Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Thomas Campbell on Remote Viewing, Transcendental Meditation, and Speaking to Entities [Part 2 of 2]

Episode Date: January 30, 2021

YouTube link: https://youtu.be/5nyXBX1fHpoChannel link: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheoriesOfEverything (link to Part 1 is here)Patreon for conversations on Theories of Everything, Consciousness, Free Will, and God: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal Help support conversations like this via PayPal: https://bit.ly/2EOR0M4 Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfP Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Google Podcasts: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Id3k7k7mfzahfx2fjqmw3vufb44 iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802* * *00:00:00 Introduction / Chit-chat 00:03:09 Views on Eric Weinstein and Wolfram's Theories of Everything 00:06:09 Has "My Big TOE" been published in academic journals? 00:07:19 Back to Wolfram's computational model of reality 00:08:44 Brian Whitworth's TOE vs Wolfram's 00:12:29 Klee Irwin's account of consciousness 00:15:16 What predictions does Thomas' TOE make? 00:30:35 On "entities" and communicating with them 00:42:01 Visiting "other worlds" in your mind 00:44:18 Giving advice to Curt on Transcendental Meditation 00:47:39 How can you have an "intention" but not use your "intellectual" in meditation? 00:50:01 Beginner tips for meditating 00:53:29 Should I meditate while getting a massage? 00:59:20 Training someone (from scratch) to remote view 01:04:01 Binaural beats and meditation 01:11:13 Can Thomas demonstrate his psychic abilities right now? 01:12:35 What evidence can Thomas cite (right now) regarding his theories? 01:15:16 Real remote viewing vs. fake 01:20:25 Using children to test if remote viewing works 01:24:06 Impressions from non-physical reality come to you instantly 01:26:19 Why can't you use psychic abilities to win the lottery? 01:27:54 The evidence for the paranormal 01:28:56 The Randi prize and further evidence for Psi 01:35:56 Where do aliens / UFO's fit into this model? 01:36:55 On Bob Lazar 01:39:59 Curt's explications on Thomas' view of Curt 01:42:01 Why should I care if my "consciousness" survives death if my personality / relationships don't survive? 01:47:56 AUO is outside our imagination. Why the choicy use of tellurian concepts? 01:51:39 Curt's final judgements Subscribe if you want more conversations on Theories of Everything, Consciousness, Free Will, God, and the mathematics / physics of each.* * *I'm producing an imminent documentary Better Left Unsaid http://betterleftunsaidfilm.com on the topic of "when does the left go too far?" Visit that site if you'd like to contribute to getting the film distributed (early-2021).

This is part two of my conversation with Thomas Campbell, who is the author of My Big Toe, A Large Theory of Everything. Please watch part one in order to get the most out of this interview. Enjoy. Oh yeah, I wanted to ask you specifically about your experiences when you spoke to other beings. How did they look? How did you interact?

And how did you get into that state? A couple questions around that. Okay. that state a couple questions around that okay and then if if this if different devices can be used i remember you mentioned that you can induce it with certain magnetic resonances like theta waves uh no not magnetic so much maybe i don't know i never experimented with magnetic but uh i use sound binaural beats ah right right right and then there's something called hemi sync as well which i think that's robert monroe yeah exactly so it's pretty much just that and then asking you mentioned that psi effects are not able to be replicated and then like why there's you have a

good explanation for that but sure uh one thing i should one of the things i should have told you is that if you're interested in a talk about science mostly yeah you should go to my youtube channel i know if you've been there yet but i got thousands of videos there and the one that you should pick out is called mbt 2016 mbtla mbtla 2016 i was in los angeles la in 2016 and gave a two-day talk there the first day which was all based on mbt science of course it was given to a what year was that you said 2016 oh okay okay Okay. I was watching one on the Marcel workshop. Yeah. That's a real general over the top kind of workshop. But if you're just looking for the science, do the, yeah, the Marseille.

That was in France. So it was in Marseille, France. And that was a, that's a very good workshop that kind of gives you the theory. You have quite a bit of content on your YouTube channel. I have over a thousand hours. Yeah. Basically.

Who's that? There's one lady that keeps talking to you and it's the same voice. Who's that voice? Donna. Donna Aveni. Is that the same lady I was speaking to over email or is that a different one? Probably the same lady. She and her husband Keith run MBT events.

She's got a really good voice. Very soft. It's kind of the perfect female. Soothing, pacifying. Did you happen to watch Eric Weinstein? Do you have much to comment on with regard to his theory of everything? Oh, yeah, both of them.

Yeah, I did. I looked at both of those guys and I can comment on those. Okay, so why don't i just give you a general pitch and just say why don't you comment you mentioned that you watched eric weinstein and steven wolfram videos so why don't you comment on them oh okay well of the two i found uh you know wolframs to be uh you know the most interesting to me. Weinstein basically has found a geometry that, at least in his own mind, in the mind of a few people who are close to him, explains a lot of things.

And that's not particularly surprising, but it's not necessarily new news either. Inasmuch as given that this is a virtual reality, then the reality is computed, which means it in large extent is math-based. The rule set that allowed this virtual reality to evolve is math-based. It's basically deterministic for the most part, and with some probability and randomness thrown in for those things that are probabilistic, like radioactive decay. It's a natural thing. It just happens to be a random process. So if you have a reality that's generated by math, then you ought to be able to find geometries and other math that kind of look like they are explaining the reality, you know, as Einstein did with his space-time. It doesn't mean that those things are fundamental. It doesn't mean that there is this fundamental space-time out

there that's warped. It just means that he's found some mathematics that provides answers that match pretty well with measurements, right? So it's not so much that it's a thing as it is a model. It's a model that we use, but don't confuse the model with reality. The model of reality is different. So he's come up now, Weinstein, it seems, with some other geometry. Of course, we don't really know because no paper's ever been published. It's never been formalized. It's kind of his insider friends know somewhat about it, and he does, but it's still an unpublished work, which in the science world, that means it doesn't really exist yet. You know, it's just kind of the ramblings of an individual until he gets it published. It's not real science.

But assuming he does have something, and he is a smart guy, and he knows his math, perhaps, then he probably does have something there that will work. But again, not surprising. It's a math-based reality. It's computed in a computer. So it's probably going to have, and it is a probabilistic computation for the most part, based on a deterministic rule set. So that's okay.

Maybe he has something, maybe he doesn't. It hasn't been published, but not unexpected. Has my big toe, your big toe, been published, at least the theory of everything part of it, not the more, well, any of it? Yeah, no, what's been published is the books you're reading. Those three books have been published. Other than that, there's a thousand hours

of video on YouTube. But as far as papers go, there's just been one paper that's published in a peer-review physics journal, and that's the one that describes this research that I'm having done, I told you about, at Pomona

by Cal Poly. First, I wrote the paper and got it peer reviewed and... By Pauli? His last name is Pauli? No, no, no. It's Cal Poly is what they call the school. It's California Polytech. I see, I see. I was like... Cal Poly. Same exclusion principle, not a Polly, but a Polly, a P O L Y.

Anyway. So there's not really a lot to say about Weinstein because it's, it's more hearsay than anything else. It's, it's secondhand, thirdhand hearsay. but not all that surprising. Now, Wolfram has a better idea, and that's that he's looking at it from the computing side of things, which it is a computed reality. So you should, again, expect some of what he has to match. If you look at simulations, there's a lot of common things about them. So again, it's not too hard to find something that matches pretty well. But his version seems to be very complicated. You know, it's a very complicated process. And if you if you are if you are trying to explain fundamental

reality then a good process should be simple and elegant it shouldn't be real complicated if it's very complicated it's probably not fundamental it's probably not fundamental. It's probably something else. That's basically O'Keefe's razor. And it's been a general principle of physics forever. You know, the things that are simple, straightforward, and elegant are fundamental things. Yes, you can have a lot of of logical, you know, what do we call it? logical consequences that run off into details, no doubt. But the fundamental things are simple. He's awfully complex with what he does. And I guess I probably wouldn't have this opinion, except that Brian Whitworth, a fellow

in New Zealand, has also published a sort of a tow from the computer side, as opposed from the analytic math side, like Weinstein, the computer side, process side of things. And his is a lot simpler. And he also, you know, it's a lot more elegant, and it's a lot simpler. And he also does the same thing. He derives, you know, space, mass, the, what is it? You know, the quantum particles, why they have two-thirds spin, or why, you know, whatever. He derives a lot of constants in the standard model and why the standard model is the way it is.

When did that come out? Oh, that's been out for some years. You have to Google him. He published it in a peer-reviewed paper. But I don't think it was primarily a physics journal. So there's probably fewer people that have heard about it. But it's a more elegant, kind of similar approach. Are there any other theories of everything that you find interesting, like Brian's?

No, Brian's is probably the most... Well, yeah, two of them. There's two that are very interesting. One's Brian's. Last name of Brian, one more time for me, you don't mind whitworth okay brian whitworth if you google him you'll probably dig him up and you'll see he explains light and he starts with the thing that he calls a plank process so he's a he's a you know um he's a math guy but he's also an IT guy so he's looking at computer processing

maybe I can speak to him his plant process is a fundamental thing so anyway so this is his idea the other people who are doing interesting work is a group called Quantum Gravity, centered in, oh, I don't know, about 20 miles north of Los Angeles.

And if you just put quantum gravity research on Google, you'll get them. And the guy who runs that is Klee Irwin. Oh, right, right. K-L-E-E, Klee Irwin. Yeah. He runs the quantum gravity. And he's got a bunch of physicists and some math people there. And they've been there for five or 10 years now.

And Klee is the financier who pays all the bills. So he's been working on this and they've put some really nice videos together. But if you want to get a good overview of it, he has some really good professionally done videos that kind of explain where he's going with. Also, it's a geometry. I mean, he starts with E8, which is a, which is a kind of a shadow of a shadow of a lattice, if you like. And he works from there. Now, both of these guys, Whitworth and Klee, they are trying to explain just what we call physical reality.

They're not trying to explain the bigger picture. They're not trying to explain the subjective. They only want to explain the objective world. Do they have an account of consciousness or no? Well, they do. Both of them talk about consciousness, but it's kind of a hand-waving thing. Both of them would say that consciousness is fundamental, and that their process is supportive of consciousness being a fundamental thing. So I think they would both say that, and they both, you know, consciousness is part of their thing, but it's not really what they're about.

What they're really about isn't so much consciousness. They just realize that consciousness is a thing that, you know, if you're going to have a child, you need to explain consciousness, you know, so they bring, so consciousness is there, but it's not the core thing of their work. The core thing of their work is to explain this physical universe, you see. So again, you know, if all you're trying to do is try to join quantum mechanics and relativity, maybe I should call that a tiny tau.

And what they're doing is looking at the whole physical reality, the whole physical universe. So maybe that's just a little toe. And then mine is basically the objective and the subjective and consciousness is at the core, is the source and so on. So then from my viewpoint, that's the big toe because it also talks about people's experiences and explains those sorts of things, which neither one of their models attempts to do.

So both of them started out on a, on a idea to really derive physics, you know, derive physics from, well, for Whitworth, you know, derive physics from, well, for Whitworth, you know, from a computer processing viewpoint. And I'd say he's much simpler and much more elegant. And that's why I like his better. But now are any of these fundamentally correct? Well, they're models, you know, and models are judged not by how correct they are. Models are judged by how many answers they can produce. You know, there is no,

no, this model is the truth and this model is false. It's models provide answers. And if they can answer, if they can derive all the facts that we know of, then they're good models. And if they can- Right if they can derive all the facts that we know of, then they're good models. Right, falsifiable predictions as well. Yeah, right, right. And falsifiable predictions, then they're good models. So it doesn't matter whether they're different or strange or bizarre or whatever. It just matters how do they perform.

For some of the science types who are listening, and now probably it's about three and a half hours into this. Sorry, for some of the science types who are listening, and now probably it's about three and a half hours into this. What is a falsifiable prediction or set of predictions that your big toe has? Oh, well, it has quite a few. On the non-physical side or on the information side, the subjective side, then it's all experimental, but by individuals and by groups of individuals. You know, the same way you would say that medicine has, you know, viability, you know, that medicine has truths in it. It's the same thing. Well, you give somebody a pill and their headache goes away. Does that mean that pill took the headache away? No, maybe the headache

went away anyway. You need to do statistics and you need to do probability. And then you need to show significance of those statistics before you can say that you've found something that looks like a fact. So it's a different thing than what they call the hard sciences. So when you're doing things that have to do with people, you have to look at your proof in terms of statistics and probabilities and significance levels. Okay. So if you or anybody else follows the MBT ideas about what's important to life, what our purpose is here, why we're here, and so on, you will find the results. As you let go of that fear, you will find your life changing. Your relationships will change. All sorts of things will change.

Well, that's verifiable evidence to you. So, yes, there's a lot% or 90% or 100% all find similar, you know, facts. And then you can come up to a bigger, you know, an ensemble that your statistics can talk about, but it starts with the individuals. Over on the physics side, on the objective side, well, yeah, I'm doing a set of quantum mechanics experiments now that are just like any other quantum mechanics experiments. You set up the experiments, you look at the particles and see what happens, and you're either right or you're wrong. You were able to predict it or you won't. So the physics that I'm doing has a couple of experiments that will do things that have never been done before. It'll show us a piece of reality that nobody's really seen before.

In other words, people for the last hundred years have been coming up with clever and clever quantum mechanics experiments to show, you know, the weird science of quantum mechanics. Well, the ones I'm coming up with are just like that, too. They're going to show the weird science. And that weird science has a good explanation of why it has to work that way. And like I said before, it'll offer evidence. And we always talk about evidence. We don't talk about proof in science. Last time we talked about proof in science was when we came up

with Newton's laws. And then we found out those laws weren't laws after all. So now we talk about theory because we realize that we don't know what the future will bring, what kind of insights and understandings that will bring. Is there a name for your quantum mechanics experiments that are happening at that Poly Institute? it's just a name for them no but they're all talked about people search for that's just the the thing i gave you go to youtube and look for mbtla mbt hyphen la 2016 if you look for that, I introduce the experiments there, the whole set of them. I also explain them, why they work and how they work. And the first part... So the experiments have been run already?

They are in the process of being run. And we're maybe within months, a few months of getting the answers from the very first one. So we're chugging on it. It took a long time to gather resources. You can't do that on a dime. And it's not the kind of experiments it's easy to do in your basement. You know, it's pretty sensitive stuff and takes some money to do the experiment. So first I did a Kickstarter to get the experiments done and Kickstarter

generated $236,000 to do the experiments. And we've been working on those ever since, you know, so it's taken a while to find people who would do them. A lot of scientists, well, a few scientists really started and said, oh yeah, be glad to do them. You're going to pay for it? Great. But when they heard the word consciousness was somehow connected to it, no, thank you. We don't want to get involved with that. Consciousness, that's not objective. That's subjective.

And science isn't about subjective things. So we just do science here. No, thank you. So we ran into a lot of that. So it took us quite a while before we found a group of people who would do it, and now it's being done, and we're getting close to the first answer. But the niftiest experiments are more complicated, so they'll be done not first but later, but they all are going to run out of the same basic set of equipment that we have.

So once we get the first one gone, the other ones will start to come up a lot more quickly after that. So anyway, so yeah, that is falsifiable. That's just science like any science. And when we do this, we will write another paper and we will give our results. And I'm sure that will also be published in a peer review journal because physics right now doesn't see virtual reality, or I should say more in physics terms, doesn't see information-based reality as a really strange idea. A lot of physics takes that very seriously. Matter of fact, they know that that's the only way they can get right

answers in quantum mechanics, is that they look at it as information based so i'll get that'll be published in another peer-reviewed paper once we get the the information so yeah we're doing science congratulations i know it's not easy to get even a thousand dollars on kickstarter let alone 260 that's probably us 236 okay 236. So yeah, we did pretty well. There were a whole lot of people who were very excited about that. Get that done because it's very interesting. You know, it's going to show something that this experiment predicts that standard quantum mechanics doesn't predict. Yes. Matter of fact, this very first experiment we're doing runs very counter to what quantum mechanics says is true right now so absolutely

can you give us a brief overview or you just want to direct people well the brief no the brief overview of that is that quantum mechanics started back in the early 1920s okay and the guys there, you know, Bohr, Heisenberg, Wigner, well, Einstein was, was, you know, involved with them. He wasn't primary in that, but so on that, that group of people, Schrodinger, those guys came up with in a big conference in Copenhagen, kind of a statement of the results of their experience. This was like the founding of quantum mechanics. So this is what started quantum mechanics. And after that, this explanation of here's what happened is really what the Copenhagen meeting was all about, presenting results. And here's what it means. Here's what it says. And that then was called the Copenhagen

interpretation. The word interpretation actually got added later when people wanted to find something that was more materialist-based. They didn't like the weirdness of quantum mechanics. They wanted something that wasn't that weird. So it turned into interpretation, because certainly there is some other understanding of this that's more materialism-based, has more material causality involved in it, and we just don't know it yet, so it was the Copenhagen interpretation. That Copenhagen interpretation has been kind of left behind, and now the explanation of that double slit has to do with entanglement, that the slits are entangled with the particle, and the whole

experiment is all entangled with each other. And this is why, you know, this is how the information gets captured. It gets captured in this entangled thing. And so, they've changed it in order to make it more amenable to materialism, basically. Their ideas have changed. But nobody's actually done the experiments to see if that's true. So I looked and looked and looked, and I had some physicists who,

you know, working physicists in academia who had access to more than I had to search. You know, they have better databases in their libraries and things to search. They couldn't find any experiments done either. Any experiments on entanglement? No, not on entanglement, on the change where we went from the Copenhagen to the new understanding. There wasn't any experiments done really to show that that new understanding added something valuable and that Copenhagen was not correct.

They just went that way because they had an explanation that they liked better. So that seems kind of neglectful, I believe. And the reason I got there was because my explanation that comes out of consciousness basically supports Copenhagen and says that the Copenhagen had the, you know, they had the right idea. Now they didn't understand the details. They didn't understand the mechanics of actually how it worked, but what they said about reality and how their experiments worked out and why they worked that way was true. and how their experiments worked out and why they worked that way was true. So my first experiment is to go back and do the experiment that will differentiate between was Copenhagen right

or is this new entanglement explanation right? And that should be perfectly clear. Now, what do I expect? I expect that the Copenhagen is right. And when I show that in an experiment, I expect that the physicists, when they look at it in the paper, will say, oh, yeah, well, we knew that all along. And they will do that. But yet they have turned and made other explanations that are quite contrary to that. But that's what they all used to think. You know, the Copenhagen

was the dominant idea right up until, what, 20 years ago, or 30 years ago. That was the dominant, most accepted idea about quantum mechanics. But then they've always had problems with that idea, with the observer effect, with the measurement problem, with the fact that it makes a difference whether somebody knows about the which way data. They've always had an issue with that because that pulls consciousness into the equation, the observer. And being very ill at ease with that, they found a way to squeeze that out using entanglement instead. But this is a virtual reality. The reality exists only in the minds of the players.

exists only in the minds of the players. Just like World of Warcraft, there is no place where little elves run around and fight barbarians. It doesn't really exist. It only exists in the minds of the players. If there are no players logged on, that server serves nothing, has no output. The game only exists in the minds of the players. Well, if the game only exists in the minds of the players, then it's important that a player get some information because that's how things come into that reality. The server sends a player and says, there's a rock here. Well, when that player sees that rock there, then that rock is now part of the game, and other players will see that rock there too. But it's only, that rock only exists because

players get that rock in their information, right? Because the computer sends it to them. Well, that's why you have this observer effect. It only. Reality only comes to us when it is observed, when a player gets the information. So that's the fundamental reason why there is this measurement problem and this observer effect. The observer is fundamentally important because the reality only exists in the minds of the players. So I get to the same idea that the Copenhagen group did. And since then, like I say, physics left that idea behind because consciousness and physics just was like gasoline and water or oil and water. They didn't like it, so they came up with something else.

But they came up with that something else without, in other words, we have an alternative explanation. But that alternative explanation doesn't, you know, kind of denies this observer effect. And I'm going to show that it does work the way that they said about it before. So my experiments should confirm the Copenhagen and show that the entanglement way of explaining it is wrong, is not right. So that's what they're going to do. So yeah, it's going to, you know, so that'll be the first experiment.

That's the easiest experiment to do. Good luck with that. I'm excited to see the results. So, yeah, this theory is not just woo-woo that's made up because it sounds good and only people with weak minds and new agers take it seriously. This is real science, and it's based on logic. It does real physics, and it can explain to you why you feel the way you do and why your life is the way it is.

So that's, and what it is you need to do next. What's your purpose here? So it does all of that. That makes it a big toe rather than a little toe or a tiny toe. When you were speaking to some of the other beings, I don't know what to call them, but what would you call them? Well, you just, you know, the generic name is entity.

Okay, now, so what you're talking about... Yeah, sorry, continue. I'll just show you what, you know, I'll tell you how that works, and then everything else will become obvious afterwards. The problem that people have and probably that you're having too, is that because you have, you are so ingrained with a kind of a physical viewpoint of things, it's really hard to let that go. And we reinterpret everything in terms of that context, and then it doesn't make sense.

So here goes the explanation of, you know, when you meet other things. Most out-of-body experiences are basically the person having the experience logs on to a single-player virtual reality game. Okay? You know there are single-player games, right? a single player virtual reality game. Okay. You know, there are single player games, right? All games aren't multiplayer. You know,

what is it? That's when you're having your own experience. Yeah. You're having an experience. Now, when you have a single player game, there's often other characters, other entities in that game. It's not like you're

there by yourself. There's NPCs in that game, and they do all kinds of things. Okay. And your interaction with them is part of how you learn how to win the game. It's about you and them and your skills and so on. Well, most out-of-bodies are single-player games so you're getting a data stream now directly from the larger consciousness system and that that data stream is defining a reality reality single-player game is this one that can be shared with other people even though it's single-player for example let's take fallout 4 it's a game it's a video game many people can play that same game even though it's single player so we're sharing a similar experience but we're doing it on our own yes that that can be like that but these games are often made just for that individual they're

bespoke they're yeah they're i don't know about that. Bespoke? Bespoke. They're tailor-made. They're tailor-made. Yeah, they're tailor-made most of the time. Now, there are things that happen in those games, and sometimes there are experiences that people have that are identical. It's like they've taken a module here, and they've applied it a lot of places. I've had, a matter of fact, in my book, if you've read that, Bob Monroe and I had applied it a lot of places i've had a matter of fact in my book if you've read that bob monroe and i had exactly the same set right that's why i was wondering can it be shared because it seemed like you spoke to similar beings that's they ask similar questions well now what that was was a standardized test bob got that test i got that test. You get tests here from the larger consciousness system. Why? Because

it would, you know, you have to see this whole thing that ties together. We're pieces of consciousness. We're trying, we are parts of the system. As we evolve by lowering our entropy, the system entropy also gets lowered because we're part of the system. So the system would like us to succeed in lowering entropy because it's lowered. You know, it also evolves as we evolve. Its entropy gets lowered as well. So it will often give us a single player game to help us learn something important to help us grow up. Sometimes it needs to give us some tests to see just where we are, because otherwise it can't determine what it is we need to help us grow up

if it doesn't know kind of where we are in that growth process. So testing is involved, just like any other school. And some of these tests are standardized. So Bob got one. I got the same test. Got exactly the same questions, exactly in the same order. And I have run into at least six other people that I have shared tests with. Not the same one that I did with Bob, but others.

And we could just share what happened. And it was exactly the same scenario. So it's like we all had the, if you want to put it in other language, we all had the same dream, you know, and we interacted with it, how we interacted with it, but the layout was all exactly the same. So some of it, yes, will show up to different people, but mostly it's a one-off. It's for that person, depending on where they are, starting at their level, and gives them challenges with things that they have to meet, with ways that they have to grow.

So most out-of-body is like that. Now, I went on an out-of-body with a friend of mine, Dennis and I, I mentioned him already, I think, earlier. We went on an out-of-body together. So that was a two-player game. And we ran into other entities and had conversations and did other things during that. But that was a two-player game. So that's possible.

And two's possible. And three or four or five or ten's possible. But most of that just happens in the margins because that gets more complicated. And it requires more skill. So basically, they're one-offs. So when you go to another reality frame, you're getting another data stream. Information defines reality. Consciousness is fundamental. Everything else is virtual. So when you die, you end up in another virtual reality, a different virtual reality. You don't end up at the source, and now you and consciousness are sitting down at a bar together having a conversation.

You don't end up in some place where everybody's smart. You just go to another virtual reality. Now, to take that one step further, if any space that you're in is experiential, that means you can experience there. It's not a matter of just existing, but you can do things. There's causality. Things you can change. You can have an experience there. Two things. There's causality. You know, things you can change. You can have an experience there. If you can have an experience there, it's a virtual reality. Experience requires context. You can't have an experience if there's no context that defines the experience. Context is created by rules. Rules create the context. You know, like if I just say, okay, Kurt, let's go play a game.

All right, you go first, go. Well, you don't know what to do because there's no context. There's no rules, right? So there's no game. There's nothing there. Right, but rules can spontaneously emerge, right? For example, with children, when they play, they often don't specify the rules and they come up with the game. Yeah, it's a collective agreement, but now we can talk about collective consciousness and other sorts of things. But I'll try to stay, well, let's try to stay focused. We zinged around so much that it's just such an interesting period. We start down this path and get about a third of the way there and zing, we go someplace else and get about a third away there and zing someplace else so anyway your your question your question uh my question was essentially about

beings other seeing other entities now so the way that i understand it they're data streams you see everything's a data stream so when we think about i talk to an entity well you know where do they come from where do they live you? Do they live in houses? Do they eat? Do they poop? What's going on there? Are these really people like us? But no, it's information. Everything, consciousness is fundamental. It creates information. Reality, experiential things like experiencing another being, talking to another being. That's an experiential thing. That happens in a virtual reality. It's information-based.

Everything is information-based. So this reality we call the physical universe, it's just information. It only exists in the heads of the players. And you go out of body and you just basically log on to some other virtual realities just like going from sims to world of warcraft to no man's sky you know you just log on to a different a different you got it you got a modern game right there though yeah so you're not stuck in 2000s anymore yeah all my video knowledge is watching my children play when they were like teenagers they're all in their middle to late 30s now.

No Man's Sky is a great example because it's procedurally generated on the spot. Right, which is the way, you know, reality is procedurally generated right on the spot. For the most part, it's a probabilistic thing. So, yeah, that's much more efficient that way. So, in any case, so if you let go of the idea that reality is real stuff, it's mass, and the stuff really here really exists, and you see it as information, then out-of-bodies and dreams and all of these things where we find ourselves in daydreams as well, you know, not just nightdreams, but daydreams where we find ourselves in some other reality. It's just another data stream. Now, we are

consciousness, and we can create information. Information is non-physical. Information is not a physical thing. It's a non-physical thing. Information is separate from data. Data is a physical thing. Data, you transfer things in data. Information is the meaning, the content, the significance of that data. It takes a consciousness to have information because the consciousness interprets the data into its reality, into some kind of meaning or content. Without a consciousness to interpret the data, well, it's just a piece of

paper with a lot of ink squiggles on it. That's not information, that's data. But a consciousness looks at those ink squiggles on that page, and oh, that's information. You see, so realities created by information, our sense data produces information, which creates this reality. All right, well, it's the same with the elf. The elf's sense data, quote unquote, you know, the things that it would sense, the things it sees, the things it feels, the things it hears, well, that's all information. And the player gets that information. The player sees what the elf sees and what the elf hears and so on, if the player has a headset on and the player's watching the screen. So that's sense data. So the sense data, you know, of the elf is sent to the player and the player experiences what the elf experiences, sort of. But now with consciousness,

it's much more embedded. It's a hundred percent involvement. So anyway, so now we talk about being. So what is a being? A being is something you can talk to. It's something that responds to you. It's something you can carry on a conversation with. It talks as opposed to a rock, which doesn't talk back. In order to get to these single player games, these other worlds, let's say, does one have to have a lower entropy already, or it doesn't matter? Anyone can experience it. Well, anyone can experience it. And a lot of people do. But if that's the case and they don't have low entropy, it's extremely haphazard. It just happens when it happens. And sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It's just one of those things that is totally out of their control. Sometimes they have an out-of-body experience.

Sometimes they have things. Now, some people learn to control it reasonably well. But as you lower your entropy, the ease with which you can control it grows. It gets easier and easier. When you first learn to meditate, it takes you 15 minutes to get into a good meditation state. Eventually, you can get into a good meditation state in a tenth of a second. It doesn't take long. Same without a body. Same with exploring and being in other reality frames and getting information out of databases. You can do that in fractions of a second, and you can parallel process in more than one reality at a time. So I can be talking to you, and you can be telling me about how your poor mother fell down the steps and hurt herself, and could I help heal her? And while I'm having a conversation with you, I'll be doing the healing at the same time at

another level. I'll be working in another, and you're conscious of both in some manner. Yeah, conscious of both. It's not that hard to do. I mean, it's like multitasking, or is it different? No, it's like multitasking. It's a similar thing. I mean, you see, people go into a sports bar, and they'll have five different things showing on a big screen, you know, five different sport events. Well, with a little practice, you can watch all five of them and hardly miss anything, you know, but it is a zero sum game. You can't, you can't spend a hundred percent of your attention on anyone.

You have to spread your attention over, over all of them. And it's the same way with this. So yes, you can do that because you can grab hold of data streams, let go of them, be here, be there. And it's all a matter of focusing your intent and practicing this. And most people can do some of these things with, you know, I don't know, six months worth of practice. I mean, it doesn't, it's not that hard to do. It's natural to us. Speaking of transcendental meditation, is it better for me to do it 20 minutes twice a day or once for one hour a day?

So that's three times as long. It's probably better to do it twice a day for 20 minutes each time. And if that gets easy and you really enjoy it and get a lot out of it, then you can maybe do it for 30 minutes twice a day. I'll tell you a bit of my experience. So firstly, it's been only a month and a half and i haven't done it consistently but the times that i find when i do it longer the shorter times i get virtually nothing out of it and most of the time i get virtually nothing

out of it but some of the times i get it's more like i'm in a place where i feel like i'm floating it's almost like i'm swimming slowly and And I imagine like, analogize it to a turtle just like, Oh, hello, this is interesting. And then there's also some clarity. Not just some, but it's strange. I have a distracted mind. And so it's calming some of that down. But it takes quite a bit of time to calm it down. First of all, so that's why I have to do it for longer. That's why I was asking maybe one hour is better for me. For you, it may be. Like I say, it's process. Now, eventually, you can do it very quickly. But in the beginning, it's a slow trip for most people. They constantly have thoughts coming into their mind that they need to let go of until they can sit for, say, a half an hour with

no thoughts in their mind at all. Let's imagine that my mantra was Shima, just for the sake of this. Okay, I don't know if I'm saying it properly. Am I supposed to just repeat Shima, or am I supposed to time it with my breath, or is that a mistake because now I'm consciously timing it with my breath? Because I find it happens automatically, it goes with my breath. Right. So the thing is, you want to let your intellect sit down and be quiet. So if synchronizing it requires your intellect to do it,

you have to think about it to do it, then that's a problem. You want things to just happen. So you just say your mantra and you think it. You don't say it out loud. You just think your mantra and you think it. And what you're doing is loud. You just think your mantra. And you think it. And what you're doing is you're filling your awareness full of non-operable junk. A mantra. A nonsense thing. And you say that. And that fills your mind.

Your wife's real cute with her little ears up on top of her head. I know. I told her, can you just sneak by and not say anything don't even acknowledge me usually we kiss before she goes but i said i'm gonna be in this oh you should have kissed her that's all right you can all you can you can always edit that out but yeah anyway the little ears were cute yeah uh okay so where were we um yeah if it takes to take it to all the time it needs if it it takes you a half an hour, just to get to the point where it's getting productive, then take that time because stopping before it gets productive is not good. You need to get time when it's productive. But I'll challenge you with something else that when you're that turtle, and you're just up there and you're kind of drifting and whatever. and you're just up there and you're kind of drifting and whatever. Now, if you have an intent that you would like to see what was going on in your mother-in-law's house or your parents' house

or with your best friend who lives someplace else, what is he doing now? Have that intention and just let things come into your mind. Yeah, okay. Help me out with the difference between intention and intellect, because I imagine that if I was to intend it, then it would be as if I'm using my intellect. No. Yes. That's a problem. If you're using your intellect, that will destroy it. And that's the hardest thing for you to get through is to get your intellect to sit down and be quiet because you are an intellectual. You lead with your intellect.

Your intellect does all the judging and assessing and so on. And you have a really hard time engaging in anything without your intellect leading. So your problem will be your intellect is always going to jump in front to take charge because that's how you live your life. So that will be your intellect's always going to jump in front to take charge because that's how you live your life. So that will be your most difficult thing. But if you can let that intellect just be there and just experience, don't judge it, don't assess it, don't analyze it, just experience it. Now that sounds easy, but it's hard when your intellect jumps in. Let's say that you do, and you're just a turtle, and you might say, well, is there anybody out there I could communicate with? A thought, and something would come, you get some answer back, and as soon as you get the

answer back, you go, what was that? Who was that? Did I just make that up? You see, your intellect jumps right to it. But if you can keep that intellect from jumping in and just experience, let it go wherever it goes. It doesn't matter what the content is. It doesn't matter whether it's all ridiculous. Just let it go wherever it goes, however it wants to go there. You're a scientist. You just want to know what's going to happen if I just let this thing run, not judge whether this is real or whether this is helpful or anything else, just experience. And if you can do that, then at that point where you're the turtle drifting, you can have an intent and to see something somewhere. And that

means you're remote viewing now. Or you can have an intent to look at somebody's health and say that you see a humanoid body that's all white, and you can say the white is healthy and anything black or dark is unhealthy. And the more unhealthy it is, the darker it is. So a light gray thing would be somebody that's maybe not feeling too well, has a cold, the flu or something, and maybe a big black spot right here would be a tumor in a lung or in a breast or something. So anyway, you can do these things with your mind. Is there an activity that you find works particularly well for somewhat beginners like myself? For example, you just mentioned, go in and say, is there anyone here I could talk to and then see

what happens are there any more suggestions well yes the biggest suggestion is start with an intention of why you want to do this if why you want to do it is just to experience reality experience the bigger picture if one exists you'd like to experience it you know if that is your point that's okay but it's even better if you'd like to grow up you'd like to become more you'd like to have a bigger picture you'd like to increase your understanding you'd like to to know is there and it can't be okay so for example it can't be how can i solve this particular problem i can't go in with that intention because that would automatically be engaging my intellect from the game it would be

it would be much harder to do because that would do you right now well you did it man what are your first times with the debugging inspirational to me yeah i'm not saying it's it's uh even hard to do i'm saying it'll probably be hard for you to do. So I wouldn't expect that you start that way. That's because your intellect will get into that problem right away. But once you get to the point where you can get into this intuitive state or being level state and not an intellectual state, then there's all kinds of things that are open to you that you can do. And yes, solving problems are one of them. You can do things like that. So developing what you're doing now, what I encourage you to do is to develop your intuitive side. Spend some time like you've spent developing your intellectual side, developing your intuitive

side. And it will take a little time and some practice. But you have to do that by getting your intellect to sit down and be quiet and not interrupt, not jump into it. You have to just plain experience. In other words, instead of doing, you have to just be. You and your mind just being, which see, that's why everybody starts with meditation. That's the end point of your meditation is to just be. Not to be thinking about anything, just to be, to exist, kind of the day car moment, right? You know, I am, I exist, I have mind. And if you can settle into that state, which is what you're learning through your meditation practice, and then you can maintain that state without your intellect jumping into the game,

you will be able to do all of the paranormal things rather easily. They're not that hard to do. And eventually, getting into that intuitive space will be easy because you've done it hundreds of times. You have done evidential things hundreds of times, and you'll see that, well, these times when I kind of entered it this way, it worked really well. And these times when I was different, you had a different approach to it, a different attitude and so on, it didn't work. So you will learn what works, what doesn't work so working with

evidential stuff is an important way to start um things that you can verify later and one of the main reasons to meditate is simply to calm down to remove the distractions so does that mean that like for example later today i have a massage should I be meditating when I get my massage? I imagine that if I try, I would just be pulled out by the frequent pain. Well, you should probably to maximize the effect of the massage, you should be with that massage. In other words, your mind, your awareness should be with the body in the sense that you're not thinking about anything, but you're feeling everything, every touch,

every push, and you want your mind... You don't want to feel this lady, man. She hurts like heck, man. It's way too much. I have to distract myself from that. Well, tell her to ease off then. Not so hard there. It makes her go harder.

No, I'm just kidding. I like a fairly hard massage myself. I like it if it hurts good. As soon as I say that it's painful, she said, oh, great. We have some friends. And then she goes a little bit harder. Quickly, as an aside, I have to interrupt and let you know that in South Etobicoke, if you're in South Etobicoke in Toronto, and you want the best massages, at least the best massage that I've ever had from

a registered massage therapist, that is an RMT, someone who can write a note so that you can claim it under health insurance. She fixes parts of my back and my shoulder that I had no idea needed remedying. The best massages that I've ever had are with her. I'm getting nothing from this testimonial, nothing at all, no free massages, nothing. ever had are with her. I'm getting nothing from this testimonial, nothing at all. No free massages, nothing. I just believe in her a tremendous amount. She's a tiny lady who happens to be extremely strong for whatever reason. Almost every person that I've referenced to her loves her and becomes a repeat client.

So if you like deep tissue massages and you can handle pain, then email toe at indiefilmto.com, and I'll text you or email you her number. But she's wonderful. The best massages I've ever had. Well, in your mind, what you have to focus on is that her hands are releasing stress. Her hands are releasing knots. Knots are little balls of stress. And you are going to feel better. You're going to be better. You're going to be healthier. Your immune system is going to feel better. You're going to be better. You're going to be healthier. Your immune system is going to work better. You physically are going to be more in tune without all these little stress knots in it. And if you see that soon, you feel that pain,

feel that stress being pushed out of your body. Imagine that muscle instead of being knotted up like that, just relaxing relaxing and am i repeating the mantra at this point or this has nothing to do with transcendental well it does have it's all related but you don't have to repeat the mantra you can if that helps keep you in that space yes you can keep saying the mantra and then as you feel things yeah as you feel things, then have the intention that all those things you feel are making you healthier. They're all making you better. You're getting rid of toxins and poisons and knots of stress and tension. And it's all going to help you think better and be better and move better.

So now you translate that pain into, oh, that feels like I'm getting better. That feels like I'm getting rid of stress. And when you have a positive attitude toward it, rather than, oh, that feels like pain, you know, that hurts. The more you think about it, the more you think about it, the more it hurts. Change the way I frame it. Change the way you frame it. the more it hurts.

Change the way I frame it. Change the way you frame it. Frame it positively, but do it not intellectually, but just because you're floating there like a turtle. And a turtle getting a massage. But your intention is that that massage is a step toward a better you and better health. So it could put your positive intent to it. And then all through the massage,

you are raising the probability of that massage giving you much better health because your intention modifies the future probability. So anyway, yes, you can engage that way. Now, eventually, when can engage that way. Now, eventually, when you've practiced this for, I don't know, your very left brain, like me. I was like that. I was a physicist. You know, physicists are very left brain, very logical process oriented.

Though you said that you were able to get to that state fairly easily, at least in your first time, because you'd remembered that you'd done it when you were younger. Yeah, I fell into that very easily when I picked it up again in graduate school. But in any case, and I came into this world a very right brain little guy. And I knew that I had to develop the logical side, that I had already a pretty strong intuitive side, but I needed a logical side. And it wasn't easy. a pretty strong intuitive side, but I needed a logical side. And it wasn't easy. I worked very, very hard to develop that intellectual side and that logical side. And eventually it became easy. If you work on something, it gets easier and easier. So I've already started this life more intuitive, had to develop the left side. So that's my own thing. But a lot of people, see, I see a lot of people like you who are connected with my book because it is the only on-ramp to a bigger picture for logical process people. It is a logical process. So quite a few

people, when I teach people how to do paranormal things, quite a few of them are just like you. They are very left brain dominant, very logical process dominant. But all of them have some great successes after a while. What's the process like when you teach them? Do you start with transcendental and then you just do a regimen of do that twice a day and then come back and then after two weeks, this one out try healing your spouse if you want to uh if you want to go through the process it's easy to do again everything i do i try to make it free and you can go to my

youtube site and look for the very latest tmi video, TMI, the Monroe Institute. I went to the Monroe Institute just as a facility. They wanted me, they asked me to come there. So I did. And I gave one of my courses telling people how to experience the larger system. And the reason I give those courses, I, I re I refrain from giving them though. I was asked many times because I don't really want to be Mr. Out of Body or Mr. Paranormal. I'm a physicist. I want to be taken seriously. So I kind of low-key that. But on the other hand, I tell people that if it's not your experience, it's not your truth.

So go learn. But I don't really give them a path to do that. So they caught me up short on that little piece of logic. And I started offering these courses to help them do that. So if you go to the YouTube, find the last TMI, which I did last August. So you'll find it August 2020. And look at that, and you will have the whole- 2019, you mean, right? Unless you did it during the coronavirus. Yeah, 2019. It'll be 2019, right? So when you find that one, that's the whole course. Now, all you have to do to make the course complete is go to MBT events. And I think for 20 bucks or 25 bucks, you can get a set of the binaural beats that I used during that course for those people.

during that course for those people. And basically the way the format's set up is that I talk to people and explain to them what's happening and what's going on. Are those binaural beats related to Hemisync or is that completely independent? No, they are related. I'll tell you that story next, okay? Bring that back up.

So you get those binaural beats and I think there's like 13 of them and maybe one thrown in to help people sleep if they want. But there's 13 there and you'll go through a process. I'll explain, give you the understanding, give you pointers and things to do and things to not do. And then you go take a binaural beat session, which is 50 minutes and go experience. Go try to 5-0 or 5-1-5. It's a 50? 50 minutes. Yeah. 5-0. 50-1-5. It's a 50?

50 minutes. Yeah. 5-0. 50 minutes. A little less than an hour. Yeah. And then you come back and then you say, well, it didn't work. Nothing happened.

Or, oh, I got this or I got that. What does that mean? And then there's questions. And the people who were there will ask me questions. And they'll ask me things. And I explained to them, I'm the coach basically, because I've been there and I experienced all these things. So I know what they're going through.

So I coached them and I say, well, here's what the problem was. You need to not do this, or here's where your intellect got into it. And I give them some help. Then it's time to go listen to another one. So they go back out and do it again. And we keep doing that for four days, five days. How many times in one day?

Four times in a day. Interesting. So there's going to be, I think it's, well, some was four when I was a TMI, I think it was four times in a day. Other places, sometimes it's three. It depends on the course and how many days it is and so on. So that is the course. So you can, for 25 bucks, you can get a complete course that costs 2,500 bucks. And the only thing you're missing is the ability to ask your own questions. But then Keith and Donna, who run my events, they just started with a, what they called an add-on course, which means people like you could go spend the $25, go get that video, actually do the course. And then we'll get together for what, six hours a day for three or four days in a row, and then you get to ask your questions.

We do a little bit of healing and remote viewing with the people while we were there. Basically, this is the chance. You've already done the work. You've done the course. This is the chance to come actually ask your questions if you have them. So for $25, you can get a $2,500 course. It's not quite as good as being there, but it's probably a 95% of it. It's pretty close to being there. I'll leave the link. I'll display it right now on screen as well as put it in the description

so people can go check it out themselves too. oh you were mentioning hemi-sync and the relationship between that and binaural beats okay hemi-sync dennis and i um came up with the ran into well actually dennis saw in a scientific american back in 1960 something it was was published in Scientific American that binaural beats entrained brainwaves. So if you have a binaural beat, I guess I should tell your listeners, if you have a pure tone in this ear, a pure tone in that ear, and if the tones are slightly different, let's say four hertz different, then if you do those in air, you'll get a four hertz beat. You know, here's a speaker and here's a speaker and they're looking at each other, you'll get a four hertz beat. Here's a speaker and here's a speaker and they're looking at each other. You'll get a four hertz beat. So a four hertz beat would be something like one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, two, three, four, one, two, three, four.

So that's what would happen. Now you put it in headphones, you stick it in your ear, particularly these kinds of headphones, little earbuds are good. And you stick it in your ear. Now, pure tone here, pure tone here, four hertz difference. And the signals get through the audio nerves down to the corpus callosum, which is the membrane between the two hemispheres. And at that point, they actually generate a beat frequency inside your brain, as opposed to inside the air. The medium for the beat frequency is your brain. It's oscillating neurons or what? It's, well, that is not, we don't know that for sure,

but we know that if you put EEG on that measures brainwaves, and if that's four Hertz, your brainwave energy will tend to move to the four Hertz. That's what they mean by brainwave entrainment. Now to say that, whether it's, you know, shaking neurons or something that's physiologists who want to know the correlation between what's happening in the brain and what, what comes out of an EEG, I wouldn't speak to that.

But in any case, it entrains brainwaves in the sense that your brainwave is like energy on the vertical axis and frequency on the horizontal axis. So you generally have different kinds of frequencies popping off up and down all over the place. meditate the energy under the area, under the curve of all these things going up and down, the energy there, it tends to move toward the alpha state and the theta state. Okay, alpha brainwave. So they put these things on monks who are really good at meditating. Just for people watching, I use this, which is supposedly to help the gamma. And then it does have a theta setting. Yeah.

Okay. So that's, anyway, that's the idea of a binaural beat. And it does entrain brainwaves. And they know that meditators, when they meditate, they slide, the energy slides from all over the place to down to the theta, low alpha theta region. Okay. So that's, if you want something to

help you meditate then you take a binaural beat of about four hertz because four hertz is right there in in the middle of theta region if you just want to relax then you have a hurt you know a difference frequency of say uh eight or ten hertz which is low alpha and now you just now you're just mellow you see so and if you want to wake up then you send it up to you know 20 hertz or 40 hertz or something else and now you're bright-eyed and bushy-tailed so it's a brainwave entrainment now you have to cooperate with it it's not that it forces you to do something it just encourages encourages you toward an area. If you don't cooperate with it, it isn't going to affect you. It's not something scary that's taking over your mind.

So it's an ancilla. It helps you. Yeah, it just helps you. So if you're not a good meditator yet, then it's a tool that will help you meditate, and it will help you meditate, and it'll help you keep that meditation state. But like all such crutches, you need to know when to take them off. You know, if you put those little training wheels on your bicycle when you're five years old and learn to ride a bike, well, they'll help you because they'll keep you from falling over and,

and getting hurt. So, but if you're ever going to be good at riding a bike, you've got to take those little wheels off because they prevent you from leaning into a turn. So it's the same with this. You can use the binaural beats as much as you need them to maintain that, that intuitive state down in the theta region. But eventually, you need to be able to do it on your own and take the headphones off. So it's not something to do forever, but it's something to do as long as you need that help, then you should use it.

So it's a good tool. So anyway, Dennis read the article. It's a good tool. So anyway, Dennis read the article. We were working at the lab and anything that are very effective for going out of body, which is the theta state, which is just before you get to delta, which is like you lose consciousness. So anyway, we found that out. And Bob took that binaural beat. He was gone at the time. And then some weeks later, he came back. we showed him what we'd done and told him, wow, it works better than anything we've tried so far. And he liked it as well. He experimented

with it. And then he took some binaural beats and added them to this little kind of surfy sound he had that had kind of a four hertz modulation, but it wasn't binaural. And it was relaxing, but it didn't have the power of the binaural beat. He added the binaural beat to it and named it Hemi Sync and got a patent on it. So that's TMI's patented sound that they use to encourage people to be in a good and stay in a good meditation state. It's called, you know, it's that. So you can buy things from Monroe Institute, TMI,

and it'll have, you know, that in it, HemiSync. And the reason he called it HemiSync is they had a brain scan, you know, sort of like a CAT scan thing, things that look at your brains and the energy and areas that light up and don't light up. And when you listen to the sound, or if you can meditate without it, either way, you'll find that the two hemispheres, which are scattered all over, they start to get symmetric. They start to look the same. And so that's where the heisync came from. You use the hemisphere, sinking the hemispheres is the hemisync.

For the people watching, I'm sure they're thinking, okay, earlier you said that you can access NPMR fairly easily now because you've practiced it. And NPMR affords you greater access to information. So is there something that you can do? Please tell me if this is uncouth, but is there something that you can do, even if it takes two minutes or whatever, in order to give some evidence for someone who's watching that you're accessing a place where there's information that you wouldn't have access

to otherwise? So for example, to not to make this a carnival trick at all, but to say my birthday or my birth month or whatever it could be. It's not uncouth, but it's not really effective and it doesn't work. I've been there and done that and it doesn't work so much. And here's why. It's all intellectual. It doesn't help anybody. If you want to see evidence of people being able to do these things,

I mean, real stuff that's written out, you know, not just some guy because if you and I do something, you know, and I do some kind of thing with you and whatever, well, you and I could just be collaborating on that. You know, we could, you and I are co-conspirators. It doesn't really prove anything to people. So they have to experience it themselves or it's not their truth. Reading about it, listening to it, seeing people do it, unless it's done with them,

unless they're part of it, then it just doesn't help. It doesn't help them grow at all. It may get a gee whiz out of them, but it doesn't really help. So what they can do if they really are serious about wanting evidence to see it, then what they should do is go to a remote viewing site. Now, there's lots of remote viewing sites, but go to ones where they're really serious about it, where they study it, where they take remote viewing as a science. They're working on it.

Get involved with them. In other words. Are there any that you recommend? There's dozens of them. There's lots of them. You can find groups. I mean, you know, there is. Have you heard of Dean Radin?

Yeah, I've heard of Dean Radin. Dean Radin does real experiments. Look at Dean Radin's work. Read his book. He's a good guy. He does real experiments, and he's very serious about his protocols and his science. So, he's written a bunch of books. Read his books, and that would give you evidence. But again, people read the books, and they say, yeah, well, he could just be making all this up. just be making all this up. And you'll go to a remote viewing site and you can say, yeah, but all these people, maybe they're just making it up. So it won't help unless you find a good remote viewing site because you can call D. Radin. He probably won't let you just come in his lab. That would be probably it's not going to do that for very many people. But anyway. So the reason it won't work is because people won't believe it. No, the reason it's not worth doing is that people won't believe it.

It's just not a good idea for one reason. And two, like I say, I try to keep low profile on the weird side of things. So the more I do things like that, that is what I get remembered for. I can talk about the nature of reality and science and quantum mechanics for 100 hours, and I do one paranormal stunt, and that is how I know. That just puts me in the light that I don't want to be in. I'm still a serious scientist, and I need to get serious attention in the scientific world. So I don't want to emphasize that part of what I do. But go to a remote viewing site, look at one, get the sense that they're really real people doing

things. Join them, visit the site, spend a week, spend a month or two, you know, in what, following their sessions, following their things. Go to a course. There's hundreds of courses on remote viewing. You have to get involved yourself. If you don't get involved yourself, it's not going to affect you one bit. The reason I asked for some recommendations is because clearly there are some people who are scammers and then clearly there are people who, well, not clearly, but the claim is that there are people who are not. So then how does one disentangle? There's not that many scammers. You're not going to find scammers putting up a remote viewing site where a bunch of people are pretending to remote view. That I think would be probably a very low probability. If you have a

bunch of people, spend some time, interact with them, send them emails. Do they seem like they're wild and crazy and just trying to convince you of something? Or are they just doing science and you can watch if you like, you know, that sort of thing. You have to come to that assessment yourself. And yes, that takes a little time. And if I were to give you a site, I don't really have any, but if I gave you one, then that's not all that helpful because I'm a weird guy giving you some weird site. Of course, I'd give you some scam site where they would convince you of what I wanted you convinced of. See, it just, that doesn't work. You have to go do the work yourself.

You have to go to the site. You have to talk to the people. You have to get some sense of how sound they are, how serious they are about remote viewing and about, you know, the judging the remote views and look at their targets. They'll show you, well, here were the targets, and here's what the remote viewers got. And you'll see that some of them are sketchy, and some of them are surprising or amazing. Well, logic says that if just one person can do it once, then it's possible.

After that, it's only a matter of learning, growing it, becoming it. The possibility of it is easy to come by. You just have to take some time and do it for yourself. So it's your search. You talk to the people. They've helped you. Maybe you went to the course and you take a course from them if they teach courses. And eventually you'll be doing it.

But if all you do is meditate, find out, become a turtle every once in a while. And in that turtle, come up with some things you'd like to see someplace and check and see if you see them. And if you can just keep your, if you can just experience, I just want to experience. I'm not going to judge it. I'm not going to say, oh, is this right? What does that mean? You know, I'm not going to analyze it. I'm just going to let the experience come. If you can do that, then you'll find that you will be amazed at the information you will pick up and you'll get better at it over time. And then you won't see it. You won't have that question. Is it real? Because you'll know because you did it. And that's the only way to know for sure, not your experience, not your truth. So rather than put on a show that doesn't really help anybody grow up, I encourage people to go find out, go do it yourself. And remote viewing is easy.

Healing somebody with your mind is even easier than remote viewing, somebody with your mind is even easier than remote viewing, because there's more uncertainty involved. Your ability to do these things is tied directly to the uncertainty surrounding what it is that you're doing. And we could explain all of that, too. But in any case, there's a connection. But because what bodies are hugely complex things and the things that they can do leaves always a lot of uncertainty. You know, people do have stage four cancer given three months to live and get rid of it. It goes away. It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen. It's possible.

So that's uncertainty. You see, that helps you be able to work in the health area. So probably healing with your mind is one of the simplest things anybody can do. But now, instead of remote viewing, you either get it right or get it wrong. See, you can go to a site and practice remote viewing. There's lots of sites. You Google remote viewing targets. And basically, you'll go to that site, and remote viewing. There's lots of sites. You Google remote viewing targets. And basically, you'll go to that site, and the site will give you a number.

And that number is associated with targets. So let's say there's 100,000 pictures. And you get a number that's associated with one of those pictures. And your job is to look at that number and remote view the picture that's associated with it. Remote viewing is just getting data out of a database. Have you, just for yourself, not for anyone else, but have you done that where you've gone to a website and then consistently been able to see the pictures

associated with the numbers? Yeah, I've been able to do that where I would consistently do that. Now, if I practiced at it a lot, I get better at it because I don't do those things much. I don't find a lot of need to do those. Those are things I did, what, 30 years ago when I was learning and growing and I needed to understand and I was practicing and getting better. Once you have it, it's not really that practical a tool. It's not something you really need to do. I recall you saying that children have an easier time getting to NPMR. Is that correct? Oh, yes. Children have a much easier time. And the reason is they don't have that big intellect blocking them. Does that not mean that we can use that as a test where we ask children to remote view

for us and then see if they're able to predict it better than adults? You could. You could do that. I suspect if you'd have to get maybe a couple of hundred children and run them through a very specific kind of situations and see what sort of things they do. They're very imaginative as well. Most children, when they meet an adult, what they try to do is tell the adult whatever the adult wants to hear. So if they get the idea that you'd like them to

tell you something, like there must be something in that room, and what is it? Well, they'll go right away with their imagination trying to figure out what it is because they want to give the right answer. We kind of teach them that rather than just be open to whatever answer. But yes, in general, if you've got lots of kids, you'd find that they were generally much better than that, than a group of a thousand adults. The children would get it right more often. Sure. Sure enough. Anyway, you go to the site, you wrote remote view, then you type your number back in and up comes the picture. So now you got what you wrote down. I see. I see. That's pretty good. And then there's the picture now. So you got an you wrote down. I see. I see. That's pretty good. And then there's the picture now. So you got an immediate, did I get it right? Did I get it wrong? And how much

of it did I get right? Did I get part of it right? You know, because you're not just remote viewing the whole picture, you're remote viewing elements of it and aspects of it and feelings of it. You know, what does it smell like? What does it sound like? Is it happy? Is it sad? Is it big? Is it small? You're doing all of those kinds of things because as a beginner, that's easier than what's the picture look like? That's harder for you to rock when you're a beginner. When you're just starting, you break it down into all kinds of little things and you'll surprise yourself how much of it you can get when you do that. Okay. And that's the place where you start. And it's easy. I mean, you get the site it's free and you get immediate feedback of whether you got it right or wrong. Now with healing, you don't get immediate feedback. Okay.

You heal, you know, if you want sick people for targets, go talk to your grandmother. You know, she knows people who aren't feeling well And then you can ask her, well, how's Susie doing now? Is she feeling any better? And grandma will tell you perhaps. So you need to get feedback. But now you have to do it hundreds of times and start looking at statistics and start looking at the difficulty of the case. Is it something that's chronic or is it something that's just minor like a headache? So that kind of thing. Now, you can get some immediate feedback on diagnosis

where you look at someone and just see what's wrong with them. And then you can ask grandma what the diagnosis is. What did Susie have? Then you can ask grandma, you know, what the diagnosis is. What did Susie have? So there's lots of ways for you to practice that don't take a lot of effort on your part or any money. Just go spend some time doing it. And your key problem is going to be your intellect. Your key problem is going to get that intellect to sit down

while you just open yourself to whatever comes, whatever happens. And another hint is that the database is fast. You're really getting this data out of a database. And when you have your intention is how you do the query. When you send out that intention and instantly the result comes in. It's not like Google that takes, you know, a half a second before the results come in. It comes back instantly. So a lot of people will put out their intention and then they'll get ready for the result.

But the result's already been delivered and they missed it. So you have to be aware that it's coming very, very quickly. So the first thing, the first idea that comes into your mind, the first sensation. That's interesting. What else would people be aware of? Because that's a tidbit I haven't heard before. Yeah, take the very first thing.

Well, the second thing that I would share with you, break it up into pieces. Don't just try to see the whole picture. Break it up into pieces. So what does try to see the whole picture. Okay. Break it up into pieces. So what does it feel like? You know, what's the, what's the ambience? What are the basic colors? You know, is it red or yellow or green or, or what is it? Is it rainbow colors? What is it? Does it have a cell, a smell? Does it have a, a sense of, you know, is it, is it light or dark?

You know, those kinds of things. And what are the elements, say, in your mind? Say, well, what are the architectural elements? And you may just get a picture of a circle. So, you put a circle, and you can say, well, what else? So, do it in stages. What else? Oh, a line over here. All right, put the line over there. Anything else? Oh, yeah, zigzag line down the side. And just keep doing that until you say, is there anything else? And you'll get nothing. Well, then you're done. And when you get nothing and you've gone through all of those things, then you look at your lines and zigzags and circle and look at your picture and see if there's any relationship between what you did in that picture. Now, the probability that you're

going to get things that really fit that picture is probably what probably, what, 1 in 10,000, you know? I mean, there's all these pictures, and the pictures are not like pictures of fog. These are very, you know, they have a lot of things in the pictures. They're very clear elements. They've been picked for remote viewing for that reason. So it's not likely that you're going to get, say, 75%, 80% of all the elements right. Yes, you might get one of them. You might get two of them just by being lucky.

But you consider it a success if you get, what, half of them? Can people use this to win the lottery or to make money? They can try, but it mostly doesn't work because because the system doesn't allow it because it's not on the path of low entropy it's a path of high entropy so the system does not allow it matter of fact there was a there was a story i read that a fellow who was very good at this, and I think he did it professionally. He was probably one of those people that, you know, stands up and picks people out of the audience and tells them about their grandmother or something like that. He was somebody who was

very talented about getting data out of the databases. So he did the winning lottery number, He did the winning lottery number and he wrote it down and he didn't buy a ticket or anything. He just wrote it down and he got it. He wrote it down correctly and he did that again. He did it several times where he predicted the lottery correctly. So he said, OK, I'm going to buy a ticket this time. And he predicted what it was going to be. And he bought the ticket. And he didn't win the lottery, but he had all the numbers right,

except they were all off by one digit all the way through. Well, that was just the system telling him, nice try, but no banana. You're not going to do that. So it wasn't like he was far off i mean he was far off every digit was wrong but it was always wrong by just one this seems to me to be incontrovertible evidence but yet it's not as if it's clear that this phenomenon is replicable and so i don't see why it's so hard. Why is it that the system won't allow the paranormal or remote viewing to be proved or to be shown to be true with more evidence? doing remote viewing very seriously, you'll find, just go look for it.

And you'll find that there's lots of evidence out there. If you're looking for evidence, read Dean Radin's books. He talks lots of experiments. All those things are just exactly the way he says they are. He's not a goofball doing crazy stuff. He's's a smart guy and he's very careful about his science he sees himself as a as a scientist doing these experiments so there's lots of proof there's lots of stuff out there that's not a problem there's a skeptic his name is randall or randy right he has some price price yes right right so why hasn't that been claimed? I don't understand. Well, that has been claimed, but it's never been paid. So that's if you're looking for a scam that I would classify as a scam. So, you know, that's a that's politics. That's that's showmanship. That's not that he actually intended to give any money away. It was just a, I don't know, I guess a salvo in propaganda wars.

And perhaps it had to be that way, because if the person was able to claim the prize, then the system should not have given that person the answer. Because as you're mentioning with the lottery. There have been people who have done what they said they would do, things that kind of showed that, you know, they did paranormal things or whatever. There's not that.

There's lots of people who can do those things. And most of them probably are just amateurs at it. So if you put them on stage and make, you know, put a lot of people watching, they may, their intellect gets in the way, their fear gets in the way. But there's plenty that can, under stress, can perform pretty flawlessly. And some of those took Randy at his word, and Randy basically said, no, must have been a trick. I don't know what the trick was, but it must have been a trick somehow.

You don't win. So it's not really a real thing. Randy and other people who call themselves skeptics, that's their belief. Their belief is that it's impossible, and they'll go to great lengths to try to push that belief forward. But they're not really skeptics at all. They're just believers, and they're just believers that it isn't possible, and they're trying to convince others to believe what they believe. So I very much am a skeptic, and I encourage everybody to be skeptical. Just because you are talking to somebody in the non-physical, you need to be very skeptical of anything you get. Maybe you just made it up. Remember, you are consciousness, and you can create information. And when you get something, you get a data stream. Part of that data stream could be

because you created it. That's the daydream, right? You can create data, or it could come from the system, or it could come from some other individual. All consciousness is netted. We're all connected. We can open and close connections to other consciousnesses. They can send things to us. So there's only three possibilities. It comes from the system.

It comes from some other IEOC, or you make it up yourself. And there's no tags on any of that. It's not like one comes in blue and the other comes in red. It's all just information. And we get all of that information. Sometimes all three of them scramble together and you can't say for sure, for certain where it comes from. It can be coming from you as a possibility. it can be coming from you as a possibility with experience you get you do know more what's yours and what's not when things come to you and they surprise the heck out of you because you just don't have that idea in your mind then you know that you just get it's it's it's obvious to you that that came from outside of you and if if that happens many, many times and things turn out to be correct and you can remote view and you can heal and all this stuff,

then the idea of is this real? Is it coming from outside of me and I'm making it all up? Well, you're not going to heal somebody if you're making it all up. You're not going to remote view. You're not going to be very successful getting the picture elements right if you're just making it all up. So you can convince yourself that it's real.. So you can convince yourself that it's real. But you have to convince yourself that it's real and nobody else can convince you. And matter of fact, people like you and I, who are very left brain dominant because we're science guys,

we are very hard to come to the, we're very difficult to come to the conclusion that it's real. I was working with Bob and probably had, you know, one in a hundred thousand at the things that I was doing was just good luck. You know, I'm a good guesser. You write a 10 digit number on the board and I'm just good at guessing it. You know, well, if you do the math, you can keep track of the statistics. And it was, you it was extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely that I was doing what I was doing just by good luck.

You know, people just happened to get healthy after I worked on them and things like that. So I had lots and lots of evidence, but I still didn't believe it in my mind. Well, I don't know how it works. Therefore, it could be something very mundane that I'm just missing. So I tend, and most left brain people tend to be very hard to convince that it's real. There is something real out there that's outside of you that you can interact with and interacts with our reality. But the thing that took me over the top was when I went with Dennis on that out-of-body together and it was taped. And it was a tape of everything

Dennis said and a separate tape of everything I said. And you play those tapes together, synchronize them in time, and Dennis and I are talking back and forth to each other in conversation. Well, that's kind of hard to fake that if you're making it up. You know, that's really, really hard. So after that, and we saw the same things, we talked to the same beings. And that was the thing that got it out of my mind down to the being level. After that, I didn't ask anymore, is it real? Even though intellectually, I knew it was real. anymore is it real even though intellectually i knew it was real what a hundred thousand to one i'm a good guesser now there's something else going on there obviously but i didn't let it get to me at the bean level until way later i was at bob's for probably a couple of

years before that thing that that denn Dennis and I did that made me feel it's real. So I suspect you'll be the same and so will most everybody else. It's a techie. It takes a lot for us to change our fundamental view of the nature of reality. We need proof. We need a lot of evidence, and it should be that way. You should be skeptical. You meet some being out there and they said, oh, yeah, this is God talking. And what I want you to do is go shoot those people, you know, like some crazy people do. And you got to be skeptical. You got to say, whoa, no, thank you. Just because something talks to you and tells you that they're God isn't a reason to believe a word of it.

You know, you always remain skeptical of everything you get. And only slowly do you collect enough evidence that you can that you no longer worry about is it true or not. Do UFOs fit into your theory in any way? Or aliens? Yeah, in kind of a sideways way they do. We live in a virtual reality. So anything that is in your reality is just a matter of information in your data stream.

If you and your five friends are all standing out on the balcony of your house and a flying saucer comes down and lands in your yard, and little green men come out and wave to you, get back in their ship and fly away, and all five of you saw it, well, how could that happen? Well, if you're a materialist, then you have to imagine that there's aliens, and they live someplace, and they have high technology, and they can build ships, and they flew there, and they landed in your yard. But if you realize it's a virtual reality, you can say, oh, somebody put that in my data stream. It's just data. Reality is created by data in a data stream. What about people like Bob Lazar who said that they worked on craft and the craft operate on

interesting physics, which seems to imply that it does have a material basis, at least for aliens or their craft? Well, lots of things have a material basis, you say. Most of that is done in their minds. Most of that is not done with their physical selves. It may sound that way, but that's mostly all mental. They get there in their minds. They make that connection with their minds. They see that lab with their minds and they maybe look at technology. So it's that kind of a thing. It's consciousness. Meaning that the U.S. government doesn't house it and it's just in Bob Lazar's mind or that all the people in that facility are collectively getting data from the same stream? No, I'm not sure now we've got a facility involved. We did have just one individual.

Yeah, what I meant was that Bob Lazar was someone who, at least he claims to have worked at a facility near Area 51. I think it was called S1. He was a particle physicist before, and he was recruited by the United States government to come work on some top secret project when he got there and he saw the craft. He said he actually chuckled himself because he said, Oh, look, it's just US technology. And that's what people are in a clamor about when it comes to saying that UFOs exist, because he was one of those people who thought the UFOs doesn't exist. So he's like, Okay, well, here's the explanation. Then when he got to working on it more and more, he realized this is a technology that we don't have and that it operates by what he calls gravitational wave amplification, which is not something that we possess.

Yeah. I would be very skeptical of that because I'm skeptical of everything. So I would advise anyone to be very skeptical of that. Now, aliens in general are something that's outside of our normal reality, right? That's an outside thing. So for people to think that there are aliens sneaking around and doing things and having conversations with aliens, that's a mind opener into a reality being bigger than what we just thought. It's not just what we see and what we hear, what we read and what we study in science, but it might be bigger than that. Well, that's a positive thing in as much as it cracks the mind open a bit to bigger possibilities than just the stuff that's standard and that's a good thing so i can see

that the consciousness system in order to crack those minds open might be using aliens as a way of doing that so that's that's one thing okay so so yeah it's that, but that doesn't mean that there are... Tom, I got to get going to my massage. All right, go get your massage. I'm going to try out some of the techniques. We could go on like this for weeks, but I suspect... Did you get your two questions answered? Oh, I definitely got my two questions answered. Okay, good.

And some more. Thank you. Okay, good. Well, I'll see you later. Go get a massage. Thank you, my friend. And I appreciate you being so generous with your time. And I appreciate you helping me through this.

I know that I give the impression that I'm a closed-minded intellectual, but I wouldn't be talking to you if I was. And I think if you knew some of my views, you'd be somewhat astonished because, well, let me put it this way. I'm not convinced materialism is correct, nor not correct. And same with the multiverse. Same with Wolfram's theories, same with yours, I'm sorry, but I don't know what's true. And so when I do my meditation, I do go in with the intention of not having an intention, I just go because I want to see I want to feel and you mentioned that maybe that could be holding me back, maybe I should go in with the intention of not having an intention. I just go because I want to see, I want to feel. And you mentioned that maybe that could be holding me back.

Maybe I should go in with a bit more of a focus, but then I am an intellectual and so it would mess with it. But either way, I just wanted you to know that. And the only reason I didn't correct you at any time is because I didn't want it to seem like I'm defensive about it. And it's, and also I don't, it doesn't matter to, I also want to see where would you go with that? Where are you going to say that I'm more of a, a physicalist or a dualist or non-dualist? And I was just curious.

So I'm poking at you because I'm poking at myself. I don't know, but I'm not trying to be falsely humble and say, I don't know all the answers. Like some people, I don't know the answers, but I'm not going to claim that I don't know all the answers because I find that people who do that are virtue signaling when they do that. Either way, that's where I stand. That's a good place to stand. Look, you're a seeker. You're trying to find the truth. And you will if you keep searching. If you put the time into it, if you make an effort, if you're serious about it, you will get there. And there's only one truth, but there's thousands of paths that'll

get you to that truth. So just work on it. And the things that work for you, do those. The things that don't work for you, let them go. And you will eventually end up at that one truth if you keep after it. One question that occurs to me now, and hopefully you can answer it briefly. I know that it takes quite some time. But one question is, when you mentioned that we're this consciousness, and we're logged on to the game, and that ordinarily we identify with the avatar of the game, and that that's a mistake, and what we should identify with, because it's true, at least in your theory, sorry, to put quotation marks around it. At least it's true in your theory that this is who we truly are the consciousness of love that's logged on. Then you said that when we die, well, some parts of our memory, I'm not sure if some parts are all but regardless, let's not harp on that. Some parts of the memory at least

continue on as well as with your choices, whether you've done good or bad or evil or lower entropy or raise entropy, however, you would like to word it. What I'm wondering is, is that supposed to bring someone comfort? I hear some people say this plenty. I hear some of the people who are on the more Vedic ends of the tradition that say, well, your consciousness does continue on past your death. Now on the Western end, they'll say your consciousness continues, but you go to a place. Whereas on the more Eastern end, it's your consciousness continues, but it's not you. It's not your ego. It's something else.

But then what I'm wondering is the Eastern side doesn't seem to provide at least someone like me. It doesn't provide me with any comfort because that me, that me, the player that's logged on bears so little resemblance to who I identify with now that it would be just like a materialist trying to give me hope by saying well all your molecules are going to continue on anyway so technically you do live on you're breathing the sun from you're breathing the big bang so you are like i'm like okay well i see that but it bears so little resemblance to what i conceptualize as my identity i don't give you a lot of comfort

either that that free will awareness unit we talked about before, that's the part that's really logged on. That's the piece of the IEOC, individual unit of consciousness, that's logged on to the avatar. That's a one-off. When after that life is done, that partition is taken down, it's integrated back into the individual unit of consciousness, and now a new partition gets put down with just what has been learned, and that goes off and logs on. So all of those petitions, all those free will awareness units are just one-offs. When they're done, they're done. But what you accumulate is all of your experience, all your growth, all of your learning, all of your quality, all of your entropy reduction, that is accumulated. And you have a database. It's not memory, but you have a database of all the things that you've done,

all the thoughts, all the feelings. What about your friends? What about the relationships? Are those also cataloged? Because I could imagine that even if somehow I am to continue on with my attributes, but if I don't have the people that I love around me and I'm not able to recognize them at least, then that also is somewhat meaningless, at least to me, at least right now. Yeah. That's because where you are now and the way you see life and so on and an ego that wants to continue on as you and wants to continue on those relationships because, you know, your children, your wife, you know, there's people who are dear to you and you want that to continue

on. It doesn't. That is here. When you die, your awareness of your life here begins to fade like a dream. And you don't continue that. It's not practical. Yes, that's kind of soft and warm, and it's comforting, but it doesn't work that way because it isn't functional. It doesn't work. So let's say here you are, and you've been through 10,000 lifetimes, and you've had 10,000 sets of parents, you've had 30,000 children, whatever, and you're going to remember all those and want to do something with all those relationships, or is had 30,000 children, whatever, and you're going to remember all those and want to do something with all those relationships? Or is it just the last 20? Or the last 500? You know, it doesn't work that way. That just is going to wad you up into a big ball of

stuff that is emotionally grabbing at you, and it's not going to be functional at all. Each time you take what you've learned, you graduate from third grade, and you take what you've learned, and you go into fourth grade. And it's a new experience, new teacher, new subjects, expect you to know new things. So it's that comfort of you being you. Well, it's only a problem if you see you as Kurt. If that's you in your mind as Kurt, then you have this problem. But if you in your mind is your individuated unit of consciousness, the collector of all the experience, if that's you, then you lives on forever.

And it's not a problem. You realize that these relationships you have now, as meaningful as they are, they happen because those are the people you ran into. If you're born on the opposite side of the planet, you'd run into different people, and next lifetime, you're going to run into different people too, and most of your learning comes from these relationships. They're very important. They're very significant. But, you know, so is your third grade teacher significant, but you don't make her come along into the fourth grade with you. It's done.

So, yeah, that's a cold, prickly kind of thought to a lot of people who see themselves as their body. They want that body person to continue and all those relationships to continue because that's kind of warm and whatever. And I guess Christianity tends to satisfy that warm, fuzzy feeling some because that's something a lot of people like. It's a very attractive thing to offer. And Islam. islam and islam yeah that's not how it that's not really how it works it's not practical it's not logical the system you know i didn't put reincarnation in my system because i thought it was a really cool idea and the buddha liked it you know i put it in

there because it was logically necessary for the system to work and okay okay oh man there's one bit i i know i gotta go and i know i keep getting you but here's what here's something that if i'm being honest here's something that always i guess it's like a splinter in the mind to use the term from the matrix with when i was reading your book it's at times there's a denigration of thinking of the world in a traditional sense, because AUM is so outside of what we can fathom. It's so enigmatic. But then at the same time, there seems to be a selective applying of certain principles that we can fathom here. So let's say you use some entropy analogies, or you use the word logic, but even logic itself, there's paraconsistent logic, there's classical logic,

there's intuitionist logic, that's not clear. So then I'm like, well, why is it that AUO, if one was to apply the traditional man in the sky, or if one was Hindu, Brahman, Brahma, or Brahmin, and we are just part of the infinite dreams of Brahman, then those are to be bestowed as well as other formulations, like it's a consciousness that we can even conceive of, or that there are physical laws that I think you understand what I'm saying. I do understand what you're saying. Yeah. And I would tell you that these are all, these are all different models and these models are basically built with metaphors. All of my models, metaphor,

larger conscious system is a metaphor for source, you know, individual unit of consciousness, a metaphor, free will awareness units, a metaphor. All these things are metaphors for functions of consciousness that are necessary in order to model consciousness accurately. So that's what they are. There are other models around. And these other models have their own metaphors and their own tool sets, things they make up. Tools are things that you create could make it easier to understand. So there's all sorts of models around. And I would tell you that to be a seeker, stay skeptical and see how it works for you. Where does it take you? And that's how you decide,

not with your intellect, but by trying it, becoming it, living it, thinking about it, but applying it, not just thinking, not just coming up with a bunch of intellectual stuff inside your head that you can contrast and compare. That's not going to really help you learn anything. You need to actually walk that path, do those things, and see how does it feel. What are you learning? What are you getting from it? You walk that path for six months, and are you a better person now? Do you feel good a year from now? After that, when you get to the point that you say, no, I'm not really changing any, it's not really doing that much for me, then go someplace else.

Thousands and thousands of different paths that all will take you to the same place. As long as you stay open-minded and skeptical, you will always get to the end point. You'll make it. It may be a circuitous path, but you will make it. So just go do. Experience. Be. Don't just think about it.

Don't keep it all in your head. And then ask the question, is it helping? Am I better? Is my life better? Am I better? Is my life better? Am I happier? Are my relationships better? Is it working? In the book, I say, taste the pudding.

And if it's working for you, do more of it. When it stops working for you, do less of it. Go somewhere else. Okay. That sounds like a great place to end it, man. Thank you so much again for your extreme generosity. And I got to get going. I'm a bit late, but have to end it, man. Thank you so much again for your extreme generosity. And I got to get going. I'm a bit late, but have a great one, man.

I appreciate it. Hey, never be late to a massage. I'm going to read some thoughts. Thomas Campbell was one of the most highly requested guests on this podcast. So I tried to be as thorough as possible. I'm interested in the truth, though plenty of people consider him to be pseudoscience. I think that's unfair. While I get plenty of praise for interviewing Jeremy Korbel on UFOs,

there were quite a few who disliked the subject matter being broached. I happen to dislike anathemas. If you're telling me that there's a realm of knowledge that should be limited to a certain sphere and it's disallowable to explore what's outside that sphere, then I'm immediately skeptical. Let me come to my own conclusions. You're watching this because you want to come to your own conclusions. And that's wonderful. That's great. Those open-minded and exacting individual thinkers, that's what this channel is about. That's who it's for. My final thoughts are pretty much that I have my gripes. I'm not convinced that he's anywhere

near to deriving the fundamental laws of physics mathematically. I see his theory as being so vast that whatever the mathematical nature of our laws do turn out to be, it can still be incorporated into his model because AUO, which is absolute unbounded oneness, is so much like a blank parchment and ink that whatever equations you write on it, the AUO can say, well, yes, I predicted that because that's pen on paper. I'm not saying anything that I haven't said to Thomas or wouldn't say to Thomas Campbell. But again, this is all for you to decide on your own. I'm just giving you my own thoughts.

In many ways, I'm still simply a cretinous imbecile who knows nothing. And I don't think I'm capable of articulating Thomas's theory back to him in a way that he would agree. Which means I don't understand it. Which means I'm not in a position to judge it yet. Okay, that's that. I have to get some rest. I have to eat. I have to break my fast Have a good night. And of course, please let me know your thoughts. I Hate to say this because I'm not I don't consider myself to be a youtuber

But if you're not subscribed, please subscribe and hopefully I can keep up the level of quality in the podcasts