Speaker A
kinds of psychic phenomena. And so very slowly first gaining empirical evidence that the phenomena are real and then second getting ideas about why it's real from a scientific perspective that is accelerating that that has been a very slow process but it's been
Speaker A
accelerating a lot over the past 30 years or so. that that doesn't exactly answer your question, but it's wrapped into the general notion of if you and especially culture supports your beliefs about these phenomena, they are simply there and they've always been there.
Speaker A
It's just that we're also very effective at cutting it down or at least blocking it.
Speaker A
When we talked to to Dr. for you know she spoke about you know having this very kind of normalized experience of seeing people in her family who were trans channelers and she didn't think of it as odd. It's just sort of like what
Speaker A
happened. And as she got older, she realized, oh, there's something here that's very outside of the norm. And, you know, some of the studies that that have been done, uh, both through your work and and other, you know, associated
Speaker A
work is trying to look at things that, you know, for in some cases thousands of years, we thought was folklore, witchcraft, right? All of these things.
Speaker A
Um, you know, one of the examples that Jonathan and I were were talking about was this this second site, uh, which seems to run in families, and it's, you know, one of these things in the mysteries of the Scottish Highlands,
Speaker A
right? There's all these sort of beautiful practices, and it's it's a very artistic community, and it's sort of known that certain things run in families, right? So, we've talked about this here as well. I'm Hungarian. I'm part Hungarian. And it's like every
Speaker A
Hungarian person I've ever met is like, "Oh, yeah, we have magic." Right? And it's like, yeah, my grandma had like stuff, my mom, like there's all these like interesting things, but I I wonder if you can kind of give us a framework.
Speaker A
When did that not become the way that we sort of see the world? Is this like a oh the industrial revolution? Is it enlightenment? When did we switch and what were the benefits right of shifting out of that and what was lost? Yes, this
Speaker A
is part of the the discussion of the disenchantment of the world that that accelerated through the enlightenment.
Speaker A
And the reason why it happened historically is because uh at the time the the Catholic Church was probably the arbiter of truth and the Catholic Church held on to that power quite strongly uh for many many years. And then you had uh
Speaker A
renegades like Galileo and his contemporaries who were saying well maybe uh we we can learn in other ways.
Speaker A
We can take empirical approaches like Francis Bacon had suggested. And when you start doing that you realize that there are aspects of the natural world that can be studied especially through empiricism but also through mathematics and other methods. And it began to
Speaker A
challenge the tenants of the church and they didn't like that. So eventually a a kind of reproachmon occurred where because of a variety of reasons but one of them was the the black death the the plague had occurred and it was killing
Speaker A
people it was part of the church and killing people in royalty and killing people everywhere and nobody had any idea about how to stop it that significantly changed everyone's opinion about maybe we don't really know what's going on because I prayed really good I
Speaker A
thought but apparently God doesn't care was killing everyone. So it gave rise to the idea, well maybe there are other ways of studying what's going on here.
Speaker A
It took hundreds of years to get beyond the idea of things like uh the bad [clears throat] humors in the air are killing us because that was the leading medical idea of the time. But eventually people developed microscope and
Speaker A
telescope and other instruments that extended our senses and we figured out okay there's actually a reason why this is happening. And by the way, after the the telescope was invented roughly in the 1600s sometime, it still took something like a hundred years before
Speaker A
while people are able to see the little animals at the microscopic scale before the germ theory was accepted. So even with empirical knowledge, it takes a long time for new ideas to catch on.
Speaker A
[music] My Alex's breakdown is supported by no CD. Have you ever found yourself stuck replaying conversations over and over, trying to be completely sure that your friend doesn't secretly hate you? Or maybe you spent hours researching a minor ache or pain even after a doctor
Speaker A
said you were okay because your doubts and fears just wouldn't go away. Well, you might be surprised to learn that experiences where a distressing, unwanted thought gets stuck in your mind and makes you feel like you have to do
Speaker A
something to try to solve it can actually be a sign of obsessivempulsive disorder or OCD. OCD is a serious condition that can focus on anything.
Speaker A
Your identity, your morals, your relationships, your sense of reality. But what makes it so debilitating is that it often fixates on exactly [music] the things you care about the most. I've struggled with OCD myself. I know how misunderstood it is and how hard it can
Speaker A
be to even figure out what is going on, let alone get the right kind of help.
Speaker A
That's why I'm here to tell you about NOCD. NOCD is the world's leading provider of specialized OCD treatment.
Speaker A
All of their licensed therapists go through extensive specialty training to identify and effectively treat OCD. No therapists know the many different ways OCD can show up, how it attacks the things you value most, and how to help you manage it so you can get your life
Speaker A
back. [music] in live face-to-face virtual sessions that'll help you reclaim your time, confidence, and freedom. OCD is covered by insurance for over 138 million Americans, which is incredible. It includes support between sessions so you never have to face OCD alone. If [music]
Speaker A
any of this sounds like you or someone you love, head over to nocd.com. Book a free 15minute call with their team.
Speaker A
That's noocd.com to learn more and get matched with a therapist who can help. My biotics breakdown is supported by mudwater. Are you one of those people who gets an anxiety spiral after drinking coffee? [music] Because um same one full cup and suddenly my heart is
Speaker A
sprinting. My brain is running in five directions at once. That's why I'm really into mud water. It uses functional mushrooms and adaptogens instead of that full caffeine hit.
Speaker A
Steady energy, no spiral. You have to try their original blend cuz it's the classic. cacao, chai, turmeric, and functional mushrooms like a kind of like a spicy hot cocoa. Warm, grounding, [music] satisfying. Mud water is a coffee alternative made with mushrooms
Speaker A
and adaptogens about 17th the caffeine of coffee. So, you get the focus and energy without those jitters, the crash, or the anxiety. The best way to start is the starter kit. It's designed to set you up with everything you need to build
Speaker A
this habit. When you order, you get the full-size tin of your chosen blend, plus a free rechargeable frother. Free [music] gifts, free shipping. There are four flavors. OG, that's the original chai chocolate blend. Coffee, matcha, and turmeric, my personal favorite. So,
Speaker A
if you're a coffee person, a matcha person, a chai person, or maybe somewhere in between, there's something for you. The OG is where most people start because it's like chocolate and chai had a very healthy baby. Ready to
Speaker A
make the switch to cleaner energy? Go to mudwwater.com/break. Grab the starter kit, use code break, and you'll get 43% off. The frothther alone is worth it. It's fantastic.
Speaker A
That's right. Up to 43% off with code break at mudwtr.com. After your purchase, they'll ask how you found them. Please show your support.
Speaker A
Let them know we sent you. [music] Getting back to the church, a church made this reproachment with Galileo and others.
Speaker A
The unlucky ones were killed anyway. The lucky ones were put into house arrest for the rest of their life. But they were able to then separate the study of the physical world from the study of the spiritual world. So the church held on
Speaker A
to anything having to do with the mind, consciousness spirituality the physical world. Okay, you guys can go play over there and do that because it would have pragmatic value, which it did. And so you go through the enlightenment
Speaker A
and you find again and again more and more cases of alchemy turning into chemistry and herbalism turning into pharmaceuticals and so on. And they had pragmatic value. That's the reason why it changed. And because of the pragmatic value and increasing uh the ability to
Speaker A
understand the natural world that took hold by the way extremely culturebound it took hold of the western world's worldview and it was so powerful a way of manipulating the physical world that it became the way that everyone began to
Speaker A
think especially in the academic world but again this is culture bound. So when I've I've gone to India and given talks in academia there, I remember giving a talk once at the University of Alahabad and the cognitive neuroscience
Speaker A
department and I was talking about telepathy research. And so I got to the end of my talk and there were professors there and the chair of the department and a whole bunch of grad students. They said, "Well, you know, I'm using the
Speaker A
same methods that you guys are using. Do you think you'd want to do this?" They said, "No." Well, well, why not? Well, because we know it's real. So why bother even to study it?
Speaker A
We thought, well, that I would think that in cognitive neuroscience that you you'd be interested in these kinds of phenomenas given it's the same tools.
Speaker A
We thought, no, it's actually not part of the discipline. It's not part of cognitive neuroscience. You would need some other kind of discipline. Well, okay. Well, we'll call that psy research or parasychology or something. No, we we don't do that. We don't have a
Speaker A
department of that. So, a few things. one is everyone believed that the phenomena was real. They were all interested in it. It's not part of the discipline so we don't study it. uh and and so in that culture and other
Speaker A
cultures around the world this is not their their concern is well why is it in then in the west which we're copying western academic structure why don't they study this stuff because they're like well this again points back into a
Speaker A
particular historical framework about how we will understand reality so even though in India they follow the western academic system. If the discipline doesn't accommodate these kinds of phenomena, nobody studies it. Even though at home they have a statue of
Speaker A
Ganesha and all of the other gods and goddesses and completely believe all of it. I think it's interesting also that we're now at a time where there's this strong desire to find scientific proof for phenomenon that don't always obey,
Speaker A
right, the the rules of the scientific method. And we've spoken about this with materialists. We've spoken about it with psychics and mediums and channelers, right? There's this sort of notion that, you know, the materialist view is still show me the proof and I want the proof
Speaker A
in a very specific way and I want to be able to, you know, have it withstand all of the same standards that chemistry does, right? Or, you know, or or a math equation. Um, can you talk a little bit
Speaker A
about some of the challenges for you of being a a serious scientist and approaching these things from a serious perspective while also balancing the notion that many people dismiss this as pseudocience?
Speaker A
Yes, a very important question and and there's a kind of an irony or a paradox here in that the methods that we use to study s phenomena are absolutely rooted in materialism.
Speaker A
Right? We use exactly the same methods and we do the exact same analytical approaches and the statistical analyses and so on. So all of it is very standard mainstream science. The only thing that differs is we entertain a hypothesis
Speaker A
that is not currently popular at least within the western world. And so we we get results that are repeatable and we use metaanalyses and we do all of the various methods that everybody else uses. And in many cases we're actually
Speaker A
leading the pack. So the development of metaanalysis, development of actually the development of the EEG in particular and lots of other things were developed first for the study of these kinds of phenomena because we're kind of pushed in that direction to to improve
Speaker A
methodology again and again. So from a scientific perspective, the idea that that these kinds of phenomena or the study of them is a pseudocience is abjectly false, demonstrabably false.
Speaker A
It's the same epistemological approach, but we're assuming a slightly different ontology. That's the only difference.
Speaker A
And so that nothing none of that is new, by the way, in science. It's the sociology of science and the history of science very clearly shows that any new idea that comes along that challenges whatever is the status quo will be
Speaker A
rejected, especially if it's difficult to replicate the effect. Although studies have also shown a lot of studies that the average effect size within the social sciences is roughly 0.2 considered a small effect size.
Speaker A
Well, the same thing is true in a lot of different SC experiments. So this is not even different from the point of view of the magnitude of the effect. And so why is it difficult to replicate studies?
Speaker A
Because there's not enough statistical power. That's why. And it has nothing to do with the nature of the phenomena. The phenomena can be evoked even with with college sophomores that are unselected for any particular ability or interest.
Speaker A
So where is the resistance? The resistance comes from being taught about materialism as the only viable ontology and actually not just materialism but a very constrained version of materialism classical physics type materialism.
Speaker A
Uh and so people will will come out of their academic system and either never hear about these studies at all or hear about them only from a negative perspective. And if you have no other reason to to doubt that kind of
Speaker A
information, then of course you'll go away thinking well this stuff is nonsense and that that is largely what's what is reflected in places like Wikipedia and now also reflected in virtually every AI chatbot.
Speaker A
What? Yeah. So I I I've tested this many times. It'll go to a chatbot and it'll say uh what what is the current scientific evidence for telepathy or something like that and so it'll spit something back very quickly and then add
Speaker A
on to it but this is considered pseudocience and so I'll challenge it. I'll say well what about these studies and what about this meta analysis and what about this and what about that? So it comes away it comes back and said oh I apologize I
Speaker A
didn't I didn't talk about that. And so after three or four exchanges, I can get it to completely reverse its original statement by simply pointing out that I know you've read all this stuff. You've sucked up the entire internet. Well, why
Speaker A
didn't you lead with that? And in every case so far, it comes back with an answer. It says I I'm essentially my algorithms are designed to reflect what is considered to be the mainstream point of view.
Speaker A
and and it and it doesn't as I said it doesn't take long to challenge that and say well you know maybe you can consider a more neutral view and I could do that if I had thought to ask a prompt which
Speaker A
insisted on a neutral perspective but people don't ask that they just say is telepathy real they'll get that response based on the prompt what is the current scientific evidence uh for telepathy the answer is there's real scientific literature on telepathy and the
Speaker A
strongest version of the evidence is more interesting than the common open quote there is no evidence close quote summary suggests but and this is in bold telepathy has not been established as scientific fact there you go I was wondering if you could give us a
Speaker A
little bit about your career arc to sort of establish your background in in sharing this stuff like it's we know without really understanding and I have it here that you were an engineer you had a PhD in psychology. You were at
Speaker A
Bell Labs. You were at the Stargate program which has um you know a a huge history and and government connections working with government agencies as well as at Princeton's PAR lab. Can you tell us a little bit about your your
Speaker A
background to establish um your your perspective here? Well, yeah, the the Bonafides are important in this realm as they would be in any other.
Speaker A
And if you did not know that I was studying psychic phenomena for most of my career and I just gave affiliations other than maybe the Institute of Noetic Sciences where I've been for the past 25 years. Uh you would probably not guess
Speaker A
what it is that I've been doing because all of those are very mainstream places and I learned from places like Bell Labs in Princeton. I I know exactly how big science works. I know what's required. I know all of it. I also know because of
Speaker A
of my work now involving genetic engineering for treatment of dementia that the same level of work can get published in nature. I have a a co-author of an article in nature translational neuroscience or translational medicine. So, so it's the topic that's that drives
Speaker A
some people a little bit nutty and and what's very interesting and I'm sure that Helen, Dr. WAB is my colleague that she may have talked about this that our surveys of scientists and academics at elite universities around the world
Speaker A
showed very clearly that people have even scientists at those institutions have the same kind of experiences that everyone does.
Speaker A
And of course the the odd thing is that uh you mean academics and scientists are human too? Yeah, a little bit. And so they tend to have the same kind of experiences that everybody else does. I found this also at at places within the
Speaker A
government and at Princeton and Bellabs and so on. There are always people there who are interested in this. There are some who are not who may be very strongly in the other direction. There are a smaller percentage who are
Speaker A
profoundly religious and think it's demonic or the work of the devil. So it's no different than you would find in in any group, any random group of people. Same same phenomena, same responses, same everything.
Speaker A
The only difference in this case is well if you're trained as a conventional scientist in traditional fields and for one reason or another you become interested in it and you start looking into it both the literature and doing
Speaker A
experimental work you find yeah what people have been reporting for over 100 years experimentally turns out to be true and it is repeatable. It's not easy to repeat but what else is new at the leading edge of knowledge? Nothing is
Speaker A
easy to repeat. Otherwise, it would already be well accepted. It's very helpful. Can you walk us through some of the studies that have really stood out for you to change people's perspective on the nature of reality if they're coming from a very,
Speaker A
you know, materialist background. So, take telepathy. Telepathy. And by the way, this is true of almost every category of experimentation where what we're interested in initially is maybe one kind of experiment that demonstrates something. But then there are conceptual replications which become
Speaker A
really important because now you can say well we're going to look at that phenomena using a slightly different method. And if you see pretty much the same kind of result gives you greater confidence that the phenomenon is real.
Speaker A
So original telepathy experiments back in the 1800s were called thought transference and generally were uh you have two people and you ask one to think of something and then you ask the other one to say well what do you think
Speaker A
they're thinking of? That turns out to be a really really bad design because you have two people who know each other really well. They're going to have similar memories and so you have a correlation between their memories not
Speaker A
because of something else. So a new design came along where you'd have a pool of r of images or targets of some type and you randomly select one so that you're not relying on the one person's memory. So you give that to the
Speaker A
sender and the sender then tries to send that to the receiver person and then the receiver person draws a sketch or gives a come some kind of response. So that was a little bit better kind of experiment.
Speaker A
But then it was found that uh maybe it's not so good to have them in eyeshot because you could have information leakage. So you can see how the methodology gets better and better over time and people figure out oh you can't
Speaker A
have any information leakage at all. It's okay if they know each other they could even be identical twins but they need to be separated. So uh the first kinds of experiments in telepathy that began to use better methodologies was
Speaker A
was with JB Rin at Duke University in the 1920s through 40s and 50s. So it involved the ESP cards which are symbols different symbols on the cards. People would be separated in different buildings. One would look at a randomly
Speaker A
shuffle a deck and pick one card and then the other person would have to guess it.
Speaker A
That went through a whole series of developments as well because it was initially thought that maybe somebody was cheating because there was a confederate that was leaking the information from one building to the other and on and on until it got better and
Speaker A
better and better and the results then required statistics to know whether there were more correct answers than you would expect. But nevertheless, there was there's a book called ESP after 60 years, which was from 1880 to 1940 that presented all of the ESP cards that
Speaker A
have been published to that point, hundreds of them. And the back of that book lists all of the results. So that was the first metaanalysis using ESP cards.
Speaker A
So from that that that persisted up until about the 1960s the ESP cards. Uh one of the things about that particular test is that it is incredibly boring which turns out to not be a really good way of testing any kind of phenomena at
Speaker A
all other than extinction. So people the younger people who came along they're working in in JB Ryan's lab came up uh and actually a few others three groups independently came up with a new way of doing the test which is called
Speaker A
the Gansfeld telepathy test. So the Gansfeld is a sensory restricted environment. It's not a sensory deprivation but a an unpatterned sensory stimulus method where you sit in a comfy chair. You put a half a ping pong ball over the eyes. He's shown shine a red
Speaker A
light on the eyes and you have a white noise over the uh over headphones and you're then isolated from the rest of the world and your brain gets starved for information very quickly. And this is based on the idea that uh one of the
Speaker A
reasons that we're not psychically sensitive is because we're being overstimulated by the world itself. So you want to extract yourself from that which by the way is also the same idea of why meditation is thought to work.
Speaker A
It's getting rid of external stimulation and paying attention more to what's going on internally.
Speaker A
So as starting in the 1970s till now there's around 4,700 sessions where the the person in the Gansfeld is asked that uh over a 20minut period somebody's going to be trying to mentally send you a picture or a video and meanwhile you
Speaker A
have an isolated sender located somewhere else who's given a randomly selected picture or a video to watch and their job is to send that information.
Speaker A
So after the 4,700 sessions, roughly 20 laboratories around the world, uh the odds against chance are a gazillion to one that this is that what we're seeing as a chance outcome. And from a a magnitude perspective, it isn't
Speaker A
wildly significant. It with four possible targets, you'd expect chance would be 25% and people give roughly 30 to 32% on that. But after that many trials you can just from the statistical power alone you know that this is not a
Speaker A
chance outcome. So that also went through development of better and better methods over time and among the things that had have been done was it was the University of Edinburgh working on an automated system to do this. We had people who were
Speaker A
professional stage magicians who were brought in and they asked, "If you wanted to fake this experiment, what would you do?" And so they would talk about hidden radio receivers and confederates and on and on and all kinds of signaling methods. When we did this
Speaker A
at the at our institute, uh we also tested whether or not somebody in a distant room could be stamping their feet on the ground and that could be detected as a signal. So we we did very sensitive audio detection
Speaker A
methods to see if that were true or tapping like little bits of tapping can can travel far distances. So we able to exclude every known form of signaling and put the receiver into a shielded room electromagnetically shielded room
Speaker A
so even radio signals would not get in there and on and on and on. you think of every possible loophole that you can, you figure out a way to close the loophole and you still get the same results.
Speaker A
So maybe you can can kind of help walk us through the these implications because I think one of the things and you know I didn't know that this was going to become my life was talking to people about this. You know, people come
Speaker A
up to me in the supermarket like explain this to me like I saw this on your podcast like what's going on. Right? So, one of the things that's true is that just because some people have these abilities, it doesn't mean that everyone
Speaker A
has to or that everyone can. So, it's kind of like saying if you take I'm going to make up numbers, but you know, if you take a a thousand people, you might find one that is at a savant
Speaker A
level of violin ability, right? a savant level violinist. That doesn't mean that there's some like magic secret that we've inserted false hands or some probe into their brain to make them a savant. It means that there's going to be some variability in
Speaker A
the human brain, in the human experience, and in the interface between the environment and the template you've been given. So I I think that part of the problem and I think the irony, you know, I think is not lost on anyone in
Speaker A
trying to study things that are hard to study. When we study them, you cannot apply the same standards that you would for, you know, can I throw this ping-pong ball in the air and see where it lands, right? So the the notion is
Speaker A
that and there's and I think Dr. WAB talked about this as well. These kinds of studies are not trying to prove that something always happens.
Speaker A
They're trying to show that there are some people for whom extraordinary things are possible and there are ways to then replicate that. But in theory, we're we're kind of creating this funnel of who are the people that are sensitive
Speaker A
to this. So when I say to Jonathan, I don't understand when people are like, "Oh, I just like tune in. I get in touch with my, you know, deepest inner self and I just like intuitively know." She says it like that.
Speaker A
That's l You might as well tell me that like you're you're teaching me how to like ferment miso. Like it's like something I know nothing about. And no matter how many times he explains to me what it's like to tune in and drop in,
Speaker A
that's I don't think that's what I was put here for. And my question is, is the reason that she feels that way because she spent too much time in academia or is it a genetic predisposition to be very skeptical? [laughter]
Speaker A
Well, this the skepticism is taught in academia, right? you you would never accept something just because somebody said it. uh you want to you want to test it and after all the the re as a scientist I can say that the the
Speaker A
motivation for what I do is partially a few experiences I've had not very many but it's more that and you look at historically you have people talking about these phenomena all the time and so naturally I'd say well I wonder if
Speaker A
that's true it's simply a matter of curiosity could that really be true because if it is true it suggests that something about our worldview is missing It's probably important to understand that. So you take people who describe a
Speaker A
telepathic connection or precognition or whatever it happens to be and you wonder, I wonder if that's true in principle. That's the key. I'd have no idea whether your anecdote is correct.
Speaker A
There's no way to know. But you want to know is it possible in principle that it really is information from the future.
Speaker A
That's what we do in this experiment that we're talking about where again it's not it's not a ton more than chance but it's reliably more than chance in a way that indicates that we are able to find certain people
Speaker A
for whom either sending or receiving or both this kind of information is somehow a able to I I'm trying to find the right word delivered across space and time in ways that we don't understand. So if you can
Speaker A
in lay person's terms and like this is really I mean you have such an impressive career. You've done so many incredible things. I hate to make you explain this to me like I'm four years old, but I would like you to try and in
Speaker A
lay person's terms describe a possible theory for what telepathy actually could be. Uh it's not easy because there is no answer yet.
Speaker A
The at minimum what it suggests is that a conventional worldview which says that we are all separate, we're isolated from each other, we're embodied, there's no connection other than what you can touch, that is not correct. And up until about
Speaker A
a 100 years ago, there was no physical theory that would describe any of this stuff as being even plausibly true. So a lot of the skepticism today among scientists, especially ones who don't know about quantum mechanics or don't
Speaker A
care, they would say, "Well, what you're describing is impossible. It could only be coincidence or a confabulation or, you know, it's but it's a flaw in the experiment. That's the the the default condition, right? Or it's a trick or there's some
Speaker A
there's some, you know, secret trickery that's going on, right? It's it could be fraudulent." Yeah. So that's where the that's the knee-jerk skeptical approach. Uh if you do know about quantum mechanics and you understand things like entanglement, of
Speaker A
course, nobody truly understands it, but as a phenomenon, it's it's at least mathematically described and it's a real phenomenon. Then you say, well, the physical world does not prevent things from being connected at far distances.
Speaker A
Probably not through signaling, but through some form of connection that we can call a correlation. It's just stronger than than a classical correlation.
Speaker A
If you push on that idea, it says as has been said in the spiritual traditions forever that we live in a holistic reality.
Speaker A
There's a fabric of reality that can simply connects everything all the time. It has always been that way. It is not something that is evoked. It's something that is always there. And so the Gansfeld experiment is important in this
Speaker A
regard because most of the data is college sophomores who are doing the experiment with a buddy because they get credit for their psychology course. So they may have never reported anything about telepathy, but they still get 30%.
Speaker A
On average, if you take if you take a subset of people doing that experiment who report that they they seem to be in telepathic connection with a loved one or something or they have these experiences, they get way more than 30%. They get 45 to 50% in
Speaker A
these experiments which supports the idea that they actually do have some talent. They they're able to show it even under these highly controlled conditions.
Speaker A
So what this tells us is that the notion that everything is connected all the time is probably true and not just connected through space but connected through time. And so the reason why not every person can demonstrate this on demand. They can
Speaker A
demonstrate it unconsciously but not on demand is because we are shaped by evolution to not be able to do this in our ordinary waking state.
Speaker A
and for very obvious reasons. I think we've spoken about this with you know Dr. Dr. Amir Raz who's a neuroscientist and a mentalist and you know there's kind of this notion that also when we're talking about these kinds of abilities
Speaker A
that all of a sudden if you're going to right engage that these abilities have to be impermeable to any stress to any environmental change and this is the thing and like I'm still like a little bit on the fence with trying to wrap my
Speaker A
head right around telepathy but what became clear to me when listening listening to the telepathy tapes is when people try and isolate especially a vulnerable population, a non-speaking autistic individual for example, and they say, "I'm going to take this child
Speaker A
away from their parent, the person who makes them feel the most safe, the person who helps them communicate, function, go to the bathroom, and eat, and we're going to put them in a room, and if they can't reproduce it, it's not
Speaker A
real." That's first of all inhumane, and second of all, not even appropriate science. So I think that's something also that's important to realize that the reproducibility also has it has boundaries around it that mean something right and so if you
Speaker A
look at elite athletes at the Olympic level what do they start to describe after a while as being this single most important thing it's their mental state not their physical state they're all they're all super athletes at that point
Speaker A
the thing that matters is what they believe how they feel mentally it's all internal stuff. And so that's an extreme example of exactly what you're talking about that if you ask somebody to be psychic on demand ex somehow have it under control, most
Speaker A
people they don't know what to do because our ordinary waking state has blocked it. We don't get it.
Speaker A
First of all, you're doing a great job at using lay person's terms to describe some very, you know, sophisticated concepts. I want to stick with connection, this notion of connection, connectivity entanglement.
Speaker A
I I I'm I'm finding, you know, especially when I think about your book, I'm finding these other categories where that same notion would carry through precognition.
Speaker A
Yes. Right. the notion that some people might get information and again like I'm thinking way out there that some people might get information about things that have yet to happen or that have happened that they would have no other reason to
Speaker A
know about, right? Or as in the case of Elizabeth Cone and her precognition abilities, she sometimes is experiencing things that may not happen because they may be potentialities. I mean, I'm just like throwing it all out there, but this
Speaker A
would still work under this sort of hypothesis of we are all more connected than we might realize and some people can tune that frequency knob, right, into more access to the things that connect us. Is does that work for
Speaker A
precognition the same way? Oh, sure. Sure. I mean, it there there's there's always upsides and downsides to becoming sensitive to these things. So the downside for precognition is that everything can start looking like an omen. And there's I mean you can learn
Speaker A
an internal sense of this actually does feel like a precognition versus this is my fear of what's happening. So last night I heard owls outside and I don't normally hear owls. And so I' a part of me is thinking are why am I hearing owls
Speaker A
now? Well, I'm going to going to be on a podcast tomorrow. Maybe it's it's telling me something.
Speaker A
She loves owls. I love owls and I live in a canyon. I I love owls until one night I looked out the window. It terrifies me to this moment and an owl had landed on a banister right outside
Speaker A
the window and I all of a sudden felt like I was looking into the face of Satan because this enormous dangerous predator had landed, right?
Speaker A
And it it it is a terrifying beautiful creature. But I I instantly was like, "What does this mean?" Right? I didn't go to that's a beautiful creature. I went to like something bad's going to happen and I'm going to Google, you
Speaker A
know, something that an indigenous tribe has noted for thousands of years about owls because it has to be relevant to me because I'm just a creature of nature.
Speaker A
What comes to mind when I hear an owl is not so much what, but who. That's what they're saying. Who, right? So, it's the old the age-old question of who are you?
Speaker A
who like who who are we? That's that's what I'm hearing from the owl. I'm a terrified primate. That's what I am.
Speaker A
Well, I don't know. I mean, they they they have a severe uh face. Uh but the it's the message that's important. So, anyway, there you go. So, I had a precognition of someone who was afraid of owls and I I didn't know that.
Speaker A
Experimentally, what we can tell is that precognitions are probabilistic. very very rarely do we get any evidence at all that the precognized future is faded and must occur probably will occur and we can see that in experiments so
Speaker A
that that's a little bit uh comforting just an experience from my own life I woke up from a dream one time that was very vivid about being in a car crash and so in the dream the the airbag went
Speaker A
off and there's a bunch of dust and there's glass flying and all that stuff.
Speaker A
And it kind of freaked me out cuz I don't remember dreams that often. And so I would normally drive to work in a way that was a little bit dangerous getting onto the interstate cuz cars are whizzing by and then not letting you get
Speaker A
on. So I decided to go to a different entrance where there was a light and then you'd be able to go onto it. So I would avoid that recognition.
Speaker A
I've already got chills. I don't like this. Yeah. So I'm waiting at the red light.
Speaker A
Uh, and then before the light has turned, it's still red. Boom. Get rear ended, which had never happened before.
Speaker A
Fortunately, it wasn't bad. The airbags didn't go off. It was just like a fender bender, but it was shocking cuz I'm just waiting there and not paying attention to what's going on behind me. So, then, of course, we we have to go to the side
Speaker A
and I get the insurance information and all that. And I'm telling this to the guy at the body shop that's going to repair my car the next day.
Speaker A
and he said, 'Oh, well, maybe your your dream prevented you from being in a worse accident. I thought, oh, that's pretty good for a guy at a body shock because he's probably right that something needed to happen in the
Speaker A
future, but it didn't need to be the thing that had happened in the dream or the dream confabulated the actual future event, but just made it a lot worse in the dream as dreams do.
Speaker A
So that got me interested in in doing experiments to see whether or not there there was the future is is faded or actual versus probable. And so the result of at least my experiments showing that it is probable.
Speaker A
The alternative version is you had the dream which changed the way that you went which caused the accident. Had you not changed and ignored the dream, you may have been in the riskier version of the intrastate, but nothing would have
Speaker A
happened. I don't know. You could dream about an infinite number of things and you you dreamt about that. Also, sometimes mechanics are the wisest people in my experience. [laughter] I think there's something going on there.
Speaker A
He he immediately got it. Yeah. Just right off the bat. So, yeah. And then of course there are other precognitive experiences like that that are much much more dramatic generally not ones that I've had but ones that have been told to me.
Speaker A
I'm thinking of of connection you know like and I don't mean to like come up with my own theory here. This is not what I do for a living is come up with theory. It could be now I don't know. I'm kind of like digging
Speaker A
Dr. Raiden's notion of like are all of these things supporting this one notion right of oneness which is what every ancient text says as Chase Hughes told us the most commonly repeated phrase right in a variety and canvasing of ancient texts
Speaker A
is don't be afraid right and in in in essence like this notion of oneness like that is a safe place for for psychedelic journeys, people feel this, right? For transcendental experiences, this feeling of oneness, this feeling of of being
Speaker A
enveloped and safe and [snorts] loved, right? Um, we've spoken to people who've been, you know, reporting abduction experiences and they're summoning this this motherly feminine presence, right, that makes them feel loved and safe.
Speaker A
like I this is my new working theory of all of these paranormal things parasychology connection oneness and it's of course the it's a perennial philosophy as well which is the basis of all of the esoteric traditions u it's difficult from a scientific
Speaker A
perspective to know what to do with that because we don't know how to study holistic systems the closest we've gone so far things like complex systems which are generally not necessarily really completely holistic but have so many interacting parts that that's the
Speaker A
only way as you can study as a system rather than an individual piece. Uh science evolved quickly because of studying of taking things apart but as it turns out that that does not give you the whole picture because you're fantastic at explaining
Speaker A
things that people come to us with criticisms. I would [snorts] like to offer you uh one of the staunchest materialists we've ever spoken to said if anyone could have any psychic ability then people would be dreaming the lottery
Speaker A
numbers and everyone would we be winning all the time. Tell us why that is not the case.
Speaker A
Well, it's partially not the case because the information that people receive is usually not veritical and if it's precognition in particular, it's probabilistic and some people do win the lottery many times. So, it it may be an extremely
Speaker A
rare ability to do that, but there are cases where people have won multiple times. Uh they don't necessarily claim that it was psychic, but nevertheless, yeah, I mean, you find people who win two, two times, three times, five times.
Speaker A
Well, what are they doing? The usual response would be they figure out a way to cheat, which might be true, but again, you take stories like that and you go into the laboratory and you say, well, is it true in general of something
Speaker A
that we can see under control conditions where we can begin to exclude all of those other kinds of explanations?
Speaker A
So it is very odd in a sense and this has already been discussed that why would you expect something like a subtle ability to be so strong that you could demonstrate it at will under any condition. There's there's like nothing
Speaker A
that that humans can do that that reaches that level of reliability including Olympic athletes.
Speaker A
So that's one of the reasons, by the way, when you see sports or you watch a famous musician, it's almost unbelievable. It's like a miracle that they're able to do what they're able to do, right? You you watch
Speaker A
somebody who's an expert at basketball or something, they seem to float through the air and they could do it repeatedly and they they're doing things that are superhuman. That's why they get a lot of of money among other things and why they
Speaker A
become major celebrities because that's that doesn't seem like what humans can do. Can you tell us about some of the precognitive experiments that you've seen with people who have accuracy at either predicting events or seeing things and I think that will lead us
Speaker A
into Stargate and and how the government was using remote viewing. Well, I developed the presentiment design.
Speaker A
uh some years ago, more years than I like to think now. And I think you had Julia Mossbridge on the show and she may have mentioned these. Yeah. So the the idea was uh when you ask somebody in the
Speaker A
laboratory under control conditions to do something psychic, they get afraid. There's a demand characteristic. The anxiety will will squash the effect pretty quickly. So we want a a we want them to do something that doesn't require any conscious ability at all. We
Speaker A
measure their physiology, heart rate and skin conductance and pupil dilation, things like that. And then we just ask them to look at pictures.
Speaker A
But what we do, we and they'll look at a series of maybe 20 or 30 pictures over the course of 20 or 30 minutes.
Speaker A
What we're doing is measuring continually what is happening under the level of conscious awareness. So we can see that through skin conductance and other measures in their body. And so the hypothesis in this study is that if you
Speaker A
can feel the future, then if we are about to show you a calm picture, you're going to remain pretty calm because who cares if you see a picture of a pond or something, unless of course you're afraid of ponds, which some people are.
Speaker A
So there's going to be variance in terms of what happens when people see pictures. Uh this happened once with a picture of a bunny. a bunny was going to be a calm picture, but for some person for whatever reason did not like bunnies
Speaker A
and they that for them it was an emotional picture. So it adds noise to the experiment.
Speaker A
That's Easter bunny trauma. Like an owl. Yeah. Like I would look at an owl and think, "Oh, this is this is nice." But other people have different responses.
Speaker A
So we we choose and emotional pictures that we know that people are mostly going to respond to.
Speaker A
Except even there doesn't always work. You show a picture of surgery to an average person, they will freak out. You show it to a surgeon, they'll say, "Oh, well that technique is interesting." And then, you know, totally. So, again, it
Speaker A
adds noise to the experiment. But the point in this is you don't know and the experimenters don't know what picture is about to come up because it's chosen completely at random and by the way, by a quantum random process. So, nobody can
Speaker A
even know in principle what's about to happen. and you're measuring what's happening to their body before the picture comes up.
Speaker A
And again, the hypothesis is you remain calm before calm pictures and emotional before emotional pictures and that's what you see and again and again and again. So there's something like 50 or 60 such replications in different laboratories at this point and you find
Speaker A
it in almost every different bodily function that you can measure. The body becomes active before an emotional picture as compared to a calm picture.
Speaker A
Sorry, just there there the these images are being presented on a screen. There's not another human in the room. Correct.
Speaker A
Well, there might be another human in the room, but they're they also don't know what the image is.
Speaker A
Nobody knows. Yeah. There there's no leakage of what the future event is going to be.
Speaker A
Got it. Okay. And what's also interesting is if you're using pupil dilation, uh pupil dilation of course is a very interesting balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems or the activating versus relaxing nervous systems. And so during say 5 seconds
Speaker A
before the image comes up, you're looking at a dark screen. So the pupil is dilated. There's nothing that's going to give an imi indication about what's going to happen. But it will still bounce around because the bouncing is
Speaker A
the balance between these two aspects of your nervous system. It bounces differently before an emotional picture than before a calm picture. What are you implying that some people know what image is going to come up and I mean I'm like
Speaker A
really like I'm into it and their physiology is reflecting an image in the future that they somehow know is going to be on the screen.
Speaker A
It means at an unconscious level this interconnectivity that we're talking about is always there even in people who don't know it.
Speaker A
So if you ask somebody like you you you debrief someone after this experiment did you know could you feel that you're about to see no this freaks me out. Do you feel freaked out or you just feel like this is something you've always
Speaker A
known? The interconnectivity is there even amongst people who don't know it. So to me what I start to think about is all the information that is being processed that does not reach the conscious level and how much disconnect is that
Speaker A
like what is that causing in us right like if you can't tap in to this entire information stream that you are physiologically responding to you're really operating at two very siloed uh planes and that could be a huge uh of
Speaker A
point of of disturbance. Yeah, that's the world we live in. Like that's that's what this guy studies his whole life.
Speaker A
Well, but if we're getting to the implication of this at a societal level, at a personal level, what we're saying is that there is another reality that we're all a part of and we're physiologically responding to and yet we
Speaker A
don't have the conscious awareness to actually understand or navigate it. And if we get too much of it, we could go crazy and and be bombarded by it. But if we have none of it, then we're also going to have these physiological
Speaker A
responses that we're not going to be tracking or understanding, and we're going to be living uh in silos. And I think this is a major point of contention and disharmony in the world.
Speaker A
I left my body. I literally I [laughter] had a dissociative moment when this sort of like landed this way because that's exactly it. People are constantly communicating intentions, fears, anxiety, like this is the level, right? And some of us are
Speaker A
more fine-tuned than others. I seem to be exquisitly fine-tuned for things that don't seem useful at all. Like, you know, I have histamineergic reactions to looking at a mosquito, right? That doesn't seem helpful. So, that's what I'm tuned for. But Jonathan is someone
Speaker A
who is tuned into things that I don't understand. And in some cases, it can be very upsetting for him.
Speaker A
It's very upsetting for her because she's like, "Why would we ever do that?" And I'm like, "It makes total sense." Or sometimes he'll get disregulated by things that I'm not picking up on or that he's not even fully I mean, this is
Speaker A
like we're in Matrix land now. Yeah. So, so far we're we're talking about perceptual effects and of course it extends into action as well. So, if you think of consciousness as some kind of a substance in quotes that simply
Speaker A
permeates the fabric of reality. It's out it's part of of what we are and and it's everywhere. It's not just in humans. It's in probably every sentient system and insects and animals and everything else and probably even what
Speaker A
we consider to be inanimate matter. So that's this is the like a rock. A rock has some form of sentience. It's not any not like what we experience, but a tree would have it and a plant that plant
Speaker A
that you have there that would have it. Even if it was plastic, it would have it.
Speaker A
It's a fake plant. But you're right. I get it. See, the plastic is still a physical thing and that has a form of sentience if you start from the point of view that ultimately everything is consciousness.
Speaker A
Also, he just outed us as having a fake plant, something I'm very opposed to.
Speaker A
That's that was my intuitive sense. [laughter] I wasn't feeling it as as a as a living thing. I'm thinking about what we know about let's say fungi about mycelium about you know this sort of entire underground literally you know um web of communication that
Speaker A
occurs right it occurs between you know all organisms right but but in particular that is this this beautiful intricate system of interconnectedness that you know if you were to describe that to someone who had just landed here from another planet. That would sound
Speaker A
crazy. When Neil thes proposed that the fascia system of the entire human body is actually a network with the capability to hold memory to to release emotion, to release trauma, that it it weaves in between the entire system in a
Speaker A
functional manner. People thought that was crazy, right? until he he proved that it was accurate and and I'm hoping and I think the work that you do right literally the work that those in in these fields are doing is trying to show
Speaker A
that this kind of connectivity it exists on levels that we may not be able to measure in the same way that we measure mcelium or even fascia right it's this next level yeah so we we need to expand and our
Speaker A
epistemology in a sense, right? We need better ways of measuring things. And so on the perceptual side, uh it is true that the ordinary waking state is the worst state to be in for most people to feel this to perceive these things. And
Speaker A
from a neuroscience point of view, we know that there's trillions a bit of information that are being impinged upon our our sensory systems, but we only get a very very thin cartoon from all of that. most of it never gets to our
Speaker A
conscious awareness. So it's not too surprising that for most people it's filtered out like it's it just doesn't make it. On the other hand, you have phenomena like precognitions, these these unconscious effects, feeling of being stared at, occasional telepathic
Speaker A
feelings and so on. It's always there, but for for Jonathan, it's more present than it is for for somebody else.
Speaker A
Uh it it took me a long time to to get over the inculcation of 20 plus years of academia to be able to entertain the possibility that that is really true as compared to fiction because all I had
Speaker A
known up to that point was it's fiction like mystics will talk about this stuff but it wasn't real for me because I didn't experience it yet. But once I got into the field and started working on this from a in a laboratory and then
Speaker A
seeing people who are quite talented, it is more uh present for me simply because my I think my belief system has changed and my openness to it has changed as well.
Speaker A
I wonder if the Institute of Noetic Sciences could start a rehabilitation program for lifelong academics and if May could be your first intern. Sure.
Speaker A
[laughter] you know, uh, one of my colleagues is Jessica UT, the statistician who's pretty well known in this field. And when she gave a talk to as the president of the American Statistical Association, you may have heard this story before. Uh
Speaker A
so there's a few thousand statisticians in the audience when she's talking and she asked them uh after presenting a huge amount of empirical evidence and results and data would you believe that more or would you believe a single
Speaker A
personal experience? The answer is always the same. It is a single personal experience even for people who know very well how to evaluate data.
Speaker A
And so the another great example recently is Kristoff Ko who who was uh one of the better known neuroscientists who came from a physics background and was a disciple of Francis Crick like like the you are your brain man and and
Speaker A
Kristoff was a a big promoter of materialism until he had a a psychedelic experience and now he's completely flipped into idealism.
Speaker A
And so that's another case. It's an N of one as we say, one case with one person who caused a transformation in world view.
Speaker A
I wonder if you can talk about um the government and remote viewing. Um this is you know we we've spoken to um some of the the early you know both practitioners and um Angela Ford who um who worked for for decades and I mean
Speaker A
some extraordinary stories and experiences. Um, one of the things that, you know, I I always bring that up to people who are skeptical and I say, "Well, we spoke to this woman and this is a thing that's happening." And a lot
Speaker A
of people say like, "Well, the government does a lot of stupid things." Like, the government does a lot of things that aren't useful. Can you explain to us what is actually happening with the use of remote viewing by our
Speaker A
government in the past, in the present, and in the future? Well, I don't know about the future. I have hopes about the future, but I don't know. So, in the past, you can trace it back to the at least the 1950s, probably
Speaker A
before that. People were definitely interested in JB Ryan's work at Duke. Uh, it accelerated in in the 1970s, early '7s, mainly because of the Cold War where we were concerned above reports out of at the time the Soviet
Speaker A
Union that there there was already a a a race for atomic weapons. there was a race for all kinds of weaponry and stories. So it became more and more important for aspects of the military and the intelligence world to find out
Speaker A
is this a threat like can we believe that this is really real and so a big chart part of the Stargate program was threat analysis which is we are hearing these stories out of China or out of Russia and is this something to be
Speaker A
concerned about? The other part was we know that they're doing remote viewing. Is that a real thing? Stargate was two parts. It was the research side and it was the operational side. I was on the research side which was not so concerned
Speaker A
with operational missions. We would hear about it occasionally but mostly it was about the research.
Speaker A
So our mission was is it a threat? Is remote viewing a real thing? Can it be improved? Can we identify people who are really good at it? That sort of thing.
Speaker A
And so yeah, it's a real thing. I mean the the methods work, the experimental methods. The analysis of the databases was a very limited piece of the actual data because I didn't get access to all of it. I had the opportunity of seeing
Speaker A
people like Ingo Swan and Joe McMonicle and a few others who are really exceptionally talented and you can't see that too many times without having a your brain explode. So I would say that of that was earlier on
Speaker A
in my career. It was uh was 1985 and that's what convinced me that if it was possible for a scientist to do this kind of research as as your job that's what I wanted to do because that was the
Speaker A
onlogical shock for me that somebody could sit in the room in this case in Menllo Park California and describe in great gory detail what was happening on the other side of the planet and not only now but in the future and be
Speaker A
correct. Well, that well how what you know what what it raises so many questions immediately that uh that just driven purely by curiosity from initially that's well who would not want to study that and of course the the odd thing was that
Speaker A
because it was classified at the time you want to go outside the building and shout that saying this stuff is really real they they're not telling us that this is a really real thing but you weren't allowed to do that. So it
Speaker A
created a little bit of a schizophrenic feeling and that I imagine works this happens a lot in classified programs.
Speaker A
I think that's a lot of what's happening and I'm going to ask you to speak to something that you know I know is not your particular field of expertise or research but I want you to apply the same sort of logic and the same sort of
Speaker A
scientific reasoning. You know, we've we've spoken to to several people now, you know, who claim that they are receiving downloads from non-human intelligence.
Speaker A
And these are very, you know, um, very amicable folks. They do not meet, you know, diagnostic criteria for, you know, for other kind of mental health or psychotic, you know, uh, diagnosis.
Speaker A
These are very very specific, very detailed, very elaborate reports. And in many cases, people talk about having the ability to summon energies, to summon lights in the sky, to summon orbs, to summon this presence.
Speaker A
It it's often reported as this female presence. Can you try and help us understand in this framework?
Speaker A
Is it possible that there are people who are tuned into even things outside right of the realm of description that we don't yet even know how to define, right? What is it to summon with some reliability and reproducibility? What is
Speaker A
it to summon orbs of light? What could be happening? Well, look at the magical traditions.
Speaker A
You would it would be conjuring, invocation, convocation, lots of different methods of supposedly pulling in spirits.
Speaker A
Uh that's been around forever from shamanism up up to the present day. Most of the remote viewers that I know have described episodes where they weren't specifically trying to contact some sort of non-human intelligence, but they did anyway. they would just show up
Speaker A
and they would have some kind of communication. You have people like Bob Bob Monroe at the Monroe Monroe Institute and so on. So it happens a lot. It also turns out to be exceptionally difficult to study from a
Speaker A
scientific perspective. So there's still some uncertainty like I'm agnostic when it comes to these kinds of experiences because until we can find a way not necessarily of bringing it into the laboratory but gaining some kind of confidence that
Speaker A
it's not a delusion and not an illusion or not something else. I don't know.
Speaker A
That's so my position is I don't know but I hear it a lot. I hear it from people who are credible uh and there's a very long history about it. So I suspect that from a from an educational or a
Speaker A
literature perspective, there's something going on. It requires a very different worldview. He so easily talks about, oh, non-human intelligence, yes, you can summon it.
Speaker A
Oh, I didn't know. No, but I think this is where a lot of people start to really struggle because it does require a different worldview.
Speaker A
And they may be okay saying we're all interconnected and that the bounds of space and time are movable, not quite what we thought they were. But then when the worldview starts getting into this other mythology that involves non-human
Speaker A
intelligence and what does that mean? And people then start to try and describe that. And the descriptions are everything from guides and guardian angels that feel a little bit more common to the variety of extraterrestrials. Some of them millions
Speaker A
of years old, some of them uh not friendly, some of them friendly, some of them having motivation, some of them communicating. Uh it begins to stretch the boundaries of what people are comfortable with because it's just like it's a wild west of of narrative. The
Speaker A
question is also, you know, is this a nomenclature difference, right? Was what the prophet Ezekiel described another version of an alien? Was it also God?
Speaker A
You know, does is it a gargoyle if you're in, you know, medieval Germany? Is it, you know, like what what is it?
Speaker A
Could it be anything? Because we're all just trying to use our cultural framework, our cultural understanding to try and like wrap our heads around it.
Speaker A
Laura Burn since she was a very young child said that she just they were just lights everywhere that she communicated with that spoke to her like that that's how she framed it. She's like you can call it angels. I don't know. She said
Speaker A
it was just these beings that communicated with me openly. And one [clears throat] last thing before we let you jump into this uh Meyer that we're causing. Mime's favorite response after she goes on an episode and talks to someone who has an experience like
Speaker A
this. She says, "If aliens are millions of years more advanced, do they really need to communicate through this one person? Can't they find another way to share the information to humanity that we're supposed to change?" Well, what I
Speaker A
say is that if when we're talking about aliens, if we're talking about something that is likely far more sophisticated and and likely possibly millions of years older than us, the the fact that they might be communicating through like
Speaker A
random dude in the middle of the country who no one believes or has access to, like I don't know what he's tuned into.
Speaker A
And that to me is like that's the genetic study to do. What's going on?
Speaker A
What signaling molecules does this dude have? If he's receiving this kind of information. Also, yeah, I don't think that aliens, if they do exist and are millions of years old, that they need to use subtrafuge and be like, "Whoops, we
Speaker A
crashed our aircraft into Roswell. Like, we don't know what we're doing." like we're talking about a level of sophistication that might not need you know to be communicated through orbs but we'll let you respond.
Speaker A
That is a big big topic. [laughter] It it is adjacent to the study of sci phenomena because now it is clear that consciousness and these phenomenas are all mashed together. I often think of stories like the miracle at Fatima in
Speaker A
Portugal. So this wasn't all that long ago maybe a hundred years or so. Uh, but you have tens of thousands of people seeing something weird in the sky which was interpreted in religious terms because that's what the context was. So
Speaker A
I I'm I'm along the the same uh way of thinking about this as Jacqu file. I talked to Jacques about this fairly often and it's it's not a new phenomenon. It's been around forever and it's interpreted historically and by culture and so on as
Speaker A
you said. So what what is it? So what I think one of the reasons that from a uh from an everyday embodied sense it is frightening to imagine that we are saturated with other entities around that most people to most people is
Speaker A
invisible. I mean if you're already afraid of a of a of an owl YOU KNOW WHAT THAT'S A LOW BLOW.
Speaker A
That's great. I love it. That's a low blow. If you're afraid of an owl, how are you going to feel about aliens watching you?
Speaker A
You know what? That was the test. That was God being like, "Let's see how she does with an owl and then we'll send the aliens next." And the thing is, what if it wasn't an owl?
Speaker A
Oh, Jesus. See, so owls are traditionally among the various kinds of animals, spirit animals from traditionals that that you would see it as an owl, but it is actually not.
Speaker A
Stop it. I'm going to cry now. See, so I I remember uh when I was something like 12 or 13 years old, I I saw what I now interpret as a Thunderbird, a gigantic eagle, like way too big to be
Speaker A
an actual eagle. This turned out to be in the middle of Arakcoy land. We're driving through that when we was a kid.
Speaker A
Uh and I didn't know that that was a thing for for that particular heritage.
Speaker A
Uh, but this this was an eagle which was sitting on a the side of the road which was basically about the size of the car we were in. So I remember turning to my brother and my parents are in the front.
Speaker A
They said, "Did did you see that thing?" Because I saw it coming like from a far distance and it went past us and it turned and it looked at me as we went past and so and very very clearly and I
Speaker A
didn't I didn't feel spooked by it. I just felt uh well that that's interesting. Hi. Hi, Big Bird. You know, you're you're a big big bird, aren't you? So, I mean, it took many years later until I realized that, oh, well,
Speaker A
the the Thunderbird is a harbinger of of the future. Okay. Well, maybe I was intended to work on this stuff then because the Thunderbird said I needed to work on it.
Speaker A
Did anyone else in the car see it? It was just you. Nobody else saw it. So, I don't know.
Speaker A
It's Was it a hallucination? I don't know what it was, but it was very vivid and and it, you know, you can have it's like a lucid dream or a dream where things seem solidly real. I have no way
Speaker A
of knowing if it was real or not. It felt real. Felt as real as people say in a psychedelic trip that this was realer than real, like more vividly real. Well, what do we do with that? Somebody takes
Speaker A
DMT and they started communicating with the machine elves. They certainly seem real during those 10 minutes that you're in there. So I know I I have friends who who are similar to Jonathan who can evoke such things either visually or can hear it
Speaker A
sometimes or both. And I can't do that. And internally it's because I'm afraid of it. I don't want my owl to suddenly turn into something that's not an owl. I I'm comfortable with an owl. Now you're just rubbing it
Speaker A
in. Okay. Like now you're just being like arrogant. Now I have the feeling about ravens. So I was I walk in the morning and this morning I walked past two ravens this morning who are on the ground and they
Speaker A
were looking at me. You could tell if you know if especially raven's a pretty big bird. They were looking at me as I was going past and mentally I'm thinking, "Hello boys. How's it going?" No, I I didn't want I was not going to
Speaker A
approach them because I was on a fast walk. Uh, but I very rarely will see ravens around here.
Speaker A
The previous time I saw ravens, I had written about ravens as omens in that book. In fact, I mentioned it in in my book. I talk about ravens very early on in there. And that morning, I I heard
Speaker A
ravens making these strange sounds. So, a lot of this has to do with what you're open to. What are you going to pay attention to? would have been easy to simply ignore it and say, "Well, there bunch of birds over there." Uh, but I've
Speaker A
become more open to the to the historical ways of of of not filtering as much, which is very hard to do as a scientist because I spend 90% of my time in analytical mode, which is pushing all of that away.
Speaker A
But then you can switch back into a different mode. And I assume, Jonathan, that that is true with you as well. you can switch into a mode where suddenly this stuff becomes front and center as opposed to most of the time it's
Speaker A
actually pushed away. You can't be in a highly analytical mode or doing a lot of things while this is happening. Like sometimes it can come in. But yeah, and I think people are are also like it's a slippery slope because it can all
Speaker A
of a sudden degrade your reality, right? You can be lost in this internal uh maze of omens and signals and signs and what should I actually do about it? And you know, sometimes the question is like, why get
Speaker A
any of this at all? Similar to what you were talking about of people who are overwhelmed by too much telepathic information. If you're sitting on the bus and you're hearing everyone's thoughts and you can't differentiate, like why get this information? And
Speaker A
Elizabeth Cronin also said this, right? She's like, why am I getting all of this information and these world events and I'm seeing these horrific plane crashes?
Speaker A
Like what am I supposed to do with this? And then you can feel guilty about not letting somebody know even though it's not obvious who you who you would tell.
Speaker A
And there's al a danger in it too because then they think you caused it.
Speaker A
This is uh I don't know if you know about the premonitions bureau. I'm sure you do. Um you know where they they tried to catalog you know specifically with psychiatric patients who often were wrong but if they are right one time
Speaker A
right that's enormously significant. Meaning you can have someone who you would otherwise diagnose as a paranoid schizophrenic, right? Or someone in the psychotic break and they're predicting all sorts of things, right, with all sorts of detail. But if one thing that
Speaker A
they predict has, you know, by Julia Mossbridge's designation, right, three to seven things that are indisputably accurate about a coal mine disaster, right, or any train wreck, there is no statistical reason why they should be correct anytime. And it doesn't mean
Speaker A
that there's not other things going on right psychiatrically that you know we can absolutely talk about and analyze but there is no way to explain away the accuracy with which they can predict something that's significant.
Speaker A
Look at this from the point of view of an intelligence analyst. They're dealing with a huge amount of noise. So what they look for are commonalities. So if you have a hundred schizophrenics who are describing something and it turns
Speaker A
out that there is a commonality that's still very useful but it would take somebody to actually do the analysis of all of this horribly noisy information and kind of squish it into something that makes sense.
Speaker A
So the one thing we haven't talked about yet is the global consciousness project because th this is yet another way of that that we're investigating to see is there actually some kind of connectivity at a global scale.
Speaker A
And so this is a project that that started out of uh the Princeton pair lab. Roger Nelson started this thing.
Speaker A
Have you talked about this before on your show? I don't think so. No. So the background is this. So in the laboratory uh to study mind matter interaction the one of the first instruments that was developed was a
Speaker A
true random number generator where you have a quantum source for generating random bits and in the laboratory the the usual protocol was uh give somebody the intention that they'll press a button a whole bunch of bits are generated but your job is get more one
Speaker A
bits than zero bits and so you do you press the button you get some kind of result and now press the button and get more zero bits and now press it again and don't do anything. That's a called a
Speaker A
tripolar protocol. And so if you look at the data from the pair lab and other labs, it's very clear that probabilistically that happens. Well, it shouldn't happen. In fact, we know during the control period that it's give you a random walk around zero. So
Speaker A
Roger Nelson was one of the researchers there and and he got the idea that you cannot have intention without also having attention. And so maybe what we're seeing is a combination of two things here. One is focused attention
Speaker A
with a little spin on top which is the intention that you give somebody. But maybe attention alone does something. So he started a line of work called field consciousness experiments where he'd go into a group of people who were doing
Speaker A
something along the same wavelength like meditators or a chorus group or something like that and put a random generator in the vicinity and didn't tell anybody and then had control data before they started doing whatever the group did and then during the group and
Speaker A
then after the group. And sure enough, during coherent moments of mental attention in a group, you see a deviation from chance.
Speaker A
It's low entropy, right? Yes. It's a negropic deviation. So, we figured, okay, you need a model of something like dual aspect monism to begin to understand why this could even happen. Dual aspect monism is saying that yes, there is a physical world,
Speaker A
there is the world of matter, but there's also a world of the mental world. And they are correlated because they come out of the same place. What is the same place is called the unis mundus, the one world, the one holistic
Speaker A
world. But these two things split. And because they come out of the same source, as with any correlation, they're correlated, right? They're they have a common source. So mind and matter are inextraably linked. So if you have mind
Speaker A
going into an unusual state of coherence then matter that's associated with the mind has to also go into a state of coherence. How do we see that? We see it through a negotropic effect.
Speaker A
So in 1998 after a number of us have been doing these experiments like one-off experiments with a big TV show happening like the Academy Awards where millions of people are mentally in the same time place.
Speaker A
We de we devised this worldwide network that Roger called the the global coh uh global consciousness project to take advantage of predicted events where we knew that millions of people would be paying attention to the same thing at
Speaker A
the same time or unpredicted events like terrorist attacks and deaths of celebrities and things like that. again pulled by media where hundreds of millions to billions of people suddenly go into a mental coherent state. Then the question is well what happens to
Speaker A
this worldwide network of random generators because they were distributed in cities around the world. And so we did 500 formal events. And the way it would work is there either be a predicted event or some unpredicted event, but we would say we're going to
Speaker A
define that the event of interest was from this time to that time. And then we're going to look at the data. And we used a the same method of analysis in each case. So after 500 events, the odds
Speaker A
against chance of seeing a negotropic effect was 3 trillion to one. It just kept getting more and more significant the further along we went. There are various interpretations about what's going on, but my favorite interpretation is something like dual aspect monism.
Speaker A
We're saying minds becoming coherent and the physical world does too. And there's nothing magical about random number generators. It's just easier to collect the data automatically and statistically it's very easy to see a deviation.
Speaker A
So that is suggesting that at least at an unconscious level that this this connectivity that we're talking about is really real that a whole bunch of people will have a similar mental experience and aspects of the physical world
Speaker A
changes as a result. That's really interesting now because it means not only from one to one person but community to community. If you have a community next door that is not doing so well and is sending out vibes of noise,
Speaker A
even though you're trying to meditate and be quiet where you are, you're going to be influenced by them. This also speaks to, you know, the power of prayer. Um the notion of a community praying for you and what that means,
Speaker A
right? Um, in in the Jewish tradition, if someone has survived a life-threatening crisis, there's a prayer that is recited and you have to recite it, right, in the presence of the community. Even kadesh, right? The prayer for mourning, you have to say in
Speaker A
a group of 10 people because there is something about being present, right, in a community. So many traditions, you know, have these kinds of notions [clears throat] of things change when people feel more connected and are more connected. It's
Speaker A
really um it's a very special, you know, way also to to approach sort of our existence that it changes the way you think about war, about conflict, right?
Speaker A
uh non-violent communication is one of the one of the the methods, right, that are often used in these high high conflict places to say it matters if you reflect, right, what the other person is experiencing. It's um this really it
Speaker A
works very consistently. Um Dr. Raiden, it's such a pleasure to talk to you and this was really such a great conversation. We we really appreciate your time. Where can people find out not just about the science of magic but all
Speaker A
of the other things that you do? I work at the Institute of Noetic Sciences which is noetic.org and OEIC.
Speaker A
Uh my personal website is deanraden.com. Uh and I also co-founded a company that's developing a genetic treatment for dementia which points back into what you were mentioning before. Is there a genetic difference among people who have these abilities versus not? We think the
Speaker A
answer is yes. Uh but we're still waiting for the $10 million to be able to do the study that we want, which would require a lot of exemplars to really narrow it down. the the the company that I developed or I I
Speaker A
co-founded is partially predicated on the idea that would it be possible to genetically edit somebody a human temporarily to take them from wherever they were and turn them into a psychically talented person. And I think the answer is yes. I think we'll
Speaker A
eventually get there. Jonathan is offering me up as a candidate. Do you need guinea pigs?
Speaker A
But the opposite is also true. The opposite is true. So if you get somebody who is diagnosed as a schizophrenic and they can't stand it, we may be able to turn off all of the sensitivities that they're getting and make you make them
Speaker A
feel quote normal again. How do we do that? Well, I I'll explain the genetics to you later if you'd like.
Speaker A
Yeah, you can upregulate or downregulate. Let's put it that way. Yeah. Well, and also we didn't get to talk about it, but something um we're very interested in is the Bankston method. um and this notion of kind of
Speaker A
what it means to heal, to have that capability um and what some of those changes are, which again is is, you know, part of the connectivity conversation. Um thank you so much for bringing the world of science fiction
Speaker A
into the true scientific uh vernacular for us. We really appreciate it. My pleasure. [music] Definitely freaked me out when he said maybe it wasn't an owl. I don't want to think about that.
Speaker A
I mean, it could have been an what what he said was if you're scared of the owl, then the universe is not going to test you by showing you anything other than [snorts] the owl. No.
Speaker A
So, you're limiting your potent cuz what you what do you say? You say, "Why can't I summon the lights? How come the lights don't come to me?" You know what? I have never been so thrilled to be insulted on this podcast
Speaker A
than when he was like, "Well, you know, some people can't deal with an owl." So, [laughter] how are they going to deal with an alien?
Speaker A
But plenty of fearful people see things and have contact with aliens. It's not just about fear.
Speaker A
Okay, let's let's actually talk about this for a second. You walk into the backyard.
Speaker A
I get scared all the time. And there's an alien. What what are you gonna do? What's your first response?
Speaker A
I mean, curiosity. Here's the thing. I think you know what I think you get scared when you hear someone that you don't expect in the hallway that you're adjacent to. Imagine you saw an alien and then every sound that you
Speaker A
hear in your house, you're going to be like, I think what's more accurate that what Jonathan's trying to describe is I sometimes get scared when I just forget he's in the next room and I'll walk into a room and he's right there and it
Speaker A
freaks me out. But you know what I'm going to say? You know what I first thought of?
Speaker A
You need to put a little bell around your aliens. When when you are a parent of a young child who has let's say a medical crisis, one would assume and it is a very terrifying experience. I found that when I was in situations that were
Speaker A
I had a few that were very very time-sensitive. You're good in a crisis. I'm good in a crisis. So I would like to think that even though I am fearful and I mean I cried a couple times in this
Speaker A
episode, just kept kind of shoving it down. I would like to think that if I were confronted with an alien, I would be able to be in a different state that I would be able to, you know, process
Speaker A
something unusual or exceptional that was happening in in that moment. I don't want to think I would just run screaming.
Speaker A
But it's not a high um intensity situation in so much as I'm sorry, interfacing with an alien.
Speaker A
That sounds pretty intense. There's not a time lock like there is with a child who you need to take action. There's no immediate action that you know you should take. It's an open-ended scenario, which you hate.
Speaker A
[laughter] You hate small talk. You hate parties. Now you have to interface with an alien with an alien who you don't even know how they like what their social customs are.
Speaker A
Dr. Raiden is someone that that we've been wanting to talk to for a long time.
Speaker A
And you know what? He he he really I it was a different flavor of understanding that I think I hadn't had before.
Speaker A
What are your biggest takeaways? There was a couple moments where you freaked out. He very casually was like well now we know that like you know consciousness and communication with non-human intelligence they're all just mushed together.
Speaker A
Oh, I was like, okay. So, we've now progressed from the con the consciousness is fundamental conversation to expanding consciousness not only gets you in touch with deeper parts of yourself, a feeling of connection with the universe. When you are in an altered
Speaker A
state of consciousness or when you interact with the larger consciousness system, the LCS, right?
Speaker A
You are then open to other realms of communication, whether that be energetic, whether that be paranormal, like it's kind of all the same thing.
Speaker A
What is the human mind capable of? How did you feel when you heard terrified?
Speaker A
Great. [laughter] What are you going to ask that you're processing all this information that your conscious awareness is not actually processing the physiolog people's like knowing if it's going to be a calm image or a Yes. So the first thing I thought of was
Speaker A
the phalamus which is like the um you know filtering kind of relay station for what am I going to say next? Is it fearful or or [laughter] calming?
Speaker A
I don't know. Well, but that's also subjective and and there are also and Dr. Raiden didn't get into it. There are ways that we can determine neutral just like with words, right? Like, and this was when I was in, you know, training in
Speaker A
in neuroscience, you know, we learned about what are neutral words. Um, you know, there there are, you know, ways to sort of devise these sorts of things.
Speaker A
But, you know, I thought about the phalamus and I did I I looked up the phalamus as a processing center for psychic information. And the first thing that came up, I think, is an AI whatever search engine. And yeah, it made sure to
Speaker A
tell me that none of this is scientifically, you know, verifiable or legitimate. But I I think that that's hoie [snorts] because if we know that the phalamus is processing and helping us understand all sorts of information that needs to be filtered out, you know,
Speaker A
the fact that we're my favorite example like we're wearing clothing right now that's not comfortable like we we should be naked, right?
Speaker A
I mean, the air conditioning would be a little cold, but there's like there's a sense of constriction. And there's a sense of, you know, constant uh stimulation of fabric on clothing, which if you have, you know, known or loved anyone who's on
Speaker A
the spectrum, they're they have a hard time filtering that out, right? So, why should we think that the phalamus wouldn't also be responsible for filtering out all of the kinds of information that would make it very difficult for you to to function? And
Speaker A
people who report being overwhelmed by psychic information, by energetic information, that's exactly what it seems like. They cannot filter it out and they cannot distinguish between what is I don't want to say important because that feels like the wrong word but what
Speaker A
should be paid attention to and what should be set aside and that combination you know when you think of children who are in a state of wonder right and they can't necessarily tell the difference between reality between fantasy and it
Speaker A
all kind of blends together that's a a beautiful natural state right that our brain can can function in my children were very pragmatic but that's just them shocking. Um that's the thing that that he said right is like why would you want to do this
Speaker A
because it can be overwhelming. Why would you want to increase your intuitive ability and there's a level of discernment required.
Speaker A
Yeah. When you're opening up that sense and that capability because you need to know what information is relevant and what isn't.
Speaker A
Well, yeah. You've talked about this with healing. You have to know what's yours and what's not.
Speaker A
What's yours and what's not and what's useful, right? The same is true in creative work, right? It's like you could have a thousand creative ideas. What do you pursue? What do you put your time in?
Speaker A
You can't do everything. You can't follow every intuitive signal or sign cuz you you know you have to focus it in a way.
Speaker A
This is one of my challenges and engineer Eton who's a musician knows this. There's an infinite number of things you can do with notes. There's just like an infinite number. Think of all the songs that have been written. I
Speaker A
mean, sometimes you hear a song and you're like, "That sounds like this." But generally speaking, there's there's an infinite number of things you can do.
Speaker A
How do you choose? This is one of my challenges with writing music. And I've tried to write music. I'm like, there's too many choices. I can't pick it. I have no sense of when it's done, when it's right. I just like I could write a
Speaker A
poem and rework it a gazillion time. You're a poet. I don't know how you decide when it's done. I don't like that. I like a beginning and a middle and an end. I like cooking. You have a recipe and you do the thing and then you
Speaker A
put it in the oven and it's done. That's what I like. Um, I'm starting the Kickstarter to have you go to the Noetic Institute.
Speaker A
This episode has been brought to you by a lack of estrogen. Don't think there's anything left to say after that.
Speaker A
Please join us over on Substack. So, I cannot wait to talk to our breakers about this this notion of like are you seeing an omen, right? A prediction.
Speaker A
Got to hear about owls, crows, name an snakes. This one with snakes. There's something with snakes. All right, from our breakdown to the one we hope you never have. We'll see you next time.
Speaker A
It's my [music] breakdown. She's going to break it down for you. She's got a neuroscience [singing] PhD or two fiction. And [music] now she's going to break down. So break down. She's going to break it down.
Topics:Dean Radinnoetic sciencesremote viewingtelepathyprecognitionpsychic phenomenaintuitionStargate programconsciousnessparapsychology
