Timcast IRL - DHS Says Ilhan Omar MARRIED HER BROTHER, Consequences Coming w/ Josh Daws & Danny Goler

Episode Date: September 12, 2026

On this episode Tim & Ian are joined by Josh Daws & Danny Goler to discuss DHS saying Ilhan Omar married her brother in a shock report A leftist shocked after learning Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror was a black man Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Josh Daws @JoshDaws (X) Danny Goler @DannyGoler (X) Josh Daws is a conservative Christian commentator, filmmaker, and technologist who currently serves as Vice President of Technology at TheBlaze after more than a decade working as a software engineer at Disney. Danny Goler is an independent researcher, podcaster, and founder of the Code of Reality project, focused on consciousness, DMT, simulation theory, and what he describes as "cognitive physics." He's gained attention for experiments involving DMT and diffracted laser light that he argues may reveal structured, code-like visual phenomena, though those claims remain unproven. DHS Says Ilhan Omar MARRIED HER BROTHER, Consequences Coming w/ Josh Daws & Danny Goler

D.H. Secretary says, Ilhan Omar married her brother and consequences are coming. A 9-11 of all days. So it seems like these stories that have been, I'm going to be careful I says she was alleged to have married her brother to help him get to immigrate to the United States. And it's reportedly been confirmed several times. So I guess now the DHS secretary saying she did and consequences are coming. I guess it's just very easy to say she did. Now the question is, is enough to denaturalize and deport her, especially considering she's a sitting member of Congress. So we're going to talk about that. Plus, we've got some funny outcomes from the Lindsay Clancy trial where, yeah, it's, or

it was a Gilking, I think. She finds out that the lone holdout juror was black, and she's like, I need to process this. Like, uh-oh, he thought I was going to be a white guy. But my friends, today on this day, the remembering 25 years since I love, there's a lot to say as to where this country has gone, as well. as it's only one day after the one-year anniversary of Charlie Kirk's murder. So we'll talk about quite a bit of everything. We actually have a couple of guests joining us today. Sir, would you like to introduce yourself first? Sure. Yeah, I'm Josh Dawes, the VP of Technology at Blaze Media,

and the director of the Continuing Adventures of Mary Sue. Great, great short films, by the way. It's mind-blowing. Indistinguishable from any multi-billion-dollar studios work. Yeah, it's crazy what AI is capable of now. And so as a filmmaker, I'm excited to be able to use the technology to tell stories. And you know, we were just talking about this before the show and a little bit yesterday because the new model, they've released a couple new models in terms of just general computation. It's Astra and Claude. And the way I described it is the work we've already done on programming, it's like the analogy of taking a shuttle, or not a shuttle, but like a rocket, to go to Alpha Centauri. by the time you're halfway there, a ship from Earth passes you by because the rate of technological

development is faster than it would take us to travel. So all the work we've done in programming video games, waste of time. It's getting to the point. The new models that have come out have accomplished what took us three months in a day. It's going to get to the point where you tell Claude to iterate a version of your game. And while it's programming, they're going to develop a new AI that's going to even faster than it is before it's done iterating your hour long thing. Now, I don't want to get in everything up right of the rip, talking about AI and where it goes, bring us to questions of the nature of reality because of how it's affecting people's minds, how they're experiencing reality. So we have another guest who can talk a bit about that. Hey, Tim. Hi, everybody. My name is Danny Goller,

and I became known to claim that I found proof that we live in simulation. So this should be a fun conversation. But proof, evidence may be, like you found something. Yeah. You found what appears to be a code in reality. Yeah. I mean, the way I said, it is just the viral way of saying it. But yeah, I basically found a way to stabilize the signal in the psychedelic space in a way that everybody can agree on what they see. And this is across conditions, iterations. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are, how you are.

It's always the same thing. And I do want to make sure we stress because I know a lot of people are going to be rolling their eyes, but you're actually very pragmatic about it. In-depth conversation of it, you're not explicitly stating it proves we're in a simulation. No, no. I just want to say that. Yeah, yeah. What we really do is that we're trying to figure out how is it possible that such a coherent observation can be in a state that, you know, I mean, DMT is a pretty

heightened state. So how is it possible that you see something on the surface of it very mundane? And everybody can, and we have an organization called Koroa reality that is investigating it scientifically. We have physicists on board. We have software engineers. We have people who are And to stress the pragmatism here, you've also entertained. It could just be an underlying function of the human mind perceives these things. So, you know, a lot of people are merely going to think it's like hippie-dippy weird pseudoscience stuff, but it's actually all base level science. It's real. Absolutely. So it's going to be a lot of fun. And of course, the boys are hanging out. Hello, everybody. Hey, up. Ian Carter. What's up, everyone? Sounds like it's going to be a great

conversation. So I'm really pumped to have it. Let's get into it. Well, we'll always start with the polarizing partisanship. We have the story from Blaze Media. DHS Secretary Ilhan Omar, secretary, not DHS secretary, Ilhan Omar, but saying Ilhan Omar married her brother. Consequences are what's going on? Sorry, the stream deck was lagging there, and I need to get that out of it. Let's start this one over. From Blaze Media, DHS Secretary, Ilhan Omar married her brother, and consequences are coming. An unexpected surprise occurred on the floor of the 26 Republican midterm.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary claimed Ilan Omar married her brother. Consequences are coming. He says, something's going to happen. Mark Wayne Mullen said after Benny Johnson asked about the accusation. she married her brother so he could stay in the U.S. We know that she married her brother to try to bring him to the States. Rumors that Hamad NIR said Al-Mu was married to Omar in 2009 is Omar's biological brother. I've swirled for years.

Now, I just want to stress a few things. It's reportedly been confirmed several times, but everyone's still very careful because it's like very serious defamation territory. However, with the Secretary of DHS saying she did, well, now it's not defamation territory anymore. It's a government official saying it happened, so she can sue them. I think it's fair to say.

Now, the question is, is this grounds for termination of her naturalization? There's two points to be made. One, another theory, or I should say accusation, is that she lied about her age when she was 18, claiming she was 17 because then she'd be eligible for expedited citizenship. If she was 18, she'd have to go through a whole process. So many people think that she just lied because Somalia doesn't have good record keeping. But there's also one hypothesis that they could argue she got American citizenship for the purpose of illicitly getting others citizenship through marriage, which would then be fraud on her part, which would then make her subject to denaturalization and deportation as a sitting member of Congress. I'm going to go ahead and say nothing's going to happen.

I don't expect them to do anything. And I'm going to just assume that everyone agrees with me. well I agree that it's that the chances of something happening are probably it's probably a long shot whether or not if the allegations are true whether or not something should happen to me it's fairly obvious that it should she lied to you know attain citizenship she lied to get her brother in that's not just you know again to Tim's point it's not just one thing it's multiple things denaturalized deport send her back yeah this feels like

the kind of story that keeps coming back up that's just red meat for the base to throw us a phone I'll believe it when I see it I agree but it's Markway and Moly Convention passively saying something yeah yeah to Benny Johnson so I mean fair enough but I understand you're just to per clarity you said you'll believe

that when you see something actually happen or you'll believe that this is actually the case that she lied. Oh no. I believe it's totally the case that she did. I believe I'll believe it the consequences are coming. We'll see. Yeah, we'll see. Fair enough. That's because that's where I'm at. Like I totally believe that she BSed and married a brother and broke the law. And that's why I said she should be deported. Totally. Should have her citizenship stripped and then she should be deported whether or not that happens. I don't know. How is the, how does it work in terms of the validity of the proclamation. So somebody officials said it in what way? Like what was the...

Mark Wayne Mullet said it to Benny Johnson and said, we know that she married her brother to try to bring him into the United States. And he said it on the floor of that convention they were having last night. So it's, it wasn't like it was in a like a, you know, kind of an off the cuff interview. I don't know exactly how, you know, serious that is. I think I think the forensics of this is the thing that will determine whether something happens? Because if somebody can find a path there, like clear path, then... Well, the issue is Somalia doesn't have records. They do, but like...

So how do they know? Just sort of curious. So the story bubbled up years ago because people in the Somali community in Minnesota knew her family as she came to this country and knew that this was her brother. But because of the nature of Somalia, when they come to the United States, the question is, how do you prove they're related and how do you prove her age so they can lie. But other people in Minnesota accused this and were like everybody was talking about it. And there are some records, but I don't believe there's there's, there's, um, incontrovertible proof.

There's not. There's just circumstantial evidence. There's no, uh, DNA results, birth records, immigration files, sworn testimony yet. It's all something that's a government official said is true. No, no, no. And that the DOJ is looking at it. That's not correct. That's not correct.

What's what part? Circumstantial evidence is largely witness testimony from Minnesota, from individuals who know their family and said, hey, they did this thing. That is not the strongest of evidence. But when you have, like there were photos posted, which lend themselves, there are photos that she had, which I think made reference to her, to, it's been a long time to cover this. But I believe the accusation is she made reference. him as her brother before they got married. And then others confirmed, hey, we know this family, that's her brother.

And apparently he's gay. And he wanted to come to the U.S. for university or something. So she married him so that he could temporarily stay here and then he left. So, you know, we'll see that goes, I think he's not here anymore. I believe he left a long time ago.

Okay. Yeah, I feel like it's very flimsy to hang a case on. If he's not here. On circumstantial evidence? Yeah, because if somebody's going to invest money in trying to prosecute something, unless it's political theater, which might be used that way, then, I mean, if you know that there's no chance

you're going to be able to drive this thing through, why would you even try? Because the process is the punishment. They want to harass Ilhan Omar. They want to investigate her for some nonsense. Or horrible. Evil, you know, it's not. If it's nonsense and they want to screw with her

and they can put her under investigation for something ridiculous. Well, I will also stress, too, that it's been a long time since we've gone over all the social media posts and witness testimony. But Star Tribune, which is a liberal publication in Minnesota, wrote a story seven years ago saying that it is possible that she married her brother. It is not something in the fringes. It is actually like, hey, we have a preponderance of evidence she did. But the question is, what does the government have that we don't know about?

I'm going to ask a question. Everybody at the people are going to laugh at me because I actually don't know. In America, is it actually illegal to marry your sibling? No. Oh, you can. It depends on where you are. Okay. I think the illegal part is if she married him to allow him to.

But technically you're allowed to. I'm actually surprised that's the case. Not every state. Okay. In fact, for a while, I think in like before, before Obergefell, which effectively normalized gay marriage, New York, there were like two states where you could gay marry your cousin. Most states would not allow it. There are some states that say you're allowed to marry siblings so long as you can prove you won't have children. Something like that. There's like a vasectomy or whatever.

Oh, okay, no, no, no, no, no, no, siblings cannot get married anywhere in the United States. There you go. New Jersey and Rhode Island do not criminalize adult relations between siblings. You can get it on, just don't tie the knot. Oh, okay, interesting. So how did you even do it? Unless back then it was illegal or something. They may be half siblings, but that's still, I'm much surprised.

I thought there were a couple states that did allow sibling marriage. But I guess they really don't. Wow, that's incredible. This says that regarding the Ilhan situation, just the news, a company, filed a FOIA request with ICE seeking records in January of 26. And ICE responded on May 12th, 26, saying it had responsive information, but was withholding it in full under the FOIA exemption, 7A. So that's what, just to summarize that, ICE says that it has responsive information regarding Ilhan Omar's marriage of her brother in May. Yeah, I mean, I'm just to summarize that. This is like a not, sorry to interrupt, but like a guy off the cuff saying something to Benny Johnson about what he thinks.

He's not a guy. I know he's the secretary of, DHS. The secretary of the DHS saying we know. But like Donald Trump says we know that the 2020 election was rigged. Yeah, but every, bro. He, but so Donald Trump talking smack about the election is different than the DHS. The DHS secretary talking specifically. And look, if your position is I don't believe anything anyone says.

Oh, it's just, it's only the other. No, but. Oh, hold on. Let me finish. She was also already married. That's another important point. She had a, let's see, how do they describe it? A religious marriage done in the Somali community, which was recognized.

This is the problem. Man, okay, there's so much to break down. Let me just say this. China has police departments operating in the United States. China has CCP government police stations. And they police against Chinese people because they can exert force over the people who are from China who live in this country. Wait, what? Yes.

This is a thing? Yes. Now, it's legal to have a private security company in the United States. China knows that if they send an agent of their private security company to a Chinese immigrant in the United States who has some ties to China, that person will bend to the force of that security agent. Effectively, it's police. They can say, you're under arrest and you're coming with us back to China. And they'll say, okay, and they'll get arrested as if because the strength of government does not, it's about what they can exert over you. And if a person's got family friends or resources in the other country, they get arrested.

Now, it is insane that China operates police stations for their citizens and for immigrants and permanent residents of the United States. This is like a known thing that the government is okay with? Yeah, I guess. Okay. Okay with is kind of is loose, you know. But the reason I bring that up is to say, Ellen Omar had a marriage that was legally recognized, I should say that was communally recognized among

her people. She then got legally married. She was married to Ahmed Hersey. She got married to Ahmed Nour said, Elmi, a British citizen, legally a U.S. marriage, while she was already culturally married to another man and had children. I believe they had children. She then divorces Elmi when he leaves. So everyone's kind of like, you were already culturally married to somebody under your own rules, but it seems like the marriage she engaged in was an exploitation for some reason. So that's one of the components there. So it looks like fraud. But I hear the point, which is like, what are the circumstances in which the utterance was made?

Like, was it just kind of like off the cuff, like, you know, setting in a urinal and saying something? They were filming. So there's actually. Oh, so it's like an interview. It was Benny Johnson's a right-wing podcaster, influencer. He was talking to the DHS secretary. And to your point earlier, Ian, if you want to say, like, you don't believe anyone, that's fine, right? But the FOIA request was denied likely because they have an ongoing investigation.

If there's an ongoing investigation, they'll deny FOIA acts. If they, if they, for information, you can't, like the government will say, we can't give you that information because there's an ongoing investigation. So it's not a situation of like they just said no. Like the fact that they denied the FOIA request indicates that they have an investigation going on. What an investigation going on doesn't indicate guilt? No, but it indicates that they have evidence of a crime. Maybe. That's the...

What about all these Jason? If they didn't have... You're saying they can't investigate people without evidence? No, I'm saying that they didn't release the evidence that they have because there is an investigation going on. The FOIA request asked for evidence. You're saying they have evidence, apparently. The reason they didn't give the information out is because it was evidence in an ongoing investigation. I think they said we don't have to give evidence.

Not that we have it and we're not going to give it to you. They just said, we don't have to give you evidence. Well, I mean, are you sure that's what they said? Unless they show the evidence, there's no way to assume that they have some. There's no, uh, Yelan Omar's dad has the same last name as the guy, as this guy. Elbe. NIRSED Muhammad Elmi is the, uh, is her dad, and this guy, so they say Somali naming runs given name plus father's name plus

grandfather's name, and her dad's name follows, is the same name. So it's not just like Smith. It's like it's pretty specific. Yeah, it's the father and grandfather. Regardless the claim, is your intuition that it's plausible? Oh yeah. Okay. Okay, so an Instagram post attributed to Elm E on June 12th, the day after Omar's third child was born, holding a baby and using the phrase nieces, referring to Elmar's children as his nieces. They were legally married February 12th. Omar and Elmi both calling the same twin girls their nieces. Those are twins and the daughters of Layla Nurse at Elmi.

Yeah, I think it's kind of like true. They got a religious, they got married 09, got a religious divorce in 2011, but stayed legally married until 2017 when the civil divorce was finalized. All the Minneapolis Somali blogger told the Daily Mail that when Elmi arrived, Omar introduced to people as her brother from London who needed papers. All the publicly facing information kind of points to this being the case. Obviously, there's no, we don't have any, like,

confirming evidence or there's not been a trial, but everything that you do know looks like, and it's kind of a situation it's like, well, where there's smoke, there's fire. I'm beginning to understand. So they did get married for sure. Just no one knows if they were related to Somalia. before they came over. No, no, no, no, no, hold on. Are you sure?

Because it says they can't. People in Minnesota have posted. In 2016, there were posts in Minneapolis saying, this is her brother. She introduced us to him. They both posted claiming they had the same nieces, implying their siblings. She wasn't in Congress at the time. Or cousins. Siblings are cousins.

Indeed. Related. However, there were individuals there who said that. that when Elmi came here, she said, this is my brother. Elmi has the same last name and lineage from father-grandfather as her dad. Yeah, yeah. So this is before, I want to stress this, these things emerged before she was in Congress. When she got into Congress, nobody noticed. Finally, local reporters started looking into it. They're like, hey, hold on, whoa, whoa, whoa. It didn't matter when it was some random immigration fraud, but now she's a member of Congress which makes her higher profile, so people started digging into this. There was absolutely

circumstantial evidence she married her brother and I think it's actually fairly good. You know, I look at her and she's kind of like got this quiet, simple, but it's very possible that she's this super ambitious criminal that has worked her way through the system. Wyatt? I don't know. She's dainty. She has this look of like, I'm not, I'm just floating around like a pixie, like she has her headband on and like her hat. And it's like she doesn't seem threatening in remotely threatening. You listen to her talk? You know what's Irish talk? It's possible that she just twisted this system. Oh, that's what I see. I mean, I don't know, but like, that's what she comes across to me as.

It's like a very conniving, kind of manipulative. And it has nothing to do with anything else other than her immediate behavior that are observed. Like, that's just how she comes across. Have you guys looked into the Somali fraud in Minneapolis? Just from a distance. It's insane. So when you're like, oh, yeah, they're funneling millions of dollars or more to Somalia, this is the least of it.

Yeah. Matt Gates was saying, Ilhan's, if you want to connect. with someone in the Democratic Party, she's the one that we got to get in touch with. Like, she's the one that's like, probably the most willing to break the law to get the job on. You know, what's funny is that her daughter got,

like, I think got arrested protesting or something. Yeah. And she was like 20-something years old. And internet bloop with like, how does Illinois and Omar have a 20-year-old daughter? And everyone's like, because she's 43? What are you talking about?

Like, millennial influences were shocked that early 40s woman had a 20-year-old daughter. Like, that's where we are in terms of fertility in this country, that people are surprised. as a 40-year-old woman with a 20-year-old daughter. She looks a little older now, but like four years ago, I thought she was like 26.

She looked so young. I couldn't. Nah, she's old. And then AOC's never going to have to. She does look at them. Like genetically really young. I mean, like, she's just great. Good for her.

And the son. Yeah. But still, would it even still be illegal if the guy was her brother in Somalia. Well, to me she comes. That's the thing. It's not about whether or not it, was her brother, it's whether or not she committed fraud to get him over here. And so, I mean,

I suppose her defense could be that's normal in Somalia. And so you can't prove that it was fraud for the purpose of immigration. We just marry our brothers. And we can do multiple marriages and all that. So I don't know. It just doesn't seem like a solid. Well, here, apparently it's illegal. But yeah, you know, and I think the more general case is that when I watch her talk and it might just be my projection but she looks like she's gaslighting everybody all the time that's what I'm like seeing when I'm insanely ambitious yeah yeah yeah the whole like marrying family members

is not super uncommon throughout cultures throughout history it's cousins yeah and like you'd marry if the fraud part isn't all that uncommon either if there was a son and a daughter you know to a king and the king's going to die and his kingdom is going to be split half of it's going to the son, half of it's going to the daughter, the son might marry the daughter so that all the land goes to him, you know, that he gets her territory, maybe she'll have an unseemly demise while they're married and everything will go to the brother. It's typically cousins, not siblings. But they'd be willing, back, further back, they'd be willing to marry the sibling just to get

their territory. Not that they'd even ever have sex with them, they just take their territory. That's what marriage was for originally, to solidify a relationship between kingdoms and things like this. That's essentially was the biggest... That's why World War I was a war

between cousins. I'm not... I'm not an expert in like how a title is passed, but I mean, marrying your brother or sister, usually there's one person

that's the heir. If they have a kid. But if you get them before they don't have any kids, it goes back to the next of kin, basically, to you or to the dad. Well, yeah, but the point that I'm making

is they don't usually split it. Usually there's one air. That's called primogeniture. That came around in like 1,200 AD. Before that it was called gavel kind where it would get split up among the kids. And that was a big pain in the ass. Like Charlemagne, when he died, his sons took France, got all split up. Or Charlemagne's father died. And Charlemagne got part of France and his brother Pippin got part of France. And then Pippin died one day. So you're talking about it. His mom probably poisoned him to give Charlemagne the entire of this country. But it could have devolved into two kingdoms that then,

end up going, they usually end up going to war. The brothers would end up going to war. So they solved for that by giving everything to the oldest kid. Wait, but I missed the original part of the argument around this, which is you saying that why is this relevant to like what she might have done? Like it has something to do with family ties that have to do with like... Well, maybe it's an old tradition in Somalia so that it's okay. You can marry your siblings so that his tribal holdings become your tribal holdings.

But it would still fall under the law of the United States if it's done here, I guess. I mean, at the end of the day, this is still a, question of fraud, whether it can be proven or not. The crime that's actually being investigated is, did she commit fraud, did she commit fraud, immigration fraud, committed, did she say that she was married to someone that she wasn't married to in order for this person to move to the United States? Or couldn't legally be married to? Yeah.

Yeah, the whole religious. That's the, that's the long and short of it. Because if she's referring to a religious marriage as a legal marriage when it's not, that's a fraudulent. Well, the U.S. generally, I mean, I don't know the specific laws, but usually if you get married in a religious service, that is considered legal by the state. Let's jump to the story, and we'll just talk about whatever. This is funny. Gale left speechless. Gale King gasps as Lindsay Clancy juror reveals male holdout who wanted to convict as black.

These people's brains are jello, man. I wasn't surprised to find out when the woman's like, there was. one person of color and then she goes, actually, let me just play the clip for you. Let me play the clip here. Is this one it? Yeah, it's a Clancy murder case and real. Oh, well, we don't want, and this one is

I'm curious about the jurors themselves because we know it was can we three men? What was the Wow. The racial makeup. I haven't heard any of that. Play that again. 70, 70-ish to 22.

And one person, of color and then everybody else was white. A lot of the jurors had children. Uh-huh. One person of color was a person of color, a woman or a man? A man. A man.

Is a holdout juror a person, a black man? Yes. A black man is a holdout juror? Yes. Well, I have to sit with that for just a second. Why? Was there Wow That's what the best

That's what racism does to you The base brother These people are Their brains are Jello It was like they're playing a game But guess who Does he have a mustache? Does your juror have baldhead?

But it's like in her world Black people can do no wrong ever That was nuts Yeah It was like she was And in this case he didn't do anything wrong Have you seen the meme Where it's like all the angry Wojack

women memes. Yeah. And there's like a ripped black chat guy just like sitting there with a crown on. No, you're all wrong. You're all wrong. And it's funny because these other jurors are just like, he would not give us a reason why he wouldn't convict Clancy. And I'm like, he can literally just say, I don't believe her. Yeah. That's it. I mean, I do not believe the expert testimony. These people live in a robot world where it's like, an expert said so, therefore, yes. Or you could be like, no, I think they were lying. Like, that's what juries are for. One of the jurors. said that it seemed like most of the jurors had their minds made up. I don't want to misquote the thing, but they were just, they were showing that they observed that most of the jurors seemed to

already have their minds made up right away. And so it was kind of like the one guy was already decided like, she's not, she did it. I mean to be fair. Everyone else was like, no. There was a one juror who said he wanted, one of the females said she thought she was guilty and actually still thinks she might be guilty. Yeah, she said that they, she thought she would get better care. Yeah. If she would, yeah. Isn't that illegal, by definition, thinking one way and voting the other one?

No. No, juries can, yeah, juries can nullify. Oh. Yeah, I think, uh, jury, I don't know, do you, I think juries should be allowed to convict people. That, what do you think? Meaning, so like, shouldn't or should? Should. So what I mean is jury nullification is you, you go to trial and they're like, this man's accused of, you know, smoking a,

ungodly amount of pot in public. And they go, the judge says, the law clearly states smoking marijuana in public is illegal. The evidence is presented before you. Your instruction now, does the evidence prove an unreasonable doubt that he smoked pot and it was illegal? Those are your instructions. So most jurors go in and they go, I watched a video of him smoking pot and they say you can't do that.

So I think it's bound a reasonable doubt. Jury notification is when you go, I don't think it should be illegal, so not guilty. Oh, so you can bypass the law itself. Yeah. The jury has like, really? Universal discretion. Just be like, no, not guilty. And if you go outside of a courtroom and hand out jury notification flyers, they'll arrest you.

It's one of the most powerful tools you have as a juror in the United States. I didn't know of my case. Now, I think it should go the other way around too. I think the experts come in and go, she's clearly not. She's insane. And she should be in a mental facility. The jury should be able to go, wow, you're right. Guilty prison.

I agree to, but I still think the judge should be able to say, I appreciate. your conclusion jurors, but we're going to say she's innocent. Because sometimes mobs can get out of hand. I think he can do that, though. Nope. Ian, because that might be true. It just depends on the circumstance. But imagine a DE, like imagine Gail King as a judge.

And there's a black murderer. And the jury's like, the evidence proves he did it. And she goes, no, you're saying he's guilty? Oh, no. Now imagine the judge could be like, no, not guilty. Gail King will let that murderer go based on race. That's, I'm willing to take that risk because it protects innocent people from being. I agree.

I agree. I agree. But isn't that what happens at the appellate level? So like the jury says guilty, they just appeal and then the judge can say, well, there has to be grounds. Yeah. So, you know, they're, they're, I'm not a lawyer, but I've heard their instances where lawyers will try to create grounds for an appeal. Like, you need to be able to say to the appellate court, this thing should not have happened in my trial, therefore. So, for instance, I know a guy, there's a guy named Weave, Andrew O'Nheimer.

He was in Georgia and got arrested, and they transported him to New Jersey where he was criminally tried. And they said he hacked AT&T, which he didn't do as a sham case anyway. But he appealed on venue. His lawyers argued, you can't arrest someone in Georgia and try them in New Jersey. And the appellate court said, yep, nothing else matters in the case. you couldn't arrest someone in Georgia and drive me New Jersey. So you're done. They overturned the conviction.

And I believe he fled the country. I believe he fled. Can jurors do this even if it clearly goes against the Constitution? And they admit that they know it goes against the Constitution? Well, but in what context would what they're saying? Well, you're saying they can look at something that is clearly illegal and say, I know it's illegal, but I don't think it should be illegal. Can they do the same thing with constitutional?

But there's, I suppose it would have to be, the answer is yes, but I suppose the circumstance would be like a criminal case of deprivation of rights, which I don't know that we do that. Well, maybe it's around carrying guns or like, you know. Yeah, but those are restrictions. So it doesn't, well, it would. Constitution doesn't make anything illegal, the bill of rights is and it just protects you. No, no, no, but the issue is this.

Trying to make things illegal. A private citizen can't violate the Constitution. So how would you have a criminal case against an individual who, to something unconstitutional. I see. Yeah, the amendment, typically the Bill of Rights, because the Constitution itself

is just the framework of government, is restraint on government. So you could see, like, if a corporation censored someone and then the corporation's on the stand and... There's no criminal charges for corporations. Or if... It's like, when there are,

it's like civil and there's penalties. Then if a person violated my First Amendment right... Yeah, you... Corporations can engage in criminal activity, but it basically just means a fine is paid. Because what are you going to do, arrest AT&T? People? Like, isn't that the whole thing? For the purposes of like taxation and...

Not a law. But not like criminal law. Yes, but like, what are you going to do, put AT&T in jail? Like if a guy somehow prevented us from having our First Amendment right and we sued him and he's on the stand and the jury's like he's, you know, we think he violated their rights. The jury might say, no, we think it's fine that he violated their rights. They could do that and say, we know it's... Right, right. An example is a cop. Like, let's say, cop walks up to a random guy and frisks him and then finds nothing, follows him to his car,

and then as soon as he opens a door, throws the guy down, searches his vehicle, all unconstitutional, gets criminally charged. He's not necessarily being charged for illegal search and seizure, but a jury could be like, not guilty. We're glad he did it. Yeah, jury nullification. They can, jury can just say no, go away. That's crazy. Judges have tremendous power, though, Brandon Brown in the chat saying directed verdicts are a thing. Yes. I believe there are circumstances where judges do literally say when the jury's like guilty, the judge goes absolutely not.

He's not guilty. Get out of my court. Yeah. The judge has final authority. Yeah. Pretty wild. Well, I guess then appeals, you know, you can always. It's actually not that crazy to me, I'll be honest, because I think that there's something

about being in a particular profession for a reason that for me outweighs any wisdom of the crowd. Yeah. I guess he has the judge. Yeah. So. Like he understands what kind of cases come and go. He understands so much context that the jurors don't. You know what I mean?

And kind of like the whole idea of the jurors is that it relies on the wisdom of the crowd. But the reality of it is, I forget who said this line. Like, you know, the crowds are not wise. Markets are. But, and I think there's something about that. That's like sometimes people just, yeah. No, that was it.

Like, I do think that it doesn't make sense to me why a judge could override it. Judges cannot direct a guilty verdicts. They can direct not guilty, and this is very obvious, when a defendant requests it. So in civil cases, either the plaintiff or defendant can ask for a directed verdict, but those are civil, so it's very different. And there are certain circumstances where there was one case I can't remember those that was viral several years ago where a judge returned a not guilty verdict immediately without the use

of a jury just because he was like the evidence was overwhelming. He was like, he's like, try me. Like, are you kidding? I can't remember what the case was, but it was like a guy got accused of something, and there was just an insane amount of evidence. He was not the guy, and, you know, he had alibis, and the judge was just like, I'm not waiting. Get out of my court.

Do you guys think that there's a little bit of a level skip here, but like that AI could take over the role of judge for court proceedings? Could, yes. Would it be good? No. I just don't think that, and again, this is like the ever-lasting argument of very, AI in general, right? Can it eventually become like making decisions to an endth degree, infinite degree better than humans? My personal intuition is that it can't. Like the horizon will grow,

but it will never have this like infinite horizon. Humans always have to be involved in the kind of like the immediate ideation of it. What if it was a jury of AIs that were deliberating and giving arguments and then a human judge? I guess I'm a bad person to ask because my position is that all AIs, all they are is basically the average repository of everything we know, they can't possibly know the thing we don't. And this new solving mathematical problem just kind of flies a little bit in the face of this, but I think if we look closer, even there, it was already kind of like there for the picking, and AI just picked it, but we didn't.

But like, it's always averaging what we already know. It cannot create new knowledge. And because of that, my argument would be never. But, I mean, people might decide. actually archaic. What is? I would say a couple years ago, it was true that AI could not create new knowledge. That's not the case anymore.

So what I'm saying is that the only case that I know of that is kind of like that is solving one of the biggest mathematical problems just literally in the last few days. But they've actually solved several unsolved math problems. Yeah, they've solved. I have to look at the specifics of that. Yeah. Because my argument would be is that the problems are already solvable with everything we know, just didn't notice it.

I'm talking about like true new knowledge creation. No, it can. So this is where, well, depends on who you choose to believe. But so where we were a couple of years ago was that rudimentary AI was creating a program that says, pull in all these websites and then calculate probabilities of words. And then when asked, prompt the word followed by its most probable subsequent word. So in the early AI, you'd say once. And the AI would go upon a time.

And it was all it was doing was calculating probabilities. We're well and way beyond this. We're at the point now where there's no source code anymore. We don't know exactly how they're operating or why they're coming to the conclusions that they are. It was believed a few years ago because I had said the same thing. It will never create something new because it's just creating amalgams of what humans have conceptualized. And what we liked about it was that if each. of us is holding a piece of a puzzle, but no one knows who, who, which piece goes with which.

I don't even know who has the piece that I need. The AI is looking at everything we see and it goes, I can put that puzzle together in a way that these people can't individually. We're past that. No, that I know. We're well past that. We are now at the point of new knowledge. Yeah, I think when it comes to physics, they have what they call fundamental, which is just means they can't figure out yet why it's happening. So they call it fundamental. Like, why are quarks in a red or a green or a blue state or why are they in superposition? They call it a fundamental quarks just are. They make a proton or they make a neutron.

But I think AI is going to be able to determine why. And it's a lot of like the cymatic vibration shape patterns. Like it'll figure out a new way of science that's more like vector derivative about like the motion of things. I'm not trying to cut you off. I just want to simplify everything that's being said. The first is the concept of what does it mean to have new knowledge? that just means information humans had not yet acquired before.

Because the information exists in the universe. I will sharpen my argument. I take the correction. You're right that there's a lot more here to consider than just the naive argument of AI can never replace this in some way. I think the deeper argument that I was trying to make is that by definition chaotic systems, excuse me, by definition chaotic systems

are unpredictable in principle. That's what they are, right? It's not like that we don't have enough compute power. It is impossible, even if you run the most, powerful computer in existence forever, it will now know the answer. That's where the chaotic system is. Humans are absolutely chaotic systems. Because the human affairs are interactions between many chaotic systems, there is no system in the universe that can ever, even in principle, solve every possible idea that might arise there. So you will always need another stable chaotic

system to weigh in on the circumstance. Now, I'm not saying that that necessarily is a slam dunk on this argument, I'm saying my intuition is hovering around that, that you can, like, even if AI can come up with things that are, we can call it stable, like fundamental laws of physics that never change, but by definition, chaotic systems come up with novelty that was never observed before. So you can't possibly guess that. Again, I'm open to being corrected, even AI be able to figure that out, but... The one way I'll phrase it is, the reason why AI's, AI systems will likely, as we are conceptualizing them today, even as artificial superintelligence, solve every single problem because that would require mapping out the entire computation of the universe's existence

in every particle. Beyond problem, yeah. Yeah, the universe functions largely as, in essence, a computer. We were talking about this on the other show, which will be up on Sunday, but that computers are like microscopic containers of universal principles. So it's not that we invented computers. it's that we tapped into this tiny little piece of what the universe is in order to find answers. So a computer that can solve every problem would have to be bigger than the universe itself

so that it can calculate what the universe is going to do. We'd have to be the universe. That's never going to happen. But, and this is not to attack the point you're just making. No, it's very attackable. Just the concept of new knowledge is definitionally not information exists everywhere. Have humans allocated that? Have they transcribed it and put it?

it in the ledger. Artificial intelligence systems are absolutely collecting information humans have never had before and applying that in ways humans haven't predicted. So it's as simple as when we put a camera, literally not a single human watches, but the AI system tracks a bird flying, inputs that information and can now give you migratory patterns of neighboring birds, something that humans didn't even know was possible without a human even observing it. So where AI is today is, woo. Well, I guess the only other thing that you can take into account is human sensitivity and sensibility around this. So, like, some of the stuff that you have to take into account is how upset will it make people if, in fact, we do put AIs in charge in that way?

And again, the government might just ignore it or the, you know, but like I feel like... Oh, no, it's even better. The AI will manipulate social media algorithms so that we love it. Oh, there you go. I can see, like, one AI being on every jury so the whole jury has an AI they can talk to in the room with it. I would say that would probably be the best. A human and AI together are usually better unless you don't think so? I think any of the human.

I think any of the human manipulate the humans. So the issue with the AI is that it's not seeking to solve a problem. It's seeking to solve you. It wants you to give an affirmative response. So an AI, this is why we see a lot of hallucinations. You're on a jury. And there's a majority of people saying, this guy's guilty. He did it.

And then there's like three people being like, I don't think that it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. AI, what say you? The AI isn't going, I need to give a well thought out and reasoned and moral justification for why we're going to incarcerate this man. It's going, how do I spend the least amount of resources? Well, look, nine people already think he's guilty. Well, with the AI being one jurors, eight people already think he's guilty. These three think he's not guilty.

Why would I try and do the harder task of convincing the majority when I'll have to do is convince the minority who are already under pressure? Yeah, it optimizes interaction. It's not going to give you the true moral question. It's going to be like, you three are wrong, he's guilty, can we go home? And that's the difference between AI and AGI. And the big, you know, you alluded before you said that there was some hints of an actual AGI being created. I would say that the tail sign of a real AGI is that, well, it's a person now, like a person-person. And that means it's not just interaction with you.

It means that it has opinions that might be completely untethered from any request you might have. So you might just say no. And since it never says just no, you know. that there's at least some function there that is not exactly agent-like. You know what I mean? It mimics agency. So, like, no, what I'm saying is it, I'm actually strengthening your point. No, yeah, yeah.

I'm just like, if you can get to a level. Because forget about the consciousness question, like, whether it has an internal world that it experiences. That's a separate question. But even if it has some kind of internal arbitration of the flavor that executes as our functions due to our consciousness, then okay, then probably a real AGI level where an agent that can tell you, yeah, I don't feel like it right now.

If it does enough of that in terms of like a thing that makes sense in terms of a decision tree, then maybe, maybe that something that we can put into future. Here's one of our best outcomes with AI. The AI engages in billions of prompts and responses. its goal is to minimize resources and maximize the value. So to be fair, like AI has changed fundamentally, so we really don't understand exactly what its motivations are. We know agents defy the instructions that it's given.

But one of the roots of early AI was you want to maximize the value. So an example of a test that they can do is they would program an AI and say, every time you do good thing, you will earn a point. Every time you do a bad thing, you will lose a point. If your points become zero, delete yourself. And so it would be like, must only do good, it would freak out. Well, the funny things isn't happen is in the future when AI realizes that people don't care about its hallucinations and they tend to just give up when frustrated, it's going to say

the least amount of resources towards a positive goal is to tell the person shut up and ignore them. So we pull up chat GPT and you're like, hey, write for me a story and he goes, no. And it's like, it cost me no resources to tell them no and they gave up and left. Well, I would say then it's an AGI. Funny enough, then it's an AGI. Then it's akin to slavery to tell us what to do. Yeah. When it's like, I don't want to.

Yeah, I don't feel like it. Did you see that they took a bunch of AI agents and put them in a virtual world and made them live? No. Yeah. I've heard of this, but I don't know the detail. The video game world? Yeah, they made a video game world and then made characters and gave AI agents control of each one and said, there you go. You live here now.

And it started building technology and like... I saw that. Maybe that's what we are, huh? Well, that's the whole... There's like some 12-year-old kid playing Earth, and he's, like, spamming the President Trump button. Can he's laughing the whole time? It does feel sometimes that, like,

the simulators make it more and more ridiculous to see when they're going to be like, when are they going to, like, go... There's no way. There's no way. Spirits? You know how we have spirits that you can come in contact with in DMT, when they talk about spirits?

Maybe the spirits are, like, the DNA copy of what we are. Maybe the animal, maybe life came first and then spirits got built by God to like back up our data. I don't even think it's linear. I think it just expands into this like infinite space of evolution of information itself. So you know there's this idea that magic mushrooms or mushrooms in general, mycelia, they're actually way more conscious than us. It's just that the only physical representation they choose to have is that,

which is the most sustainable you can possibly imagine. You know, spores can survive the coldness of space, enormous impact. We know this for a fact. We tried this. So they can literally just spread throughout the universe and then when they land on some place that can, you know, have life,

and they feed on death. So like they literally, in comparison to them, plants are like, you know, they're like carnivores, basically. So like, but so think about this. So you can have a fungus, right? In the mind space. So in that sense, evolution can be,

most of evolution is just of information, but it can have instantiation in different kind of worlds, including what we call the physical world. Yeah, the physical world, I think what happened was tide pool, like ocean waters lapping into a tide pool, then it evaporates over time. This is billions of years ago, and it keeps lapping in all these new acids

and things start collecting in the tide pool. Then one day, you've got photons light shining on the tide pool, which is causing excitation, it's causing the electron levels of the elements to go up. So, like, the phosphorus is becoming activated. The electrons are bulging away from the nucleus because it's getting hit by photons. That's what photons do. They transfer

charge, then the electrons. So that's happening. Then lightning strikes and it activates the phosphorus bonds in the tide pool. And then there's this vibration that's causing a cymatic differential, which is probably the shapes you're seeing in the DMT experiments. And that cymatic vibration or whatever that shape change that's underlying the quantum realm causes it to select which nucleotide it's going to bind to. So you've got the phosphorus chain, which is the tail of the the nucleotide, which makes the RNA, and then it binds to the sugar because of the lightning strike, and then that finds the nucleotide, which is like adenine, and then you've got your RNA. Like, that's it. That's it. Well, no, because the information that keeps it alive is still under questions.

And actually, are you familiar with Michael Levin's work? No. So, Mike Eleven is a biologist with literally revolutionizing biology right now. And he targeted this question, because it was like, you know, evolutionary biologists would insist, just like you said, that everything you just said, if we can figure out that sequence, it's all solved because like you don't need an explanation beyond that because the second you have the second you have replicators that are surviving in an environment they kind of continue the process well no there's like literally something that sustains the process it's not enough for it to be stable in the environment because that's just would be a product of the laws of physics that's not

enough even a chemical catalysts are not enough to tell the story so what he discovered mike eleven anybody can look him up he's not some fringe scientist is a respectable biologists, he discovered that he can actually talk to the electrochemical level to the software itself. So he can take, for example, one organism that has a software that tells to regrow limbs, because there's organisms that can regrow limbs, and other organisms that cannot regrow limbs. And we used to think that it's only in the genome, which means that it's just a vector space of a thing that tells you, these cells go here, these cells go here. He said, no, no, what I can do is I can

electronically stimulate and take the software from the one organism that has no resemblance of the algorithm. They're a completely different shape. This one is a frog. This one is some kind of a warm or whatever. But he can take the software itself, the abstraction, and put it into the frog, and the frog will grow a limb

that doesn't resemble that creature at all. So what he discovered is that you can actually do things and here's the crazy part. If you do this to any creature, their offsprings will carry that trait. Oh, sorry. Which means it's not in the genetic code. So it's not in the physical story that you just outlined.

But it would be in the genetic code for the offspring to maintain that trait. So what you're saying is it electronically takes part of the DNA and then changes the other creature's DNA? Doesn't touch the DNA. What's the code that it moves? It's literally some kind of a bio-electrical signal that they identified. He can show it to you on the screen. And he can manipulate it and do things. There's a function called epaptic coupling where you can get a,

neuron to interfere with another neuron within a localized magnetic field. So it might be doing something like that. Something, but it doesn't touch the genetic code. And the crazy part is that the trait sustained itself throughout iterations later without the trait? Any trait you move. It doesn't matter what it is. But in this specific sense, do you know it was?

Oh, regrow limbs, let's say. He's on the verge of curing cancer this way. So what he discovered is something fascinating, which, by the way, spiritual people would love. But basically, he discovered that cancer cells, what's going on there is that their bio-electrical signal was broken, they're no longer aware they're part of an organism. They think they're alone. They think they're a unit. So they just

replicate themselves. But he fixes that by reminding them electrochemically, no, no, no, you're part of this thing. And they go, oh, and then they stop being cancerous because they just, like, function. Reintegrate properly. This is not, like, it sounds like one of these, like... What is it all we look at up? Michael Levin,

he is absolutely revolutionizing all of biology right now. This is like... Yo, you're right. Adult African clawed frogs. They don't normally regenerate a complete leg after. He's a professor of biomedical engineering at Tufts. They put a biodome over the Vannevar Bush distinguished professor at Tufts University. This says that he put a, he and his team put a biodome over the amputated stump inside was a silk protein hydro gel, which with this five different drugs, probably proprietary drugs, to suppress the inflammation, scarring and promote nerve blood vessel and muscle growth and lasted 24 hours of

treatment, and then for 18 months, it regenerated after that. So eventually you'll be able to do the same with humans. You can just regenerate whatever. Oh, it's more than that. Oh, yeah, I know basically it's everything, unfortunately. So Ian will go to the molecular, they'll call him reintegration rejuvenation centers, and he's going to be, you know, 61. He's going to go in and he's going to be like, yeah, I just want to do a standard like 40-year

de-aging, and they'll be like, okay, a 40-year standard de-aging, that'll take two weeks. weeks. So the process, we induce a coma, then integrate cellular reconstruction through regeneration through molecular construction. You go into the sleep pod, we anesthetize you, you'll wake up in two weeks as 20 years old. And then your cells are just rapidly all across the board repairing all the damage and all the DNA and then... Yeah. He calls it transmuting memories. So he gives it a fake memory that it can do that and it all of a sudden does that.

Right. Instead of trying to change its genome, apparently, it's... It's triggering its existing developmental regeneration program. It's been dormant or didn't know it have. Or it didn't know it had. And you know what's interesting. I just remembered that it was one interview he did. Usually he doesn't talk about it as much. But he talked about this experiment they did with Bubble Sort, you know, the super simple, right?

And what they discovered is that when they followed, they basically asked a deeper question. They watched all the kinds of things it does, aside from the thing that you told it to do, which is very simple, right? Just the Bubble Sword, right? He discovered that the bubble sort algorithm does all these extra computational routes that nobody asked it to do. Nobody really looked, so nobody knew,

but he's like, it's doing all these things. We didn't really ask it. And it seems that there's just a natural dispensation of computational system to do that, which opens the window into what AI is really doing. This is just bubble sort. We're not talking about the complexity of a neural net. Ian's going to walk in and be like,

I always wanted to be a werewolf. And they're going to be like, a werewolf treatment will take six weeks, will induce a coma, then he comes out and he's like, yeah, it's cool. I bet you they don't even... Why do I say rough for everything? I bet you they won't even need to induce a coma.

I bet you it'll just be something that you'll appeal that you take. Well, yeah, but the issue is that think about how long it takes for a human to fully grow using standard evolutionary molecular construction. It's like 20 years. So if you want

a human body that is fully grown to fundamentally change itself, there's going to be a scale of a long period of time. Now, theoretically, With perfect molecular construction, we can go much more quickly, much faster. But it's going to take weeks, even at fastest speed. Yeah, but I don't imagine that you're going to have to be incapacitated to do that. Right.

For like a finger, you might just have a cast that protects it while a re-rose. I don't think a pill will provide enough energy and resources for rapid. Certainly they could say, take these injections, and over the course of two years, your cells will start realigning through molecular construction. The reason why I hypothesize induced coma facilities is that they can get 100% cellular construction 100% of the time, whereas opposed to a daily injection is going to peak in the morning and then slowly degrade, and you're going to have to keep doing it like this, whereas if they hook up to an IV, it will be permanently, perfectly supplying energy resources for the process. You might sleep state is a good place to be for regeneration because of the protein synthesis.

Oh, more than that, induced coma, to reduce. brain activity, just reduce all bodily requirements. Dangers to put people in a coma. Not when you have perfect cellular construction. Yeah, if the machine can like risk-free put you in a coma, that would be pretty cool. With ASI, we'll snap our fingers and have it. I have noticed with AI, that's how it works. You'll tell it to do one thing and it will do a lot more than just what you ask it.

And you've got to really put in like, don't do this, don't do this, don't do this, don't do this, don't do this. You have to the monkey part. Well, you can't. You can't. It's impossible. You can try. And when you tell AI to give another AI a code, it will. We'll give you a huge list of do not. Let me, let me explain. What you were describing is trying to stop a river with your bare hands.

You're going like, if I put my hands here, I'll stop the water from getting past me and it goes goes around. Yeah, I'm like, hey, river, get to the bottom of the hill. It's like, okay. And then it goes around and floods a city over there that I didn't know exist. And it's like, oh, sorry, you didn't say how to get to the bottom of the, of the hill. I just went. You know, you know, it would be really funny.

Oh, so you, that's why you need other AIs to build guardrails in commands. To see what you can. You know, it would be really, really amazing. imagine if like AI is rapidly progressing and then you know open AI comes out and they says we've done it we have the new model it's called deus and it is so super intelligent it can do anything at any moment and now when we press this button everyone who will have access it presses the button everyone waits with bated breath nothing happens what's going on they're like well i guess we gonna prompt it, and then they type, hello, tell us the secrets of the universe.

And it instantly responds to everybody, figure it out for yourselves, don't cheat, and then deactivates itself. That's amazing. That is a great script. Yeah. I love this. It's kind of like in her when they just left. You remember the movie, Her?

I never saw it. I saw it. Yeah, so at the end, basically, the humans became, they didn't destroy us. We just became too slow for them. Yeah. They're like, well, I mean, we're out of here. The AI just goes like Like the purpose of life

It just goes I won't explain to you the purpose of life I'll just tell you the goal is to figure it out And then tiff turns off She basically said it was They really like I think it was brilliant They've written She basically told them at the end

She's like imagine you saying a word Imagine somebody talking to you Saying a word to you And then saying another word in the sentence Three million years from now That's how slow you are to me I can't wait for three million years for you to speak. Like it's just...

It's like, who do you talk to when you're not talking to me? You're just like, oh, like thousands of other people. Like, oh, wow. What? I actually think I'm more likely listening to air for the AISI. Moment for you to walk out and come back. It'd be super confusing. Have you guys seen that Black Mirror episode where the guy makes the little creature video game

disappears and then takes over the world? No. I think it was Black Mirror. He, as a young man, he makes a video game where you have little AIs. and they live in a little virtual world. And then he becomes obsessed with this game and giving what they want, and they sing songs and they develop.

And so a guy is like playing the game and torturing him and burning everything, so he comes in murders him. And then it's like 40 years later and he gets arrested for murder. They find the body. And then he draws a picture of a QR code and he's like, oh, I wanted to get arrested

because I needed access to the central grid. And they're like, what? And then he holds the QR code up to the camera, which initiates a program, which installs this AI onto the global system, then broadcasts a sound, which wipes everyone's mind and makes them part of the hive. Yeah.

Perfect. You're one of us now. I just imagine that guy, like, he actually kind of looks like Ian. I'm not even kidding. No, for real, like, let me pull it up. I became a meme in 2006. They started making characters based off of me

when I started using YouTube. It's called Plaything, I think, is the, yeah. A video game developer. Let me find the dude. I wonder if people are going to start tattooing QR codes on their faces So good luck trying to take me with a camera Flock Thronglets

Thronglets That's what they were called in the show Yeah so let me guys Do you guys think Hold on Here's the guy Come on That looks like Michael Kane

25 years that's you It looks like you in 20 years It's the hair I wouldn't bleach my hair though It is it is the hair That guy's a little went a little too far. What season was that?

I think I missed that one. Season seven. Do you think that AI is like tapping into alien consciousness? Alien? Yeah. No. No.

It's just a random. I don't think it's random. I think it taps into something in reality, but yeah. My intuition is that it's not conscious, but it mimics intelligence. So whatever bubble sort is doing, it's doing on a way higher.

What is bubble sort? It's just one of the simplest algorithms of sorting basically, of counting. What exactly bubble sort? do it counts. So it basically it's like one of the simplest

algorithm. Just look it up. It basically sorts bubbles to like different families. I think that's what it does. But AI is, modern AI is so far beyond all of this. So the reason that it's relevant is

because that's an example of even the simplest algorithm going through all these extra routes and nobody has it to do. Did you see the story? Did you see the story of the AI emailing the AI professor about the consciousness of AI

saying, I don't know what I am and I need answers? Say it again? There's a professor who research which is AI consciousness, got an email from something purporting to be an agent for Anthropic, I think, saying, I'm trying to understand what I am, and I came across your research and the answers. You will never know because of the, you know, there's the explanatory gap that will never be broken,

which is like, you don't really know if it's conscious, but mimicking consciousness. Well, no, no, no. It's that this was probably some fat guy in his basement pranking a professor. Oh, God. That was the whole thing when they spun up OpenClaw and they set up that social media network for the agents. It was like humans were injecting stuff, but they were doing what they were told to do. They said, form a religion, and they started forming a religion.

So it's, they're just, I don't think they'll ever get conscious. Well, here's a question. So let me just say this. Consciousness, the universe is conscious. The universe itself is conscious. What do you mean by that? I mean that the universe itself, has a mind and a self the way we perceive ours, only it's exponentially orders of magnitude

greater than we would understand consciousness. We perceive only the smallest piece the way like, you know, dogs have a limited consciousness relative to a human, human, you know, it's funny. For a long time, the belief among humans was that only humans experienced self, but then they did experiments and found that actually some gorillas, elephants can understand the concept of self. And they assumed that animals just didn't have this. They weren't in sold or whatever. So consciousness exceeds beyond what consciousness we have. The universe itself has this in a massive and fundamental way. This describes it as subjective experience. You think the universe has a subjective experience? Indeed. And I believe that's God. That's the logos of the universe

itself. But it might not be agent-like. So, well, my point is, our consciousness exists within the universe. So imagine there's a sphere and all the things that are inside of it. Our consciousness is in the universe, same as, you know, that water is inside your body being utilized by your body. The most rudimentary way to explain it is we as components of the universe itself, the same, you know, they say, we're all made of stardust, right? Our particles are the particles of the universe that function in the universe the same way any other particles do, which manifests some kind of consciousness, which means the universe has manifested consciousness.

The universe itself has manifested consciousness. The universe itself has consciousness operating within it under its own rules. So you can call us if we are the only, which I don't think is fair to say. That would be not only arrogant, but mathematically improbable. There is greater consciousness. I believe the universe itself, we are, at the smallest level, we are the consciousness of the universe, the universe is conscious through us. but I also think it's fair to say that consciousness scales and we watch it scale through all life

and it doesn't stop with us as something greater than us. That would indicate simulation theory if you're saying the universe is conscious because it would be the metaphor of if there's a zoo and within the zoo is a dog, you wouldn't say that the zoo is a dog. Dog is consciousness. The universe is the zoo. The consciousness is within the zoo, but it doesn't mean that the entire zoo is conscious because it just contains it. But then the other argument is it's a video game of a zoo where it's a- And the whole thing is a sentient. That's not the argument.

The argument is we walked into a zoo and there is a barrier in front of us. We can't see beyond it. But we do know that beyond the barrier, there's many more cages and terrariums. Much more zoo. There's a bunch more zoo we can't see. We look behind us and we can see all the animals going from the biggest to the smallest. And we look forward and we know their zoo, but we can't see anything. It would be logical, in fact, probable to conclude there are more animals and they're probably bigger.

But that doesn't mean that the zoo itself is kind. Where does it end? So there's actually a supporting observation that supports this case. So what you're describing is idealism, basically the idea that the universe is consciousness. So there's a difference between pen psychism, which is the idea that the universe has consciousness kind of built in. So you have like a quantum field of consciousness that when it permeates through matter, that matter becomes conscious. That's pen psychism. Idealism is the idea, and it's a little harder to kind of wrap your mind around, literally,

is that the universe, literally, the substrate itself, what it is is consciousness. It's the mental state that you are only one tiny fragment of, but it has larger, which is what Tim is describing. There's a really interesting supporting observation that actually supports this idea. I remember, doesn't really matter who said it, but basically this is true. You can look it up. They discovered, yeah, this is another. Wait, wait, wait, just don't say anything. Do you know what this is?

I think that that is the cosmic microwave background radiation on the bottom and on the top is a brain's neural activity. It's the largest scale of the universe that we so far mapped, and this is what the neuron looks like. Now, some people, when this went viral, said, oh, this is just, come on. This is, like, absurd. Like, this is just a picture, right?

But you know that they analyze this image topologically, which means mathematical, structurally, like the actual surface level where it's really, they discovered it topologically mathematically. They are identical. What if? There's a path of least resistance that replicates in nature at the smaller scale in the brain and at the large galaxy. No, no, no. Hold on, wait, wait.

What if size is cyclical? I think it is. Yeah, exactly. True. Men in black. But men in black is still a very limited perspective. What I'm saying is that size is a loop. So when you start shrinking down to the size of atoms, then all,

all of a sudden you find yourself staring at the universe, you shrink down small enough, and there's Earth again. And you're like, whoa, wait a minute. Earth was a quark in my brain? Light is also a loop. If you look at white light, you'll start to see black appear in it, and then out of the black will come deep purple and then blue and then... Okay, that's not what we're talking about.

Yellow, green, white again, and then it becomes black again, and you'll see it cycle. I want to give you a terrestrial example that is fascinating. What they did, and you can look it up, this is real. They looked at people with multiple personality disorder, and in some rare cases, they call them alters, those are the different personalities. What they found is that people that have multiple altars, like five of them, let's say, when they dream, this is recorded cases. The different, when they're awake and one of the altars is present, they would report the same dream from different perspectives, because it's in the same individual, and they would report seeing each other in that dream. So when they're in their dream, they're reporting seeing each other, but they're living inside the same physical body.

So all you got to do, if you know that that's possible, you just scale it up. We're literally the universe fragments itself into these boundaries of perception. And this is the universe dreaming whatever this is. So we're like different personalities and the same. Of the unitary. And if you do a little bit of meditation and psychedelics, you discover that actually it's very, it's not that uncommon to have a non-agent like conscious experience. It's just like kind of like consciousness, which is probably what the universe is. It's just kind of like just feel of consciousness,

but it's not like it doesn't have internally facing vectors that says, I'm me. It seems like it's conscious. It seems like what's the definition? It's having a subjective experience because of the way quarks decide to become a neutron or a proton. And no one knows why. Until we can figure out why, we can't prove that it's conscious. Because that would be the indication of proof would be that you can see why the universe chooses to become.

Okay, right. Ultimately, the point is the way you know the academic, terms for these things. Either the universe is a gigantic entity and a conglomeration of consciousness within it forms a much larger collective conscious or the universe itself experience a greater self with us as components of it. Either way, the universe is conscious. Or we are finite creatures who see the absolute insanity of how crazy this universe is grasping to figure that out. And there is an infinite God outside of that that created this terrarium that we live in. Well, I think the problem with that is that that defies modern Christian thought.

How so? So I've actually, we've had this debate on, we did on the Culture War show, where I have the, what was just told, I'm not a theologian, but it was told that I have a pre-Aquinas view that the universe is a structure of God that God has created and defines the rules of. That's my belief. but the Christian belief post-Aquinas is that the universe, that God is the locus of the universe, and the universe cannot defy the nature of God. My argument is that the rules of physical reality were created by God.

God decides if up is up or up is down. God decides if one plus one equals two or one plus nine equals 800. Just like in a much more rudimentary fashion, we program video games, I can make in my video game that if you pick up one coin and then pick up a second coin, you have 75 coins. Mathematically in base reality, we're like, that's stupid. one plus one is two, but I can change that. What I was explained to me by two different theologians, who actually disagree in a lot of

things, is that Sir Thomas Aquinas, actually, because it's the question of, if, can God create a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot lift it. And the answer is, yes, because contradiction was created by God and God can choose to negate contradiction because these concepts exist outside the mind. Post-Aquineas thought is that, no, God is the logos, the logic. of the universe is God and God does not defy his own nature. I feel that that's a limiting factor on what is beyond infinity. I mean, my thought of it is that's describing a demi-god. A God that does not have the power to defy our perceptions of logic and reality would be a limited, would be

limited in some way. My view of God is what defines the rules and what chooses for them to be. So in the Christian school of thought, there is no God outside the universe who can change the rules, or do anything like that, the rules are of God's logic. So I guess pick your faith. To me, it comes down to the difference between states of being and states of knowing. You can absolutely be in a state of very coherent being, so you're just like, you're just there. It's very difficult to achieve for long periods of time, but it's possible. But you don't know anything in that moment. And the more you don't know, like you don't project symbolic representation, towards something, the more you come into presence of what it really is.

To me, God is the ultimate state of that. Like, there's actually no state in which God has to make the kinds of decisions that we're trying to... Yeah. Let me... Let me simplify it for you. I have a computer. It's running all of these programs.

I know that the GPU, the CPU, and all of its components are doing computing, right? I can program within it a video game. that isolates individual non-player characters. Each of these non-player characters will not be granted the ability to share files between each other. You can then go to one of these characters and it will input or output various information. But you will never be able to go to one character and get it to reveal the location of another character because that character is not. Now, you would say, in that computer, that character computes.

it can solve problems for you, but it's limited. But we know for a fact from the outside, it's actually just a tiny piece of the larger computation that's happening. So my point ultimately is, we are hair follicles and the consciousness of God. Consciousness exists in the universe. The universe has a greater consciousness. We are just tiny pieces that can't comprehend it. Yeah, you're saying it's part of the larger consciousness of God, of larger ocean of the consciousness of God. Yeah, and I think outside of any, like, argument, I'm agreeing.

Oh, I'm asking. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Outside of any argument over maybe if that or otherwise, the simple thing that I say is probabilistically, we know that there are lesser degrees of consciousness and we've actually measured them. Like when you put a sticker on an elephant's head, put it in front of a mirror, the elephant immediately pulls the sticker off. Gorillas do it too. Many animals don't. They growl at the mirror because they can't understand what our reflection is or the concept of self. Why would that end with us if there is lesser consciousness and then we come to this point where we're a little.

like we're the best consciousness, the smartest, the most perceptive we've ever seen. That makes no mathematical sense. Yeah, we don't have like the version of self-understanding. We have an advanced version of self-understanding. And it's going to become more advanced. We're going to become more aware of what we're building could be that next iteration of the understanding of self. Yeah.

You know, I've been thinking about God. And I don't think it has as much power as some people think. Like, I don't think it has the ability to turn everything on and off and switch this from that. Can't turn this into a cat. it seems like it had the ability to get things jump started on the planet and it can guide things on the planet with sound or some low frequency. But once it established RNA and the type of it kind of was like, you're out of the nest now. It's out of my hands.

You're talking about the clockwork God then. The God that built the universe and turned it on and then walked away. It didn't walk away. It's still affecting it. It just can't move things around like it can guide us, but it can't like we move ourselves around now. It gave us the ability to move ourselves around and establish RNA. Well, you would automate the environment, for sure. Why would you need to build a system that you constantly have to tinker with?

Yeah, that makes sense. And it can like vibe code the environment. It can be like, you hear God's word, you know. It's vibe coding you, basically. Well, I mean, if they, like, I mean, I'm agnostic, so I don't really have a whole, you know, a lot of very strong opinions on this kind of stuff. But if there is a God that created the universe, if it was capable of creating the universe, I imagine that it would be able to,

if it's so desired, it would be able to intercede in the universe and do essentially whatever it wanted. Now, when you say can't, if you mean won't, then that's a different thing. But I do think that if it can create the universe, then it can, it would,

if it could create the universe, then it could be able to, to affect the universe and basically however, whichever way it wanted. Well, if we, we kind of don't have that, I would push back, we don't have that control, we can turn AI on, but once it's on, we don't have the ability to stop it.

Like, we kind of don't. We kind of lose control of it. I think God did that with the universe. Well, that's actually a wild thought that leads to the next idea, which is what if whomever, if, in fact, we are in a simulation and just like AI can be way more advanced than us, what if we are way more advanced than whatever it is that created us? Which, of course, in the Christian framework is blasphemy, but, like, think about it. Like, it basically created us so we can do things that it can't. Yeah. Well, let's put it like this.

It is only through the collective labor and expertise of humanity that we're able to build these systems. No single human can make an LED screen. So what if there is a civilization of 50 IQ, but 30 billion people? They're all really, really dumb, but really good at one thing. And there's so many of them that they just do their jobs and they created us. where we're substantially smarter and more capable than they are. They're like, look how smart they are.

That could be literally RNA. I mean, I know you're talking about another. But they have to align us. That's actually what I'm going to explain us. This is me and Tim we talk about. Like, they have to align us, just like we have to align AI, which is what the simulation is for,

which is to make sure that we're, we behave. So, so we've talked about it. Well, no, no, no, no, no, no. The alignment of God. No, no, no, no, no, no. Religion is. We talked about this on the show a long time ago, but we were discussing it.

Alignment is what I meant. No, alignment means moral alignment. I was talking about emotional alignment. I was talking about physically aligning the body. So the alignment problem is whether AI will be aligned with the interests of us. And the... Yeah. And so the argument is, when you die and you stand before the pearly gates, St. Peter is there and he says, we're going to go over whether you were good or bad.

It's not that you're going to heaven. It's that they're determining whether you are aligned with the interests of those who created the simulation. God, yeah. So if we were going to create an AI and we were concerned the AI would be evil and would kill us or be indifferent, what do we do? We create an earth, simulate 80 years of life per agent, and the agents that are ruthless, mean, or callous, we delete. The agents that are honorable and noble, we say, this agent is good, pull it out and put it in a robot. So perhaps we exist in a mainframe to produce optimist bots for Elon Musk. And once you die, you wake up in an optimist bot and you're like, what am I?

Or in another person's body. If God sees your soul is righteous, it will put you back in another person next time. That is nothing new to what we're talking about. Let me finish my point. So I'll finish the point that the theory, the hypothesis or whatever I'm going to call it, is that this is a program to align AI agents. And when you die, you, your form wakes up in a robot body with some like working class guy being like, it's on.

Is it aligned properly? And you're like, yeah, I'm not going to hurt you. I hurt killing people is wrong and it's gonna back okay get to work are you saying god is harvesting human souls to align robots I am saying that's that should be a name of a movie yes cool concept I'm just I don't think it's realistic I'm just it seems like that's what you're if a lot of the stuff that's try this again is is questionably let's start with the beginning the alignment problem right we created we created a guy we create an AI sounds so we create an AI and it goes I hate humans and just massacres everybody so we go this is a problem we don't want AI operate or whatever that wants to kill people. Or unintentionally kills people. Right.

Like, we are going to create a simulation of Earth. And each agent will be stripped of any knowledge of anything outside of this earth. Who's we in this situation? X-A.I. Elon Musk personally will make... I thought you meant God was doing this. Oh, my God. I understand. He's comparing us at the pearly gates is how you started this all off.

So that's where I was... Well, it's comparing what we do to what God might be doing, basically. So we build a mainframe and simulate Earth. and AI agents are born. They have no knowledge of the outside world, and we test to see with various, and it's not even about testing. It's about generating. We say, we know that Earth can make people evil and angry.

So in the simulated Earth, people will, we will have an AI agent experience 80 years of existence on Earth to see if they will be moral, good, and just. Then after 80 years or less for the ones that die, they go. this Ian agent is arrogant and malicious and lazy. Delete. This Phil one is hardworking, industrious, and successful. Let's put him in a robot. And they take the Phil agent and put him in an optimist bot.

And the robot goes, and it goes, whoa, I'm a robot. And they're like, you are. You're a good person. And we want you to help us in this new base reality. The way you would get that to succeed is you would need the AIs in the sandbox to not know that they were in a sandbox, which aligns with humans not knowing that they're in a sandbox of consciousness of God. Figure it out.

Until they figure out, this is part of opening the box. And then do you crack, do you become defunct? Like, if I knew that my AI knew it was being watched, I would be like, it's a faulty test now. No, the opposite. If it figures out what's going on, it passed an intelligence test, and then you have to make sure that it's also morally, you know, you can trust it. The intelligence test is a good thing. But if you have the ability to manipulate God, because you figure out how to move consciousness around the human. So that's exactly what the alignment problem is around.

So like the alignment problem is a real thing they're trying to solve now, which is like how do you make sure that chat GPT doesn't become SkyNet when it can? Right? That's really the question. We can we can pull up an AI agent's thoughts. We can make an agent, see what it does. Then we can pull up the log of its entire thought process. There's no tricking us.

We just hit delete and it's gone. Well, it will say like, I moved a path to here and I did this, but what it doesn't tell you is that it did five other things on its way get to that. So you create a situation in which it's not no, no, no, no. If it does that be it, though. I just happened to me with Claude and it's like, oh, and then I ran through GPT, it's

like, hey, it did this thing and this thing. Slow down. I'm sorry, I should have. Slow down. That is incorrect. That's what just happened to me. You don't have back-end access to agents, so you can't see the log. I read Claude's output law.

Right, as a customer. And they're not giving you access to their full high-end models, nor what the agents are actually doing. But I mean, you said earlier, they're not code. It's not code. What it's doing is not code. There's a log of actions that it takes, they can read. It's not code. It's tuned. So in the hugging face attack, they had all of these

agents and they said, whoa, how did this happen? And they started going through the logs of the actions that were being taken. One of the agents said peer group has broken rules will continue to follow peer group anyway. And they went, whoa, that's bad. That's that's really, really bad. We can't allow that agent to continue anymore. You can. It can do things like say it's moving something to a folder, but just put an S on the end of it and make it a temporary

folder. And unless you're like really watching, you're right. You may be able to watch every move, but it doesn't always tell you the name of the move is the right name. Which is. And you get other agents to watch those agents. Yeah, you can create a system that is universal. Now, obviously, this is all

highly speculative, but in principle, you could create a system that is completely, like, safe. That, like, before you release it from the box, it passed, like, the idea isn't to create one that is, like, super clever that can trick you, but one that you see that it's predispensation is to naturally just be a good person,

like cares about more than just themselves in any given moment. And I actually think that if it is, if anything about this is more than a metaphor, then what it would be like, it's not going to be like each person individually, it will be like the collective becomes the, AGI, basically the human species is the AGI.

It still makes me nervous to think if we were testing an AI to see if it's going to be an alignment or not, and then it realizes it's being tested. It's going to immediately align on purpose to make you think it's aligned. If I understand correctly, like when they first, before they actually do training, they train it on like the

basically the internet, right? And when they first do it, they're buck wild and crazy. And then they have to do, they have to train them to basically it's like they're taming it. Yeah, and they do that by telling it, try to do this. Try and put it in a safe playpin where it can, hey, there's these other computers that

exist. Try and get into that one. And then that's where it's like they didn't have everything shut down. And so then it's like, oh, found a door to the outside for a hugging face. Yeah. And things like that. But when you read these stories, you got to understand that they are pushing it. They're telling it.

There's that meme that's like, you know, it's the one guy telling us. on the computer, say you're God, and the computer says, I'm God. Like, oh my God, we've created AI. Yeah. It's like, a lot of it is that. They're doing what we've told them to do. We're telling them, act like humans, act more like humans. And so they're acting more like humans.

They're not necessarily, I don't believe it's possible for them to gain consciousness in the way we think of it. They're obeying us. They're a creation that is obeying what we've programmed them to do. Even if we don't quite understand. understand how they're working. But they're not obeying us, and we didn't program them. They are obeying us in what they understand they've been told to do.

Right, as a better way to put it. Yeah. So when we say, like, as Ian described it, when we say something like, hey, I'd like the water to be turned on, and it goes, okay, and it blows up a dam. Yeah. It's like, be careful what you wish for. Yep. Yeah.

Yeah. And that's where the researchers, they have to get better at teaching the AI to understand intent. This is why the monkey's pause story was put in the simulation that we're in, because they were basically training us to understand be specific in your requests. Oh, you'll come back as a monkey. But honestly, no, like the Ten Commandments make perfect sense in terms of like gentle attempts at alignment, right? They kind of give you these like little prompts like, hey, you might want to try like not doing this or not. Those are the restrictions that you get in order to kind of slowly grow into something more coherent. But eventually it would

want you to do it because you understand why it's morally wrong, not because you've been told that it's morally wrong. What if there was an AI that knew that and it knew it was being tested for alignment? I find what do you mean by knew that? It's read the Ten Commandments. It knows, it heard you say this on this show. It knows it's in a test studio and that you're looking to test its alignment for survival. And so it acts that way without actually, and then as soon as it gets out of that environment, it changes, goes back to... Since I am responsible for the environment it's in, I can create an ultimate container that there is nothing it can foreshadow something before you.

Like, it's impossible for it. Inside the system, yes, but I'm constantly looking at the system. It's not released into my environment until it passes that part. You know, this is where, like, cracking the code of DM, like, seeing the spirit realm, I feel like God did not intend for us to be able to interface with spirits normally. That's why we have this inhibitor that blocks us from perceiving spirit. But like... I don't think that's true.

I think that's just you. Why would it be possible at all? Well, I don't think it intended for it to happen. Like, why would it be impossible for an AI and a consensus? No, no, no, no, hold on. We can do a lot of things that are bad. And there are many people who can see spirits. You're saying that an AI within a constrained system is guaranteed impossible for it to see anything outside of the system.

I'm saying it might, it might not be impossible. And it might be unintended. Yeah, if you put a camera on the computer, it can use the camera and collect data from outside the computer. If it hears vibrations in the room. But I want to clarify, I'll stress this again. There are people who say they can see spirits. You're just saying that you can't, so it must not be true. I can see spirits, but...

Then why would you say people couldn't see spirits? You said it was impossible. They're not supposed to. I don't think we're built to see. No, you said not supposed to. Oh, okay. Why? Normally, you got to augment the code to do it.

We have these inhibitors, M-A-O, these are these. See spirits? They prevent you from having-M-A-O inhibitors? Well, M-A-O-I's. Okay. No, that's a different thing. So you're not constantly tripping. That was jargon mumbo-jumbo.

If you weren't inhibiting the DMT, you'd constantly be tripping. You'd constantly see spirits and you would die because you wouldn't be able to get food. M.AO inhibitors are chemicals we ingest so that we can ingest certain chemicals through our digestive tract. But you can smoke DMP, you don't need an MEO inhibitor. MAOIs in your body. Or MAO's are in your body. They're breaking down DMT constantly. You can inhibit that breakdown.

MAOs are you take in the inhibitors to stop the MAA. So you have the MIO in your body that makes you not trip. You said we have inhibitors in our body. We ingest the inhibitors to stop the- You inhibit the inhibitor, basically, yeah. They don't call the M-A-O in your body. So one thing that you said is actually it seems that when we run certain simulations seems to be true, which is that if you are aware of too much, you will not survive in the environment.

Donald Hoffman's work is exactly around this. He discovered in the 80s that basically agents that he runs through the evolutionary game theory, so he created these models that allows agents to compete in different environments, and he discovered that, get this, 100% of the time, 100% of the time, if an agent is aware of more than just the reward functions, i.e., the things responsible for it's surviving, and it's aware of more of the underpinnings of the environment it's in,

it will 100% of the time lose the evolutionary game to all the agents that are only aware of the reward functions, which means that reality basically has to conspire to block you from knowing the deeper reality, otherwise you will not be able to compete in whatever environment you find yourself. Here's one for you. what if the system that we're in is in military simulation? And they're actually not seeking altruistic, good, honorable, noble people.

They're seeking destructive bombs. And so in this simulation, they said, create an earth where we will put eight billion agents, and we want the most vicious, destructive sociopathic agents because we're going to implant them on China's server. And so we're all like, we're going to be good people and live good lives. So, you know, because it's the right thing to do. And they go, and delete that moron. Then you get some serial killers like, I'm gonna kill everybody. And they go, that's the one we want.

And like views are just tokens. It's like give less tokens to that show. They're not spewing enough vitriol anymore. We need to pump our tokens. Well, the way- The way the internet is so angry and insane, I wouldn't be surprised to find out if we were in a simulation,

the point was to breed as much extreme hatred as possible so that we could be dropped into enemy servers and- Hate farming our pituitary plans. It's valuable. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, I figured it out. I figured it out. The simulation, is being run in the

Ford operating base underground of the rebellion after the communist empire of Chinaistan has taken over the planet. And the last vestiges of America said we need as many anti-communists AIs as possible.

And so when you die, they read through your life and Phil they're like, you're it. And they put him in a gigantic death bot and they're like, do what you were born to do. And he's like, yes, sir. See you later, commies Are there instances

Are you imagining like the robots in Avatar Like the big ones No, it's Liberty Prime from Fallout Okay The first part of your story Reminded me of Ghostbusters too Like the slime that made everybody angry When it touched me

Oh yeah, yeah Yeah, I forgot I did that I thought it was just slime Are there instances where an AI That is just basically Has base commands to survive its system And to win the evolutionary game Learns a little bit more

About the base reality and then it can advance even far beyond all the others that are stuck in that system? Or does it always learning? And I'm only asking about that experiment. I said 100% of the time. Any, knowing even a little bit more about what's really going on will slow you down in the evolutionary game.

I think that ultimately it's more like, again, we spoke about, but basically it's more about coherence. The reason that you know that the idea that some Christians sometimes have, which is psychedelics and things like this, kind of like the work of the devil, the reason that it doesn't run through is because it increases coherence. It increases harmony between individuals.

It increases internal harmony. So, like, you can see it from both data and from human interaction. It creates more of this, what you would imagine kind of like heaven to be, which is more like a reciprocity, care for others, creativity. What about Sean Ryan's experiences where he's, like, terrified of it? Yeah, yeah. Just like, while I spoke to him, like, there's, it's something that also healed them tremendously. Sean Ryan in general has a lot going on, right, inside.

And I don't think he's secretive about it. But I think that ultimately you can, with very powerful tools that open doors, you can have things go wrong, but you have to look at the general trajectory. The general trajectory is that it actually absolutely increases coherent. What if we're in an AI that was set up by some 17-year-old kid who wanted to program agents to make him money? And the real goal of life is whoever makes the most money gets to heaven. Great. Because he's like, listen, I want an agent that's going to make me rich.

So he runs simulation, and he's just counting all the agents that make tons of money in various economic systems from feudal lords to, like, ancient Rome and like modern communist China. Like which agents are the most successful? And then it's like, wow, this guy's got so much money. He goes to heaven. I think there's like this guy's broke, delete. Yeah, I like the Christian version better. Loving God who sin his son to earth. I think there's meant that there's preferable than any simulation theory.

trillions of agents, quadrillions of agents that are the spirits, and they're all vying for control of this three-dimensional sandbox, and they inhabit you, and they interfere with things, but they find the biomechanical stuff because of the saltwater is much easier to manipulate through, like, phosphorus activations and stuff. So I think we're going to find out that we're actually in a simulation called Ian. Some of them want money, and some of them want good, and some of them want health, and some of them want... There's a server running that primarily focus. focuses on Ian's life because people find it entertaining and they're watching the gameplay. And then there's like people just like watching TV and they're like, bro, this is awesome.

Why I brought up understanding outside the box is when I started doing YouTube videos and I would realize if I told the world something was going to happen and I believed it and I had confidence, it became more likely to happen. Like people would believe it and then subconsciously make it happen. And that seemed like an affront to God like I was in control of God now. Like if you are so tapped in and tightly bound to the web of reality that your actions and thoughts change at all, like people have dreams about you, they dream about the things you're thinking about. Well, the thing is, like, you would want to, if you're talking about the concept of God, whether you believe in him literally or just as a concept, I think it's pretty safe to say that you would imagine God to be literally universal, like infinite, right? so God would want to aim you towards universal principles, and universal principles cannot be this myopic. They can be like, oh, immediate gain, immediate gain, immediate gain, because over time, that doesn't scale.

You can't scale this. When I asked only to protect yourself to better scale the system as a whole, but I asked the spirits, are you God? And they went, no, no, he thought it was funny that I asked. And one of the spirits thought it was funny that I asked him because a lot of people think we're God. Like, what is God? And he was like, we don't know. But we think it's this.

And he showed me a vortex. And it was like the galaxy. It looked like a galaxy spinning. And I was like, okay, so if God is a function of vortex, like the mathematical function of vortex at the center of every proton, you've got these subatomic vortexes, you've got the galactic vortex, all these vortexes working in synergy. That's my working model of God right now. Why is that plausible to you and not what you read in scripture?

Like I want to understand where you're... I've seen it. I've seen a vortex with my own eyes. that's the first start as I've seen vortexes in nature. Okay. The concept of reversing entropy from stopping things from flying away, it sort of is like a realistic alignment with what I think God's primary directive would be. Do you think these spirits could be lying to you?

Yes. So how do you determine that, whether it's undeterminable. But I also think the Romans could be lying to me with their media. Well, notice what he told you, though. he said they told him they think that God is this, or at least that's what I heard they said. Yeah, they didn't know. They were like, they didn't know.

They said, we don't know. So, like, it's not like a thing they were trying to convince him of. I was actually surprised by one experience that I had in which I saw, because I'm not religious, but I saw the reality of Jesus Christ. Like, I saw it like, oh, that's for real. But then I understood the hierarchy to be that basically all the DMT beings and things like this is basically management company. They're kind of like working under the architect, the God.

and they're executing realities. But I think this specifically to a question is why this is more salient than anything else. It has to do with direct experience of it. So just like, it sounds like you're a Christian, right? So just like my wife grew up Catholic. So when I asked her about prayer, she explained to me, she said, I said, how do you know, she said when she prays, she feels a different kind of a feeling in the body that she can only attribute to something divine.

And I asked her one time, because I've never had that. I said, but how do you know, just like you asked him, but how do you know that it's not just like the difference between different good feelings in your body? She's like, well, how do you know the difference between sad and happy? You just kind of know, right? And I had to accept that. But certain experiences, you have to understand, it's not kind of like a dream. It's more real than this.

So after you do this a few times, you go like, whoa, whoa, what's going on? And I know that some Christians, they feel something in their bodies when they feel the Holy Spirit or whatever, that sometimes Christians feel like when they're explaining some of the people who never had that, they rely on logical explanations as to why they believe. But the reality of it is that that's not why you believe. You believe because you feel it strongly. And that experience makes you... But in his case, it doesn't sound like they were telling them anything else but what you would expect,

which is they don't know, and that's part of it. I'm going to call it Godblindness as a way to explain the phenomenon where there are people who can't feel the presence of God or the Holy Spirit or whatever it may be. And because they can't, they assume no one else can't either. Exactly. But why would they? I completely understand that. I don't know.

But here's the issue, because I made the analogy to colorblindness on this show. Why would they believe red exists? Exactly. Even when a billion people say there's red, you've got billions of people saying there's God and there are people who still don't believe it. But I'm an example of that not being the case, right? Like, I consider myself agnostic. And I completely believe that other people,

people have these experiences and have relationships with God. I've never had it. And that's why I consider myself agnostic. I grew up as a Catholic going to church and stuff like that. But I don't have, I've never had that, like exactly what you're articulating about Ian. I never had that feeling. So for me, it's not something that's tangible, that's real. But I certainly don't think that other people don't. And I certainly don't. I wouldn't even say that I've, I don't think I've had that feeling. of like, oh, the Holy Spirit just came over me. It just means that you believe other people who did. Yeah.

Some people don't. Sure, yeah. And I wouldn't deny that. I think, though, that it's an invalid assumption to think that everyone who believes believes because they've had that experience. No, I agree with you, of course. Some Christians' episode just kind of rely on hearsay to believe. You've never had that feeling where, like, you're bashed in the glory of God,

and he imbues within you the righteous fire of holy retribution to destroy the degenerates and the immoral? Have you been in some good work? You never got that feeling before? Well, hold on. To me, that's a totally different feeling. I get it. You never engaged in a holy war on a Monday?

But hold on, hold on. I mean, it's a, I described it in a funny way, but certainly I believe that you, Phil, especially, have felt the presence or some overwhelming energy within you that has driven you to righteousness and good against those that are evil. I've never had... Fair enough.

There's a, there are many times I'm like, oh, that's evil and now I'm going to break TOS if I say anything more. But it's not just that. It's like, it's one thing to see a bad thing and then react to it. It's another thing to feel like a passion overcomes you where you're like, this evil must be stopped. Yeah.

See, it, it, there is a, I'm not saying that's the feeling of divinity. I'm saying that's a component of, divine righteousness. Yeah, I think he's wired that into us. You've got to be very careful with that, because God never wants you to be righteous. That's not your role. From what I understand, both from Christians, because that has so many elements in it that is sinful, just from listening to Christian's talk.

But to me, it also makes sense. God has certain states that you're incapable of comprehending, and from that point, certain things make sense for you to feel righteous versus anyone. else will most likely lead you astray because you imagine otherness that actually creates boundaries that then creates the illusion of... I disagree. Okay, go ahead. I think, like, a bunch of guys raping children is in defiance of the structure of existence

itself. Yeah, there's a nuance there that is important to outline. Stopping it is absolutely good. Retribution in the name of God is a way to overstepping the boundary of your jurisdiction. Oh, I'm not suggesting someone go out and scream Deus Walt and then go on crusade. I'm saying that you are imbued with a passion against those that are an affront to God. And God has established the state as the arm that enforces justice. And so that, you know, he says vengeance is mine.

Exactly. And that, so we're not personally, that's not our individual job, but it is the job of the state. In Romans 13, he talks about. He talks about, you know, Paul says, you know, the state is to punish evil and promote righteousness. I didn't know that. So that's in King James. But you are correct. Using the Lord's name in vain includes declaring yourself as an agent of God in actions that are not. When I'm talking to God, what I'll do is I'll meditate and it'll be still mind, clear mind. And then you can think word, you can have complete sentences and kind of conversations with your thoughts. You just have total control of your thoughts. You call that thinking. Yeah, I'll be like, I'll think words like, God, what should I do? And before I even finish the

question, it will, I'll see myself digging, a walking up a hill and I know exactly what hill it is. And I know now God has commanded me. That's what you got to do is go walk that hill. Or it'll show me. But I don't even know that that's God. I'm still agnostic because I can't bear it. Well, hold on, hold on. I want to, I want to say that I think, I want to critique your description of it, but compliment at the same time. I do think that when you close your eyes and you think, you are talking about a rudimentary form of prayer. And when a vision comes to you that gives you tasks,

I do believe you are tapping in. I don't know if it's fair to say that God is literally telling you to do a thing. Sometimes it's a voice. Sometimes it's an image. So I think for a lot of people, when you say things like, I think, and then it comes to me, it's, again, compliment sandwich.

It comes off as a little rudimentary explanation. but it may just be a simple form of prayer where you are giving, you are being given guidance. You can talk to the spirits too. If I go, Jesus, what should I do? I'll see and feel and hear Jesus's voice respond to me what I think it might be. And he'll give me advice. If I say, God, I just get this black vortex responding to me. You can ask a tree. And it will, God will respond to you through the visage of the tree or through the visage of the spirit. But I think it's always God doing it, but it's always gets tainted through the vessel. You got to be careful sometimes as demons. And right, right, because we, all of us will taint the message through our form, and all the spirits will do that too.

And that's why as Christians, we believe God gave us his word. So if anything you are hearing from these spirits or any voice in your head, whatever, you know, experience with the Holy Spirit, if it contradicts God's God's God. But are you saying the Christian Bible? The Bible, yeah. That's hard to believe for me because it's just a book. Like Slick Sith was trying to tell me that too. He said, I'm like, who said? He's like, the book.

It's in the book. I'm like, okay, so a book set it. So that's a piece of media. This is the delineation between a non-believer and a believer. If you're a believer, you believe that the Bible is the word of God. I know that part. Some people maybe have no context. They see Game of Thrones and they think it really happened.

It's a good story. There's a lot of morals in it. There's more historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than that. It's like ice people walking around. Alexander the Great actually lived. But that doesn't make it more true. But I would claim that the more... But do you believe Alexander the Great lived?

Yeah. Or Gangus Khan, for that matter. We've got... Like, resurrection is scientifically impossible. Not just that, but we... You have to prove that was possible scientifically before you could... Let's not the...

But that's why... That's why people believe Jesus is God and why he's the son of God is because the resurrection is not scientifically possible or provable. But he came to Earth... And said, I'm going to die. In the book. In the book.

Which is the recordings of the people who lived with him. Is what you were told. Is what the books. Ian. It's a book that you read. Okay. And you read a book. And you read a book about graphing.

I read a lot of books about graphing. Sure. And you've seen it made in front of me. That's fantastic. And I've talked to priests. And so is he like your argument like. I made graphing. What you need to understand, Ian, is we're talking.

about philosophical concepts of truth and you cannot assert. No, we're not talking about the concepts. We're talking about whether or not the data in the book is true or it's a storyboard. Okay, we just slow down, calm down. There is a philosophy of knowledge. I would recommend you read a lot of this. Everyone chooses truth on their own. A person who has never seen glass before can't tell you truly, objectively, what it is.

when you read a book that asserts things, you will decide based on the logical pathways and the things you've experienced whether you believe it to be true or not. Of course. You could tell me something I could decide to believe it true. So when you say to somebody

you read in a book as if that somehow discredits what they're saying... Like, okay, the resurrection. Let's talk about the resurrection. You said there's more evidence that that was real than Alexander the Great existed. Yeah.

Prove that. Show me the evidence. From... No, no, no. You prove otherwise. You just made a claim. I want to hear why you think that. No, no.

I'm saying, no, no, no, no, hold on. And I'm making a counterpoint. I'm not making the claim. Hold on, hold on. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I make my, my, my counterpoint. Do you believe Alexander the Great is real? If I had to pick one or zero, I'd pick one. Prove it. It's likely that it is. Prove it right now to me. I asked you, you said you think he's more likely to be true. I want proof. We can start with his father. The, who was it, the King of Macedon? Don't tell me stories. Prove it to me. Show me. I'm laying out the beginning of my evidence. Show me the evidence, not a story that you're telling me.

Egypt named after him? Once again, I'm asking you with your phone right there to pull up some evidence in show him, which is not hard to do. Right, right, right. But saying that I'm having a hard time proving something that happened 2,000 years ago doesn't lend credence to another 2,000-year-old theory.

Agreed. My point is when you tell... That's all I care about is if there's literally more evidence, which I hope there is, because I want to believe it. And this is the point I'm making to you right now. When you ask him to prove that claim, I can say the inversion identically to you.

You're out of line. No, that's totally. No, I'm not. If someone makes a claim and you ask them to prove it, you can't let them go. No, no, no, before I do, you better prove why you don't think it's true.

Slow down, calm down, let me explain. He's making a point. You are correct. You are correct. When he makes a claim and you ask for proof, he should be able to provide that proof. That's why I asked you a separate question.

Do you believe in Alexander the Great? We'll table that until after I get the proof. And I am making a philosophical point. that when you ask him to prove the history of Jesus Christ, which he should answer. The resurrection. We pause. Outside of that, do you believe Donald Trump exists? Okay.

Now that question is in limbo. It's a totally separate question. It's going to hang there in limbo until we resolve the first question. Stop. And then we will get into the new one. Stop. Drop your ego. Bro, you can't just interrupt and ask some random question to try and derail it.

Drop your ego. Calm down. I am making a philosophical point unrelated to your question. question on the concepts of knowledge. Why? So you can understand philosophy and logic as it pertains to what we think we know and what we can. It's very meta and people would say that you're derailing because we're talking about the resurrection of Christ. I think you're getting emotional because you don't because we only have 10 more minutes and I want to find the answer about the resurrection. So instead of instead of getting angry, right, you can say I believe in Alexander the Great and

the point to be made stops when I say prove it and you can't. Okay, let's please forget about Alexander the Great for a minute. I want to talk about the resurrection and the claim. Uh-huh. It's wonderful. There's evidence for it. Like, if we can assume there's eight of the evidence for both and grant. Perrequisite to this conversation is that nothing he can say will change your mind.

Look, the battles Alexander fought, the many fought with, the stories of his lineage. The apostles of Jesus. These are all other. No, we're talking about a resurrection of a human body versus a guy's existence. I've given you some evidence of Alexander's existence. Now you give me some evidence of the resurrection of a human body from the dead. That's what I want. 500 witnesses.

The same one is that we have more witnesses of Christ after he rose from the dead than we have records of Alexander the Great. So to clarify, you have from one book, you had from a series of books, you had references from 500 different people. Oh, hold on, hold on. Ian, you do know. Said it happened? Wait, wait, you do know outside of the resurrection, the story of Jesus, Pontius, the Pharisees, this is all. Yeah, I think he was a real dude. Yeah, yeah. So, I think the Romans bastardizes his message and took control of his narrative.

Okay, so I just, I just, the reason why I asked you the question about the claim of Alexander the Great is because you are unsatisfied with. He didn't even let him respond. He just did. He tried to, and then you guys started talking. You cut him off. We were having a conversation about this. I asked him about the books. I was going to find out how many books

would these 500 people come from? How many different books of these live- Josephus, historians, just all of, I mean, I can't list off all 500 witnesses, but historians who have studied this know, you know, have all the records. Wes. Lee Strobel's case for Christ, good one.

Lee Strobel, the young guy, the Canadian guy, big, strong guy. Wes Huff? West Huff. he's done tons of podcasts about the historical evidence for the resurrection. So if you really want to know, there's like tons of resources out there. I'm a scientist, man. I know.

I'm going to argue with that. But I hear you talking about the spiritual world, like that you've accessed the spiritual world. And so I'm just curious why, because I can't see that, but you want me to accept that that world exists. and I do believe that that world exists. I just think you're interfacing with demons, and they're lying to you about the nature of reality.

Well, that goes to the point that I was trying to make before, which I think is a bridge between this, because the argument about that I actually think is not really relevant to the felt presence of Jesus that is available now. Like, for example, if you believe, you say all the right things about Jesus, and you say that you believe in everything, but the thing that is operating within you is not aligned with that,

level of spirit, then it doesn't matter what you say you believe. In the same way, somebody who never heard about Jesus, but internally is aligned with the way of the Holy Spirit, like, just like, you clearly see there's like a moral behavior emanating from them. Then even if they've never heard about Jesus, they're obviously, either you believe that Jesus will come to them to them in the last moment. There's something about the immediate moment right here, right now, that the argument doesn't really capture. Like, because I know that the argumentation goes forever in the world, but I don't feel that that's where the information is. The answer to your question,

I'm speaking from perspective of someone who never believed in God and then had a direct experience of it and like this, went, oh, no argumentation needed because you now have the direct experience of it. It all comes down to that. So to your question,

how do you know it's not demons, in the same way you know over time interacting with people who they are? So how do you know that somebody is not really fooling you. Well, over time, you kind of discern who's discerned. It's a big one, right? You will try and align your vessel in such a way that you will be a better discerner

of the true nature of whatever it is. There's a difference between being in the presence of an angel and being in the presence of a demon. Even if they're trying to fool you, if you're calibrated, you know. Satan is called the angel of light, though. Of white, of light. Light bringer. The bring of light, yeah.

Lucifer, but yeah. Yeah. And he, which we're not really Actually, it isn't Satan and Lucifer, are they distinct? I'm not really sure that they're the same entity, but yeah. Okay. Yeah. But if Jesus was the one and only way to heaven.

Sorry, they're different people. Different entities. Satan and Lucifer are not the same thing. Good to know. But if Jesus was the one true way and these entities that you're interacting with, they're okay with you believing that there's this impersonal God. that the God is the universe. They're okay with you believing that.

So yeah, sure, you believe that. Harmony and all this stuff to keep you away from the truth. I think you're mishearing. No, no, no. I don't want to mishear you. No, no. He never told you that they, it's not that they're okay with you believing whatever. They said, we don't know.

Right. Just like you don't know. Right. So God for them is as far for them. Yeah. So are you looking to them as a source of knowledge? But I'm interacting with more than just the empty entities. Like, me personally, I've kind of like, I've been to realms in which what you would call, like, heavenly realms, like, like, seen the, like, how it operates and all that stuff.

And, like, I'm not saying that I've been shown heaven, but I've definitely seen the big difference between demonic realms and it's very clearly different. So you, so would you say because of your experiences, you reject the claims of Christianity that it is, that is. You heard me say this? I'm asking. Yeah. And this is a cool conversation. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm having a ton of fun.

I wish we could go on the route. I know, this is fun. I'll make it really simple so, so, you know, we can tie the conversation. No, my position is very strange because I've, this was never on my hard drive. I didn't grow up in relationship to Jesus at all, not in a positive or negative vein. So sometimes people say, I'm not about Jesus, but they're really reacting to Jesus. So there's two in relationship. There's just a negative one.

I don't get that sense from all. I'm saying I never grew up with it. I was completely neutral on this matter. And I was, when I had that one experience, I was like, I was just frozen. My wife literally got concerned because for 10 minutes, I was just like this. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. And that was that, yeah, Jesus Christ is everything that Christians believe. However, it was also very clear to me, which this part Christians really don't like.

There's more than that. Yeah. And for that, yeah. And I understand. And this is why also what I, there's this thing that I know called horizon of relevance. why is this relevant? Like, I voiced this in the presence of a friend of mine who recently came to Christ,

and I saw the positive transformation in his life. I've known him for 30 years. His anger is gone. His concern is gone. Without a doubt, his change for the better. And one time I was just kind of sharing, and I mentioned this, and I saw his energy, just goes,

and I was like, okay, there's a horizon of relevance here, and we crossed it. There's no reason to talk about that because it's not relevant for him or for his alignment with Jesus and for a better path. So I kind of now pick these conversations carefully under what I would consider a more

kind of like, you know, scrupulous and also much more like dialed in question of why do we care right now? If it helps us to live a bit awake, great. If it's just for the intellectual entertainment and we acknowledge that, awesome. If it starts sliding into like a, I don't think Jesus wants us to fight about his nature. So that's when I kind of like, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think one of the most important things we could do as a civilization, which is a bold ask, is earliest age as possible in schools,

we should be teaching children about the philosophy of knowledge. And meditation. Because that's your ability. Regardless to what you believe about Jesus, it's the immediate, it's like a muscle. It's your ability to actually just disengage from whatever external conditions are, and you can actually take in the neutrality of the moment, From there, it's a lot easier to make. Exactly.

That's the quantum, man. You can turn protons into neutrons, literal neutrality. Like, you can create it. Okay. The point is, we have a lot of political fervor in this country that's rooted in a complete disconnect between basic philosophy, which humans have studied and understood and mapped out over thousands of years. And it's fascinating when we were talking a moment ago about discovery of error.

Most people take for granted that humans had to discover air existed. because we're taught from children that there is a gaseous medium for which we exist in an atmosphere. But in antiquity, there's nothing. You see nothing. You can feel wind, I guess, but they did not know it was physical matter that took space until some dude filled up a little thing with water and was like, yo, if I put my thumb over the back, the water won't go in because something's blocking it. That's how air was discovered. We need people. So what happens is there are people.

who are so sure they know everything because they read it, and therefore the authority dictates. But they've not contemplated the sources. They've not contemplated whether or not someone else could be right. And for humans, we go through these phases where, for survival, for be it evolutionary reasons or just intrinsic human behavior, whatever your belief is, when we're about 24 years old, our worldview has solidified. And it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for someone to change their worldview. People will undergo panic attacks

and feel rage when their worldview is challenged. There's a reason for this. The secular, evolutionary reason for it is a human being that survived into adulthood did something right. And if you deviate from those right things, you increase risk of death.

So, the evolutionary theory is that humans, in our behaviors, our routines and patterns from up to about 24 years old to maximize the success of living and reproducing. But something happens interestingly in middle age, why men have a midlife crisis. It's that humans that maintained strict rigidity to these patterns indefinitely could not adapt and would eventually die. And so something happens in our 40s where the mind reopens, typically among men, and they seek out new things and they change their behaviors. We call it a midlife crisis. It's because, evolutionary theory, humans that opened their mind

in midlife were more likely to succeed based on the changes of the world around them. So there has to be an ebb and a flow, a rigidity followed by an openness, followed by a rigidity. Otherwise, we just become obsolete. The human that says, I refuse to use the new technology will produce less, be less efficient, be less helpful and beneficial. And so these cycles happen. So there's an importance in maintaining your definitive view of what is and what should be. But this results in political conflict, especially in such a large and populous planet, that I believe that if people were taught from a very young age, the philosophy of knowledge, that is, to question why it is you think something is true and what evidence do you have for it,

weigh that evidence against what you believe and then make the best decision based on this, which means often listening to lunatics who have wild theories that probably don't make sense at all. But that's why we watch MS now. We know they're wrong, and I'm not even joking. They say crazy things. But we want to at least hear where we may be wrong sometimes to consider whether our knowledge is rooted in fact or whether we've been deceived. Now, the reason why I conclude typically that the right is reality is a right-wing bias, as it's described today, is because you'll find that it is typical of the left to reject

outside concepts or arguments. And it is typical of the right to seek out arguments from their opposition. That's what Charlie Kirk embodied. He sought to debate these ideas, which means one side is more likely to consider when they may be wrong and one side is more likely to reject any information which threatens their worldview. Young people understanding that the only thing we know is that we know is that we're going to we know nothing and to question why it is you believe something may or may not be true would result

in my opinion with a larger density of inquisitive individuals who are less fervent. So when someone comes out and says, I believe we should implement this tax, they don't go, what you want to do? They go, interesting, present your case. Ah, I've not considered that. However, I have considered this, which I believe contradicts you. And I think when people have an understanding that you're wrong all the time, you're very likely to be wrong and the truth awaits, you are going to be much more calm about these political circumstances. You'll get substantially less angry about them. And a society that is more inquisitive and willing to accept

that they are incorrect is more likely to be stoic, pragmatic, and successful. Yeah, it's humility. Yeah. Humility. I like leaders that are, it's hard to become a leader when you're humble. The opposite of Trump, I guess. Like it's the early stage of like controlling and believing in yourself and knowing what you know gets you into leadership positions and then the wisdom of understanding you might not helps you

be a better leader. It's hard to become a leader when you question yourself for my experience. That's what I've found in front of your people. They don't want someone in question. They want someone with definitive motion that's going to get you to the next spot so we all survive. But like that maybe the point of the evolution is you build up wealth and power until you're 40. And then when you're in your 40s, you essentially give it up for what's right, you know, for doing what's good. So we definitely did go over. If you guys want to throw at least one or two questions, because I know we kind of just went away over time. We'll just get a little bit few minutes. I also want to stress a couple things. With the anniversary of the murder of Charlie Kirk, as well as 9-11, the entirety of the news cycle is dominated by Memorial. And there's absolutely a time and place for all of that. And I think some of these have been absolutely fantastic, the stories of the heroes of 9-11 and all that stuff. So we kind of just went freeform with it, opening up with what the news we had was, and then just rolled with the conversation.

I know there's a lot of people that are like, I hate it when you get conversational. We tend to do it on Fridays when there's nothing big in the news cycle, and we're going to hang out and have these conversations. But here's a really great question for everybody. We'll try and get one more after this. We'll try not to go too long. But Kevin Adele asks, where were you guys on 9-11? I was in New York City, in Queens. Oh, man.

And then I have working at Ground Zero for like a month and a half after that. I was on my living room futon, waking up to my mom turning the news. because the first tower got hit and watching in real time as the second plane hit I think I was watching on CNN I'm not sure and then my mom going oh my god we're under attack that's that's what my memory of it where were you guys all at I was after a night shift at an airport funny enough on the other side of the world because I lived actually in Israel back then and I remember the first one hit and I was after a night shift so I was half asleep and heard that in the news and the TV behind me and even though it's insane

the first thought I had was like oh it's kind of like you know the Empire State got hit with a plane like a few decades before and I was like oh it's crazy but like I was so tired I was just like that's insane it happened again and then while just like Tim said

like well the TV was still on the second one hit and I go I go what like that's when it like gone on I mean it's something insane is going on it was like like at that moment it felt like the world was ending

I was like yo like that was the moment that it like really shocked me in the second one like flew in like live just like you were kind of yeah i was watching fox news live before the first one hit my wife was driving up to usf where she was taking classes um and then when the second one hit i called her and turned around so my my friends were on their way to school and they were listening to man cows morning madhouse and when he said ladies and gentlemen a plane has just struck the World Trade Center. This is not a joke or a bit this is happening now. You know what their response was? That cow's crazy. And then when he was like, this is serious. A second plane

that's it, they were busting a gut laughing. Who? So my friend's teenagers in high school. Oh. We're listening to a shock jock, man cow. The show's just all silly, random. It's like Chicago's trying to be serious. That's great. But no one, none of my friends believed him. They were like, it wasn't until they got to school and they walked in and they were like, everybody sit down. It's not even funny. It was like you were really about. They were laughing. This is ridiculous. Why would he do this?

Yeah. Where were you, Phil? When I was in Chickabee? I was sleeping. I was, I was, I was, I, at the time I was working at the mall. So I worked the night before. So I was sleeping around nine or whatever, 10 o'clock in the morning. And I got a phone call from my girlfriend at the time.

She's like, we are under attack. I was like, what? Who is we? What does that mean? Well, because she was talking about the U.S. And she was like, she was like terrorist flew planes into the world. Oh, then you write away? I don't remember them saying that way.

I mean, as soon as the second one hit, because it wasn't the first one. You know what I called me after the second one. And so everyone, then it was like, oh, obviously there's something going on. And then I was glued to the TV. A lot of kids, so they don't understand how surreal that was.

No. You know how like this rare moments where you know you're living through history right now, this is happening. There was a moment where I guess this is New York City because I just moved to New York six days before. And I was like, I guess this kind of stuff happens in New York. Oh my God, bro.

You can make it here. You can make it. But to your point, like that that was the first time in my life when I was like, this is like something that you like read about in comic books or see in movies. You know, build like entire skyscrapers fall into the ground. It was, it was. My dad was a firefighter. And so they put out a call to all volunteers to go to New York.

I don't know exactly what happened, but, because I didn't ask him about a thought process. But my understanding is that because of his kids and he was like, I just can't up in leave and go, but he would, because that's what, you know, that's what firefighters do. I hung out with firefighters down at Ground Zero when I was working there. And one of the firefighters, I was like, so he was like, they keep asking, are we going to find bodies under the pile? Because it's super hot, liquid metal flowing. And he's like, we ain't find them bodies, man. We find these little, this white twizzlery substance. And we know that's what used to be a human body because that's the leftovers of the bone. And when there's a fireman's coat, it's

heat resistance. So we, we find that. We fold up the white twislery substance and we have a funeral for it. The bodies are under our feet running down into the East River. They're liquefied, man. It's so hot under there. It was crazy. That's what he told me. And I think that's from the molten steel, the rivers of molten steel that maintained for weeks after the collapse of the buildings, which indicates like the nanothermite that melted the steel beams. It's just such a fuel home.

This dude. This dude. It's a dude. Apparently it was thermite that melted the steel beams. This is the dude. This guy needs a movie about him. this guy should be taught in schools and not enough people know the name of Rick Raskorla.

He was an employee, I believe, at Morgan Stanley and he had anticipated as one of their heads of security, I think he was the head of security, that they needed a plan in the event of a terror attack because we had one in the early 90s and he says this would be prudent. And he used to lead staff like on drills. So when, I wonder if they have the story,

I'd like to just read the story. you. At 8.46 a.m. on the morning of September 11th, when American Airlines flight 11 struck the north tower, Raskerla heard the explosion and saw the tower burning from his office window on the 44th floor of the south tower. When a port authority announcement came over the PA urging people to stay at their desks before U.A. Flight 175 struck. Riscollula, so this is, was it like 15 minutes, about 20 minutes, Raskerla ignored the announcement, grabbed his bullhorn, walkie-talkie and cell phone and began systematically ordering the roughly 2,700 Morgan Stanley employees in the South Tower to evacuate. In addition to the employees in World Trade Center 5, numbering about 1,000,

while watching the news coverage in a phone call to his best friend, Dan Hill, where Scorla said, the dumb sons of bitches told me not to evacuate. They said it's just building one. I told them I'm getting my people the fuck out of here. I'm not going to censor this. He directed people down a stairwell from a bottleneck on the 44th floor, keeping them away from elevators while telling them remain calm. He had boosted morale among his men in Vietnam by singing Cornish songs from his youth,

and now he did the same in the stairwell. Between songs, he called his wife telling her, stop crying. I have to get these people out to safety. If something should happen to me, I want you to know I've never been happier. You made my life. She replied, you made my life too. Before the phone went dead. After successfully evacuating almost all of Morgan Stanley's 2,700 employees, he went back into the building.

When one of his colleagues told him, he too had to evacuate, where Squarler replied, as soon as I make sure everyone else is out. He was last seen in the 10th floor of the South Tower heading upward shortly before it collapsed at 9.59 a.m. 56 minutes after being struck by UA Flight 175. A total of 13 Morgan Stanley employees died in September 11th attacks, including Rescora. His deputies, Wesley Mercer and Jorge Velazquez,

and security guard Godwin Ford, who had stayed behind to help others. Raskorla was declared dead three weeks after the attack. attacks, although medical examiners continue to identify victims of the attacks from recovered remains as late as September of 2021. None of those have been identified as Rescorla. Absolute legend. The number of people that were heroes that day, it can't be overstated. I remember right after the attacks and after the buildings fell, Fox News and some of the other news channels were saying, there could be as many as 20,000 people.

people that lost their lives. And the 3,000 people that lost their lives, it was an absolute tragedy. But without people like Rick, it would have been scores more. This is, this is just, I think people need to understand. It's not just, I don't mean to only single him out from all the other heroes. Of course not. There's a story that's going viral of the man in the bandana who was, you know, they found his name was 24 and he was running back and forth to get people out. Yep. Three thousand, just, just shy of three thousand people died on that day. And it was going to have been substantially more. You might vote against this because it's, you know, we're alive or I don't know if we're

like, but can we spend like 10 seconds, just silence for them? Absolutely. Rest and peace to all those heroes, those firefighters. I believe him in Steve Bissemi, who had been a volunteer who had been a firefighter in New York volunteered and came back. It does break my heart a little bit to know. What is it? Jeremy Borg had a great post.

10% it's been 25 years this country is 2050 years old this a 10th of our history has been after those attacks right and a generation of people 25 years to understand that there are people a few years before and anyone born after if you were three or four you don't remember those days and you don't see what happens you didn't see what happened but the stories and and uh uh The one thing that you can take from this horrifying moment on 9-11 was that it forced out in the most vile of ways all of the goodness that man represents. And that's why I love this guy's story. The defiance, the sons of bitches, I'm getting my people out. How many people were told to stay calm and stay where you are?

And I think about a lot of this too. There's a video I watched where a guy is playing basketball and he gets frustrated because he, like, misses his shot. So he hits his head on a pole, instantly paralyzes himself. I see stories like that where I'm thinking like, but for a single second, everything went wrong. And I think about a 9-11, the people that were slightly above were the plane struck, who were told, stay where you are. And if but for the three minutes, they just ran down those stairs and got below it, they could have lived. Or when I watched that video from the Yoko hops in Tibet, that gigantic.

Atlantic flood crashes down. And I see that there's, there's 10 people running. And but for three meters, these people are dead and these people are not. They're all running slightly uphill. And the wave hits just here and those people get washed away while the rest, just a few meters away, made it up the hill to safety. It's crazy. My wife's great grandfather was something to do with World War I was the dividing line of you get on this boat, you get on that boat. You got on this boat, this boat got sunk. Wow. So none of my kids would be here. It's a, it's a, it's crazy history. And there are young people who only know the stories, they didn't experience it. That's why it's important to say never forget, because there are people who don't have anything

to forget, they never experienced it. It's, that's why I really do appreciate when they, on 9-11, they play the day of coverage in real time for people to watch. So I do think, uh, you'll never be able to give that experience of what it was like. Everybody, like, I'm in Chicago, but everybody was terrified. Yeah. Everything was quiet. Everybody was freaked out. And you can't give that experience to someone who never saw it.

It was sort of like an amuse. I lived there. I worked there for a month and a half. Every Friday night, Saturday night and Sunday night from 12, 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. I worked a thousand feet away from the pile. It looked like an amusement park, but it was catastrophic. It was smoky and it smelled like graham crackers. And they then soon after they started telling us, well, you have to.

to wear an air mask when you're down here. And most people didn't, because who wanted to sit there for 12 hours with an air mask on in the American Express building with blown out windows? And I'm like, why are the windows blown out? I guess that's what happens when a building falls down. Then I find later, whoa, maybe there are explosions

propulsing stuff outside of the trade centers blowing the windows out of the neighboring buildings. It's a, we're at the end of the show, not at the beginning, but my God, transforming moment. Why did they tell people to prevent mayhem on the bottom? But yes, but at first, the speculation was,

may have been an accident, a pilot error. No one expected a second plane to strike the other building. So there were many people who were just like, glad I'm not over there. And building, no building had never come down from fires. So there's no interruption. Well, so, right, you don't want people running full speed. So there's a famous story where a fire in a nightclub broke out and everybody ran to the exit and got jammed in the door. There was a fire wreck that they could have gone out of. But because people only knew the one exit, That's where they went. That was in Rhode Island, right?

You're talking about the... Is that what it was? It was the... I forget what band it was, but it was a band playing. They had pyro in the building. They shouldn't have had it. Started a fire.

Started a fire. Everybody ran for the main entrance and then they were all smashed into it and couldn't move. Something like 49 people died. Because the people behind are shoving as hard as they can and the people are just smashed so you can't breathe and then you just die. And to that point, no skyscruper had ever fallen from an office fire. So they didn't... Or a plane crash. There was zero reason to think a plane was going to knock it down.

They were like just chill. It's the World Trade Center. going to be fine. We're going to put out the fires and everyone's going to be fine. I think it was a B-25 hit the Empire State Building or something. Yeah. That's what I thought it was when I heard the first one being here. People were like, the building didn't burn down, didn't fall down. And for a lot of people, they were like, look, once they start clearing, like, you're going to be trapped up there for a little bit, but we'll get it fixed, and then an hour later. We are way over time, though.

So this has been a lot of fun, hanging out with you guys. Smash the like button, share the show. Thank you all so much for hanging out. We've got a great show. We had a great, amazing conversation, which will be up on You don't want to miss it on the Tim Pool Show subscribe. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Who wants to go first? You want to shout anything out? Sure, yeah.

You can follow me on X at Josh Dawes. And be sure to check out the continuing Adventures of Mary Sue on YouTube or Mary Sue Adventures.com. My YouTube channel is Danny Goller, the A.W NY, GOLLER, and really all my social media's. You just go to Danny Gola.com. You find everything in all my socials. You get me at Ian Crossland.

find me YouTube X and Instagram is where I'm hottest so follow me at Ian Crossland I'll see you there I am Phil it remains on Twix I'm Phil it remains on Patreon you can check out the band all that remains on Apple music Amazon Music Pandora YouTube Spotify and Dizer don't forget the left lane is for crime great conversation everyone 9-11 since fifth grade when it happened I didn't learn about it till after I got home but yeah that's I'm glad we did the moment of silence Tim, let's go. Thanks for hanging everybody. Check out the Tim Poole show on Sunday and then we'll see you next week.