TrueLife - The DMT Code: Danny Goler on Proving We Live in a Simulation

Episode Date: October 29, 2025

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door. Use Promocode TRUELIFE for Get 25% off monthly or 30% off the annual plan For the first yearhttps://www.district216.com/Title: The DMT Code: Danny Goler on Proving We Live in a SimulationIn this mind-bending episode of TrueLife, George Monty dives deep with Danny Goler, the controversial researcher known as “the DMT guy.” Goler has spent years exploring the psychedelic frontier, claiming that DMT—combined with laser projection—reveals a repeating “code of reality.”We talk about the science, the symbolism, and the skepticism behind his Code of Reality Protocol—a method he believes exposes the architecture of existence itself. From his 7,000+ DMT journeys to theories connecting psychedelics, quantum physics, and simulation theory, this conversation challenges the boundaries of consciousness and reality itself.Whether you think he’s decoding the matrix or hallucinating the hologram, this one will make you question everything you thought you knew about perception, intelligence, and the structure of the universe.https://www.codeofreality.com/Contact:[e-mail] One on One Video call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_USCheck out our YouTube:https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPzfOaFtA1hF8UhnuvOQnTgKcIYPI9Ni9&si=Jgg9ATGwzhzdmjkg

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. Hears through ruins maze, lights my war cry, born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Kodex Seraphini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the show, my friends. Today we're diving straight into the void with the man who mapped the DMT breakthrough like a cosmic GPS. Yes, Danny Goller. From machine elf diplomacy to the fractal architecture of reality itself, Danny's simulation theory isn't just a hypothesis.

It's a trip report from the control room of the universe. Buckle up because we're about to red pill your pineal gland. Danny Goller, welcome back to the podcast. How are you, my friend? I'm doing amazing brother. Thank you so much for having me. Man, I'm so stoked you're here. You have been on a whirlwind from being an author to doing really cool experiences.

to an extended family, man. I know that we may have some people overlapping audiences a little bit, but I hope to bring a whole new world to you with a bunch of people that may not know where you are. So I thought I'd throw it back to you. Maybe you can give them a little bit more of an intro on on how you got to be where you are today.

Sure. The shortest way of describing what I do is that I'm the guy that discovered that if you projected a fractal laser on any surface and you smoke DMT, We now know that all tryptomines work, but with DMT is the easiest to do it. You will see what seems to be like a self-executing code of some sort that just kind of runs in every surface. And, you know, the first thought is obviously why does this stand out versus any other psychedelic experience?

And it's simply because of actually how non-psychedelic it is. It's just kind of like a regular hyper-object of some sort. And it's just there. And everybody are seeing the same thing. So that kind of put me on the map. I started showing a bunch of people. At about the 80 people mark, I started emailing scientists. Largely ignored, but that's to be expected, right?

Because it's like, I mean, I would. I would ignore me. Like if I'm a scientist, somebody emails me about stuff like that. And then slowly but surely I started putting out, you know, content about it. And then people started reaching out. I was invited to events to talk about it. I was added to a secret society and the Illuminati. No, I'm kidding.

I, no, so I, yeah, there you go. So I basically, I basically found myself kind of like the frontrunner talking about this stuff. And someone who actually, this is a common, maybe not criticism, but like a sticking point for people who was like, you know, you just, you saw the matrix, it sounded like a cool idea to you, and now you're trying to make things fit to make it look that way. So this is actually an important information. I never cared about the simulation hypothesis. Actually, it couldn't care less. I didn't even understand why people find it interesting, because to me it was kind of just, I'm a big fan of physics, and in physics we like to do things in a way that makes things neater and neater. There's a really tiny, beautiful.

equation that describes everything. That's what the Holy Grail is. So to say from this point on, it's all up for grabs is the exact opposite of anything I've ever wanted to be the truth. But I had to just, I had to accept certain things when the right information was available. And then, you know, now we're, we're already at the iteration of the project where we, I have a nonprofit called Code of Reality. That's the investigative arm. We have, scientists on board. So it's getting serious. So now we're now we're actually like doing a real like we're doing actual science and we're shooting a movie about it called the discovery that's going to be out probably closer at the end of the year. Yeah. So that's kind of like what the project is.

Man, isn't it interesting? The things that you're moved to do are usually the things that you had no interest in in the beginning. It's almost like they choose you, right? That's a that's a really good point. Actually, the thing that, it wasn't even the simulation hypothesis, it was the thing that found me that I never really, so I started my, I guess, spiritual investigation at a certain point in my 20s. Up until that point, I wasn't aware of it, but I guess we were always going through the process, but I became aware of it when I was in my 20s. And I came from a pretty atheistic mindset, that, right? atheistic, materialistic, which to a large degree, I still am, by the way, to be clear. I don't think that we're ripe to say that matter doesn't matter. I think that matter is, we don't

know the first thing about what it really is, even though we understand its behavior to some degree, which is what physics does. But my whole attitude towards these spiritual trajectories were pretty much you know, the caricature version of what the criticism usually is, which is like, oh, it's for weak people, people who can't handle the fact that when it ends and ends, that kind of stuff. And I slowly but surely found my way into meditation, into these more serious attempt to understand the world from the inner perspective. But even then, even when after I started doing viphasana and all of this stuff,

I still, the whole magical round part of it wasn't really, it was, like, to me, it was still clear that these are just some things that are happening in minds, right? And the thing that I think was, like you said, found me as I started doing this thing from a scientific perspective is actually a lot more of the spiritual stuff in a more serious manner. So like a lot of the content that I was receiving from the other side, quote unquote, was that no, no, there's, you know, that this is actually happening. Like, there's, there's all these other things and there's many layers to reality and you're about to find out and all of the stuff that, uh, what I would, what I would, uh, consider to be wackos were saying is actually true. Um, and that I had to come to terms

with. I had to kind of allow myself to absorb it and fold it into my worldview. and understanding of the universe. On the road to Damascus, you see the Matrix. That's the 2035 version, yeah. Yeah, totally. That's the new, new edition. Bible 3.0, yeah. Totally, totally.

Maybe can you define what simulation theory is? Like, it seems like a broad term. And when we talk about it, everybody has maybe their own perception of it or their own idea of what it might because there's a lot of literature out there now about people's experience, it, but I'm curious if you could break it down for the listeners.

Like what, in your mind, how do you define simulation theory? Yeah, so I think, so first of all, let's just put it down that simulation in our case, we mean simulating something that is already there. And to a large degree, it's true that it's part of the definition. But I would say that simulation is just a computationally rendered environment that is simulating initial conditions. So it's not simulating outcomes, usually. I mean, you can, but then you're not going to get much out of the simulation.

So the first thing to notice is that there's a book called Reality Plus by David Chalmers. I haven't read it, so I don't know if the book is actually well written or not, but I've seen an interview with him in which he kind of breaks down the general concept. And he is trying to convey that the whole idea of virtual worlds does not mean fake. it means computationally rendered. So digital world would be a more accurate description of it, right? And then the simulation part, yes, you can say that simulation means mimicking something

and then letting it run. I guess simulacrum would be a closer word to what it really is, which is simulation without a base. You're just kind of starting from scratch, basically. But it would still be computationally rendered. That's the key point. And what the situation seems to be is that I always say it's like the matrix upside-down.

down. In the matrix, we're in the real world, and we're sorry, we're in the computational world, which is a prison, and we're trying to get out to the real world. In reality, the situation is flipped. The real world is the computational world. We happen to find ourselves in one tiny neighborhood in this larger computational space that it's a tiny sliver inside with way less sophisticated rules, actually. So our laws of physics are way less sophisticated into the computational rules. And we, so we are one tiny slice of a much larger reality. So the real world is computational world, what we call the real world, is actually the subset. So it's the other way around. And you can see this, by the way, and you can justify these claims, because the first thing to notice is

that computation, for what it is, people never think about it unless they work with it. But it's a thing. Like, it's not a, it's not just the result of us building computers. Computers are utilizing computation. The fact that you can use binary, which just means any, anything that has a binary state, it can be black, white, zero one. Doesn't matter how you represent it. It's two sides of something, right? And you can use that to send signals and then create what we call computation. The deepest philosophical outline of what computation really is, it's going to take us five podcasts to do. but for all intents of purposes, computation, the fact that it's possible to compute in our universe

does not arise from any law of physics or a combination of any. I'm going to repeat it again. Computation does not arise from any law of physics. It's just there, which means it's another law of physics. So now you can compute with the waves of the ocean if you want to. It's just going to take you forever. So the fact that you can do that tells you that it's a function in the world that exists, just like electromagneticism exists.

So that is a very important thing to notice, first of all. Then if you allow yourself to think that way, now you can see how we didn't invent computation. We discovered it. And notice that the level of sophistication of things we can do, like what we're doing right now, right? Talking across an enormous distance, we can see each other in real time.

That is only possible, and it's a lot more sophisticated than anything you could ever do just by manipulating physical matter. So it tells you there's like higher functions here. And you can recapitulate all the other things in it with a computation, with a computer, with a universal computer, which we don't currently yet have, but it's universal enough. You can't, with a universal touring machine. You can technically reconstruct any law of physics plus some. You can build all the laws of physics that we know, and you can also play with infinite

variety of possible laws of physics in it. So it tells you that the function is wider. And that shows you that there's something more fundamental here. This idea is not new. It's been postulated by physicists for a very long time. Wheeler famously coined the term it from bit to denote this. The most likely explanation is that the bit is before the it. And now we're just kind of coming for the first time, I would claim,

face to face with the possibility of interacting with this proposition experientially and experimentally. Up until now, it was more resting, the simulation hypothesis, the modern iteration of it philosophically was by Nick Bostrom, the famous Swedish philosopher. And he wrote a white paper that became really known. And that's essentially every time you hear Elon Musk telling you the reasons why it's most likely they were in simulation,

that's Nick Bostrom's argument, which is that you just watch what we already know to be possible. And we assume that if the trend does not stop, obviously, eventually we will create a world that is indistinguishable from this, which, by the way, we're not that far from already now. We're not talking about 100 years, and we're talking about next year probably. So, and then you just have to make one more, even, I wouldn't even say above, it's just a lateral move philosophically.

you just say, well, if I know that we will certainly produce something that is indistinguishable from this world, what are the chances with the first one to do it? And the answer to that question is basically zero. And then, of course, most likely you're in a simulation than in a base reality. That's basically how the argument goes. But to be super clear, I have nothing that came to me through these ideas. it was more, I would just directly absorbing what was clearly, there was no other explanations. And then this code appears, I was like, okay, dude, that's, damn.

It took me some time. Like, it's, but the thing is, and there is this ontological shock of like feeling like a puppet and all that stuff. Yes, it happens. But I would say the deeper realization is actually the, the dead. that's just the first impact of growing pains. A similar one to what you experienced when you discovered your parents don't know everything. It's the birth of responsibility is when you realize, oh, I'm a player. I'm not just an observer.

And then you realize that what was simulated is just the environment, so the laws of physics, but not outcomes or agency. So for all intents and purposes, you're still a free agent to do whatever it is because that's what's being studied or absorbed, absorbed. observed, I don't know what's going with my brain today, not for the sake of spying on you,

but what is being taken away from that is that when you aggregate all the functions, we'll get all the different realities and all the different agents, in all the different realities and how they talk about their world, what kind of theories they build, what is being sought after by this

super advanced civilization, is is there a common denominator between all of them that points to something that is outside of their worlds. And then they're looking for that direction. It's like a vector map that they're building from all the realities that is designed to try and answer the ultimate question, which is like why everything exists. Because that initial wiggle seems to escape everybody.

Like nobody knows why everything exists. And that's, so when you're a civilization on the level that they've reached, which is basically, I don't know, 50 on the Cardishchev scale, like they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, but they still don't know why everything exists. So that's the final problem, basically. So they put all their technological sophistication to try and answer that question,

and to my understanding, that's essentially what's going on. And within that, they build a world that is not just based on physical rules. It also contains ethical rules. So, like, that actually kind of re-reed, you basically rediscover what religions were trying to say

all along, which is that there's ways to be that will land you in a better or worse neighborhood as you move through this infinite vector space. And getting our shit together becomes paramount when you understand that. It's so beautiful.

It's a phenomenal description of it. You know what? I see it. The way I look at it is like we've been on this giant rocket. And now we're launching off and the scaffolding is beginning to fall away. You know what I mean by that? Like we had these scaffolds through mythology, through religions, through governments, through our parents. Like the scaffolding has always been there. And you look back to the way you in which you rebelled as a child or maybe midlife or something like that. And you realize I was pushing back against this reality. Maybe it's not real. You know,

maybe there's this whole other world. And it almost seems to me, Danny, like an evolution of a on a grand scale. Like we're beginning to see it and it's becoming a little bit contagious, this idea of simulation theory through so many cool people out there talking about it. Why do you think that in my personal experience, I have noticed it too in some of the deeper psychedelic work that I have done? Do you think that there's a, it's psychedelics are sort of a pathway into this new evolution?

Do they help us see this new evolution? Is it part of us growing? What's the relationship between the psychedelic experience and this new evolution of thinking? They don't have to be there. No. I think psychedelics are one tool to see it quickly. And we can talk about why that is or why I think that is. But there's definitely other tools.

So all the truth that would be required for your spiritual evolution, I think that's a beautiful term, are there for you to partaken just by living life the way it is. just the strife of life, raising children, relationships, your relationship with yourself, all of these things have all the information you need to do that, to grow spiritually. And there are tools like psychedelics, for example, that would shortcut a certain portion of the understanding to a certain period of time. but you cannot circumvent progress, which means that that portion of it is computationally irreducible.

It's a term in computational science that just means the only way to know is to run the full computation. There's no shortcuts. You can't know. And the universe is computationally irreducible. So in order for the universe to know what's possible next, it has to run fully. There's no part of the universe that can go,

well, let me just go forward a little bit and check. There's no checking. There's the only way to know is to do. But there are certain things. There are little, little reducible computational pockets, which is what we discover when we have mathematics or science. But in the spiritual realm, you also have versions of that. So like in order for me, you know, so just like in engineering, let's say, right?

If engineering would be computationally irreducible, just to drive this point home, it would mean the only way for you to know if a building can stand, is for you to build a building. There's no other way. But the fact that you can make drawings, the fact that you can plan, right, the fact that architecture is a field, it means that that pocket of the execution of the universe

is computationally reducible. You can reduce it to a simulated version of it and see what works and what doesn't work. And then you can do it, right? In the spiritual world, there's also a version of that. So there are some reducible pockets. one of them can be just for you to know maybe somebody's like myself, if you're too thick,

there's nothing really, these things, you have to be open to them to even entertain them for them to be apparent to you. But I was never open to them, right? So if I wouldn't experience something through a psychedelic, I don't think I would ever consider that there's really something there, right? So that's computationally reducible. But beyond that, like in order for me to actually like carry myself differently on a daily basis, actually, you know, know, not pretending, but actually having a better inner state when certain things happen, that is not computationally reducible. You have to do the work. And that's why I always, by the way, I always tell people, like, even when you still, like, you can notice this, right?

People have been doing psychedelics for 30 years. It's not always accompanied by them being a better person. It actually doesn't happen. That requires, that requires work. And usually, that's why I recommend gentler tools like vipasana or other meditative practices, because that requires you to show up every day and actually do the computationally reducible work. You actually have to change yourself inside by practicing these moves, right? And so in that sense, what I think psychedelics do is they collapse the distance for certain people to even be aware that truly something different is going on or there's more to reality than what they think.

but all of that could have been done without psychedelics would just take longer and maybe across a few lifetimes. So in that sense, I feel like they definitely have value. Yeah. You know, I'm fascinated by some of these brain scans that I see. And some of the ones that I've been reading about, like with psilocybin or I think that there's some ones with LSD, they talk about the default mode network. And when you take some of these larger doses, the default mode. network kind of shuts off and all of a sudden there's these new neural connections.

There's maybe you're processing, you know, images in Broca's area or you're processing in these different parts of the brain and you're seeing different things in different realities. Is it possible that that is sort of a metaphor for our lives when we turn off the default mode network, we're able to make connections not only in our brain, but in the world around us. Are those two things connected or is that too far out there? No, I think the bandwidth problem is probably the right way to look at it. you only have a certain bandwidth of attention that you can allocate your brain. And the less you have with the DMN, with the default mode network,

the more you have with the rest of what's happening. And I think it's a matter of targeting it towards the right function. So like if currently you're not doing a task, the DMN is just kind of in your way, really more than anything else. It is important. So to anybody who does know the default mode network is a network in the brain responsible. We're correlated. we don't, you know, neuroscience people are very careful with the way they speak about it,

is correlated with everything has to do with this, what we call the self. It's not quite true to say that the default mode network is the self, but it's all the stuff that is you're implied in. Like when you say my favorite music, I like this, I don't like that, that this outwards pointing vector implies something inwards and that thing is modulated by the default mode network. What they discovered, the most robust research ever done on this was by Ritchie Davidson. I don't know if that's where the studies you were looking into,

but he's been studying this for decades, and there's over 600 publications under his name. They were studying with a functional MRI and everything. And he discovered, yeah, that meditators, long-time meditators, can literally turn off the default mode network on command, which he also saw that it's correlated with, less cortisol production, for example. So, like, the more the DMN is active,

kind of gets into this crazy cycle, and there's a lot of cortisol, which is associated with stress. So the less you're aware of a self, the more free you are to just kind of be the world. And it also correlates with the experience, because I can tell you, I've had some what people call non-dual states,

and it is really what it feels like. It's just the thing you feel yourself to be in the middle just kind of dissipates. there you go and there's just the room there's just the like they're just seeing people who are familiar

with Alan Watts he used to speak about it a lot which is like there's no seer there's just seeing and that's it and then the seer is just implied but when you look close enough you discover the seer isn't there

and that's actually freeing because now you there's nothing to defend there's nothing to worry about there's just kind of the function of the world whatever it's doing and so I think you're absolutely right and in fact there's another

research field, the phenomena of flow. That was coined by Michan Lichick-Seng Mihai. Nobody ever knows how to pronounce his name correctly. And Stephen Kotler is known to kind of be the torch runner with this in the modern world, but he wrote in bunch of books, The Rise of Superman and others that deal, the talk about this phenomenon of flow. And it's what we call being in the zone, all that stuff.

And it is also correlated with the reduction of the default mode network. There's something about that that just allows you to become the task, basically. And one final thing I can tell you from my own personal life, there was the first Vavasna retreat I've ever done. There's this, the fourth day, they teach you something called Adetan, which is strong determination. So you, now that you've practiced a little bit, now they tell you, okay, try, try not moving a muscle at all for like an hour. See if you can do that. It's not a prison, but like try. Try your best. And if you move, it's okay. But like, try. So then I really tried and I managed to do it. And then after you do it for like a good

40 plus minutes, it actually becomes pretty easy to stay in there. Then really the only question becomes like, how hungry am I? That's the only question. And then you just, and I stayed for like good four and a half hours. I skip breaks. I just sat in the chair and I stayed for four and a half hours. So then there was something that happened during that period. I had this crazy, what appeared as crazy pain in my knee. It felt like somebody was carving my knee with a knife. But I was already in such a state that it wasn't so much a feeling of pain anymore. It was just a strong sensation. That's how your brain frames it at that point. So I let it arise and it went away. And according to the Vipasana belief is that every mental event has some physical

manifestation. And whatever that was, it probably some mental event that you forgot about, but something in you is always paying attention to, the bend with, right? There's a certain bed, like, in order for this to exist in your body, something in you has to be paying attention to it, even if your conscious self is not aware of it. So after it went away, I stepped outside. I literally felt like I was on 300 microsoft acid, straight up.

Like, everything was glistening and pristine. Everything was clear. I could understand, like, why I do what I do. it was just profound. And then I immediately realized, oh, this is a science. Like they figured out how to allow all of these things to express themselves. They call them Sankaras. And then when it goes away, there's so much more bandwidth to pay attention to color and light and sound and cognition.

So it's clear. It's more, you understand more of what it is in real time. So it's a very long-winded way of saying, yes, I think you're exactly right about this. Man, I think that there's something to be said about courage. In the beginning of our conversation, you had mentioned that when you first saw this code in the DMT experience, that you yourself were questioning your own reality. What is this? And then you start putting it out there and people like this guy's out of his mind. You know, on some level, when you become aware of this simulation like you did, what's the role of courage to continue to pursue that avenue?

When your whole other world is kind of like moving into pixels and fading away and you're starting to see this new world emerge. You're starting to see the language, not only in the code of D&T, but when you go out and you look at a tree and you see the ecosystem underneath it, you begin listening to that language of nature. Where is the role of courage in there? And how did your relationship change once you began seeing all this stuff? You know, I think it has to do with where you place value. That's a great answer. Yeah. I think it's what it is.

If your value is in validation, then you're going to have a very hard time. Now, I'm not pretending that throughout my whole life, I never needed validation or felt like I needed validation. But I don't really know how I arrived here exactly, but I really, that's not where my value system is. It's just, I care about truth more than anything else. and one phrase really resonates at Terence McKenna used to say. He used to say, if you're right, you're a majority of one. And at first, at first glance, it might look like just a phrase that, you know, an asshole would really like it because it justifies anything you think is correct. But if you think about it just a little bit deeper, there's a lot of truth to this because if you really write, if you really write about something, not in the way of you.

just trying to rub it in people's faces, but just like you're really correct about something that in fact is going on, you have the back of the world behind you because it's what's going on. And then it's just a matter of time. It's just a matter of time before that becomes clear because if it's true, it's true.

And it's subjective perceptual things that we defend that feels very painful to defend because we're not sure, but we just want to. it to be true. But if you discover something that you believe is absolutely true, then it doesn't have the same, it doesn't have the same kind of, I don't even know if courage is involved there. Like, it's just like, oh, it's just what it is. Like, you can say the opposite all day long, but it doesn't matter. And I think that I just got really lucky because at that point I already

found a love of my life. I felt like my heart was full, everything was complete. And I just made information available. So even if nobody would ever follow me into this, I would keep investigating it and keep like finding new things. But undoubtedly when you are dealing with something true, the right people walk into the picture. So in that sense, I'm not trying to evade your question, but I just, I think really it's where courage would be involved if like there's something you truly like there's a damage to you in some way. that is implied in proceeding, and then you still make the move, I think the fact that that's not even the map I'm looking at

just doesn't require that gesture for me. You know, truth is a tricky one, though. You know, it took me to be almost... I don't think so. I don't think so. I think too much is made out of that. Yeah, I think it's a... And I don't mean, like, I think...

You know, you know what memes are, right? Like, not the memes we know, like memes in their archaic meaning. So, like, the smallest unit of an idea that can cause itself to replicate. So memes are the shortest expression of an idea or some statement about the world that, well, they're really good at replicating themselves, right? I think the meme, all truth is provisional. so basically postmodernism is actually a virus. Like it's a virus. Like it is, if it propagates beyond a certain point,

it will cause the demise of a civilization. Because it is clearly not true. And also, by the way, it itself makes a truth claim while stating there are no truth claims. So it's because the statement there is no ultimate truth is a true. You're claiming to know this about the world. And literally what you, so it's literally the completeness theorem.

It's, you know, the liar's paradox. Yeah. Yeah. It's like it's, it's, it's, if a liar tells you this statement is not true, you're like, wait. So. So. Exactly. Right.

But this is why, by the way, I want you to notice that the reason that this is a problem, not about this quite a bit. From a philosophical standpoint, the reason that the Lyme's paradox is a paradox is because you're looking at it from the perspective of a binary. It either is or it isn't. But the truth, if you understand that there's a third component here, it's a triangle, it's not a binary, then the problem just vanishes. because the truth claim is not resting in the statement.

It's resting in the relationship of the statement to the world. So it's not up to you to decide what is true. You can make proclamations about what you think it is, but it will always be measured in relationship to this third component. And just like in a stool with a triangle, like with three legs, it can stand firmly. With two, it's always uneven. That's exactly the same problem.

So the fact that even entertaining that idea ties you in a lot of unnecessary philosophical knots that don't need to be there. And by the way, the reason I'm saying it's a virus is because what it does, it, it overrides the most obvious thing to you. For example, and this propagates itself in different ways to different cultures. And I don't mean just cultures in the world, but also subcultures that exist now on the Internet, right? idea cultures. And for example, in the spiritual realm, the form of postmodernism is we all create our own reality. And then I go, okay, go walk through the wall. Well, well, so what happened there? After that well, that's the virus. It's overriding the most obvious thing to you. And it keeps saying,

no, no, no, no, don't look at that. Look at me. Look at me. Look at me. It keeps pulling your attention. to itself because it cannot survive if you check with the world. What it does, it tries to convince you, there's no world. There's just me and you. It's not a good thing. And the truth is that we don't use it when it matters. I don't think you want a postmodernist to build your plane. I don't think anybody does, right?

I think anybody who builds something that we want to be safe, we certainly hope that they're checking with the world. right? So I think it's a little game we're playing with ourselves when we already created a world that is comfortable enough for us to pretend. But it doesn't mean that we don't have more influence that science currently allows for. Of course, there's a lot more to understand and clearly, you know, what I'm claiming is pretty out there. But you will never get to the truth of it if you get to keep pretending. So I think that the important thing is to actually,

you can discover way more wild things about the real world and yourself in it and what is the actual relationship there. Are you the world? I actually think that's the case. I think that idealism is the answer, which is consciousness is fundamental, but it is not the same as saying anything is possible. No, it isn't.

Can't walk through the wall. So maybe anything is possible in the grand scheme of things. things. But for a period of time, there is enough regularity in the pocket you find you, the reality you find yourself in, that justifies you calling it the laws of physics. Like the mind solidified into some state, if it's all mine, right, that through which this seems regular enough. Terence used to basically, I thought he was quoting Whitehead, but apparently it was just like his way of summarizing his work. But he said basically, He was summarizing Whitehead's work, and he said,

Whitehead used to say, anything is possible, it's just a certain thing went through the formality of actually occurring. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Misplaced concreteness? Can you explain on that? I think that that's what, and I've only read, like, just little parts of Whitehead,

but I think that that's what you're saying. I think that was, essentially what he's saying is that you can't, or like you can see it in other ways, like Wolfram said, and I think Stephen Wolfram is probably the most on the money from the technical work. And he said that what we discovered through their investigation of these hypergraphs is that, yes, technically you can describe a world in which when you execute the full graph,

everything that could happen will happen, just like you believe in quantum physics, right? However, not in any order. So that's a limitation that is real, right? So like certain things have to exist first for other things to follow. And that's not arbitrary. Yeah. Man, it's so mind-blowing to think about that aspect of it. I get caught up in the truth all the time.

And it's so interesting you bring up the liar's paradox. I was just thinking about that the other day about how two things can be true at once. Like for me, it was this when I went to Hawaii and I was talking to my friend from Japan and he was telling me about what happened, you know, in World War II. and then I learned what I was taught and I'm like, whoa, both of these things are true at once. You know what I mean? On some level, like... Wait, wait a second. What are the two things that are true?

I think I miss a connection there. Okay, so I remember when I was in Hawaii and I was sitting down with a parent of my daughter's friend and we were talking about the history. Like, you know, we spoke about, well, there was this, the United States dropped, you know, these bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And I only had like my person.

of what had happened because that's what I was taught all the way through primary school. And he was telling me his story about his family who has been affected over in in that area forever. And it came to a head because I realized like this guy was really angry at me for something. I didn't know what I had done. But it wasn't that he was angry at me. It was just angry at that like my idea of what had happened. And so we talked about this conversation.

That was the first time in my life where I was like, look, that's his truth. And this was this, this was my truth. And neither one were really the truth. but it seemed that two things were true at once for me. And that was like a seed that was planted in me. Like, oh, maybe two things can be true at once. Does that, you know what I mean? Yes.

So, yeah, of course. So this is where, so it's interesting to notice this, right? Because this is, this junction is what postmodernism uses to then justify its truth claim. but what needs to be noticed there is that it's an ill-defined way of thinking about truth I'll define truth for you in the way that I see it okay the ultimate truth it's just the state of affairs that's it so whatever it is notice that in the statement nowhere was implied that you will ever have access to it it is just the recognition that there is the state of affairs. It doesn't matter if the way the world works right now, maybe, is that,

you know, it's built on three trillion giraffs standing on turtles and they're all spinning and they're all producing all these like weird colors and all of this process somehow switches all the universes you can be in three trillion times in one picosecond. It makes no difference how crazy it is. Whatever it is, that's the truth. So that for sure exists. Like that's by definition. By definition, something is happening, right? The fact that anything is happening at all,

doesn't matter what it is, how crazy it is, how you become aware, it makes no difference. Somehow it is. That is the ultimate truth. Now, will you ever know all of that? No. But that's a separate question. That is a separate question from the truth claim.

now we can say within the craziness that exists there is this thing called perception the perception might be the world at bottom like in idealism it can be some fabric inside of an already existing

existence existing world like in what's it called pink psychism there's a lot of different frames to look it through but those are all options

but whatever it is you can say in existence, there's something called perception, however it arises, and this perception has this interesting quality that it could fragment itself to different points of view. That's part of the larger truth. These points of view can see the same situation differently. But it does not mean that the ultimate state of affairs is different. It just, we perceive it differently. And that's part of what you can say objectively about what true. And it does not reduce your ability to acknowledge that there's a truth to their experience because it is a thing that exists also within the totality of what is the state of affairs.

They had their perception, you had your perception, and then you can talk about why. But if you just stop here and you say, oh, look, I have my truth, they have their truth, where now you nailed yourself to something that isn't fundamental, but you decided it's fundamental. It isn't. And actually, the reason that it's not good is because you're limiting yourself from being able to ever say, wait a second. But the same thing happened. So let's investigate why do we perceive it differently?

And that would actually get you to a higher octave. That would actually allow you to interact with a higher function of the world. And eventually, you should be able to, no matter how much you believe, benefit or lose from a situation, you should still be, if you advanced enough as a being, you should still be able to say, I see. I see how why the unit that I am in this space and time is experiencing it this way because I have my own predispensations and I have my own qualms and I have my own feelings and I have my own everything. And I can totally see how from a more limited perspective why I don't like this and they do. And you can acknowledge that.

while at the same time not being happy about it. That's a more advanced function of a being, right? But you will never get there. If you just say, oh, they just proceed. A friend of mine gave me a similar version of this a few days ago. He's like, some people think Trump is doing God's work and some things is the devil. And I'm like, and they're both right. I'm like, no, over long enough of a period of time,

we will see what it amounts to. It's computationally irreducible. You can say that's my opinion, but you don't know what it is until there's a truth to what in fact is happening, right? So if you're making a claim about me, you're saying there's two people and they observe my behavior and they say,

this person thought X, this person thought Y, there's still this issue of what actually happened inside of me. That's the truth. You have your perception of it, but the fact that you have a projection of me doesn't mean that that's me that's the thing that people confuse and if you notice

it's very self-centered that perception is very self-centered it's like my perception of you is as much you as you uh-uh you need to check in with me and it's a negotiation between what is actually occurring and what you think is occurring

and I think that it's unnecessarily confuses things because we we already have a method that works, which is the scientific method, but it just needs to be expanded in terms of what kinds of ideas we fall into it. So people think that science somehow is just cold and calculated and, you know, a thing that we, it's, it's a thing of the past. Like, no, no, science is just a way of looking at the world without immediately assuming that what you think first is correct. You just kind of check with the world, actually, right? But currently, science suffers from a different

problem, which is because of the incentive structure inside of science, yes, it has more of this kind of like the flavor only caring about things we can measure and substantiate now and, you know, make something out of. But I think ultimately science, what it is like the ultimate capitalist science is just the enterprise of understanding. And it should include everything, including inner perception, how these cognitive states influence the world and vice versa, all of it should be under that huge investigative, beautiful, beautiful attempt that humans are involved in, which I think ultimately is what science is. What we call it, I don't really care, but it's just there's definitely a truth to the matter,

and we should care about it. Yeah, it's brilliant. Do you see science and spirituality being one branch? Like, it almost seems like they're holding hands. It's just for some reason they've been at odds for the last 100 years or something like that. Yeah, I would say that what we do now, we call it cognitive physics. And it basically denotes this one difference, which is the only difference between cognitive physics and physics

is that in cognitive physics, we do not ignore the observer. It's true that we have no idea how to put it into equations yet. We don't have a handle, mathematical handle. But we are not ignoring the fact that someone is looking and what are the conditions under which they're looking. Like that, and it makes things a lot more difficult. Don't make me wrong, but it has to be done. We can no longer brush the observer out of the picture, right?

Yeah. And because of that, I would say that if you look at everything this way, then you see that meditation, introspection, all these things, they are basically the science of the inner space. They are, science is in the business of looking at something closely, studying its behavior, noticing regularities, creating frameworks to communicate these regularities across individuals so you can inculcate the information in culture

and then you you build on top of it and others can partake and others can do well in meditation you look at your inner space very closely you notice regularities that's what the Buddha did right and you notice what works and what doesn't work not everything works and then if you follow these regular interval intervals of inner space, you will get the same results as anybody else was doing it.

So that is the science of the inner space. I would say investigating the same thing. It's just that I've had this conversation with Lev Levitin, who's a, he's now a lot less known, but he wrote some seminal papers in computational science. He was a physicist and computational scientist. He was, I think it was in his heyday in the 70s. So he's an old-timer is now, I think in his 90s. And he just had two. newborns. Dude, this guy is an animal. So anyways, I had a conversation with him in Boston and I asked him about this because, you know, he has such a robust science career. I was like, do you understand? I'm like,

help me make sense of why the incentives in science are just only around these like very limited scope things where you can just kind of probe. But there's so many other things that we can understand why aren't we doing that also? He said, oh, I see exactly what you're saying. He said, unfortunately, the answer is kind of boring. It's money. And he's like, it's what it is. It's like, if you think about it, like you're, you know, you're a PhD student.

You got to eat, right? So like, you're only going to go towards the things that you know there's a chance you're going to make money in. This is the thing that I would say it requires courage to actually, you know, invest seven years of your life or six years of your life, whatever it might take you to get a PhD in something. And then when you start going into the postdoc, all of a sudden say, you know what, I'm recognizing the fact that I don't want to be doing these things and I'm going to do something wild. That requires courage.

Because you basically might be throwing away six years of your life, right? But that's what it is. And I think that ultimately we have to just encourage more of these other attitudes in science from the get-go. And I would say as close as, as early as the kindergarten, I can totally, like, my vision of the beautiful future humanity is one that investigates the inner space just as seriously as the outer space,

but not instead of the outer space. They're both one function. So from kindergarten, you start teaching meditation. When kids are ripe enough, and I actually don't think we should allow this until about 28, if we want to be healthy individuals, I don't think anybody should do psychedelics until they're about 28, maybe even in their 30s, to be honest.

But then you might have some explorative little windows when you're coming of age, so like 18, 19, maybe, but maybe once or twice. You don't want to get people hooked there. And then when you're more mature, when you understand what there's responsibilities in life, all the now, okay, now you're ripe to do that. And then at the same time, keep expanding our technical abilities.

But I think the kind of human that would be becoming through this process of inner investigation from a young age, would A, be interested in a much wider array of phenomenology in the world and would be able to apply much more sophisticated tools of thinking through the fact that they're so focused, so cognitively balanced, emotionally balanced. and the humanity is going to create, the technical humanity is going to be created through such processes. I think it's going to be something that we won't even recognize. You're going to have this beautifully expending bubble

of technical civilization, slowly expending into the galaxy, but it's creating structures that are a reflection of their connection to the divine. So like science and architecture that is built through not just functionality, but also art and beauty that is inspired by these, very deep inner states. That's the kind of civilization we should want to be. I love that. And there's a lot I want to unpack right there.

My opinion is that, like, you have to have that sacrifice. Like, you have to give, you have to break, it seems to me, on some level. Like, you have to realize, like, I just gave seven years of this, and I realized it's bullshit to me. I'm not going to do it anymore. To me, that's an integral part of getting to see the. reality around you. And that probably harkens back to my idea of courage. Like a lot of people, like you go down this road and it's almost like, you know, when you get to a certain age,

you have a choice. You can either continue to live this life that's not fulfilling or you can go, I'm going to start over or I'm going to investigate this other thing. But that to me seems, at least in my own experiences, which is all I can speak of is that's really where things began opening up for me was embracing the fact that I can't do this anymore. This is where this leads and this is not fulfilling. But maybe that's a test. Maybe that's maybe you have to get there in order to get to the other side. Maybe that's the initiation they talk about in myths. Is that too far? Maybe you have to have that. A hundred percent. Yeah. You just, I agree with you 100%. If you know, imagine a kid who's like a go-getter, right? And they have some idol. Let's say something

very high octane. So like in a financial whole thing, right? So they have some superstar that they really love from like Wall Street or whatever and this kid is like, I'm going to go, I'm going to make money. And it might be even super legitimate reasons. Like he grew up poor. He wants to take care of his parents. He's like, I'm the first one in our family to take financial responsibility. I understand how this thing works. I'm good

at it. I'm going to make a fortune and take care of everybody I love. Amazing. And then they start going, so if that idol, if they meet that idol, in a moment in time where the idol already kind of got to this level where they're like, oh, like I understand this is all, it doesn't make you happy. But would the instance of the idol telling this to the kid in that moment help the kid to not do it? No. It might confuse him, but it's not actually helpful.

He's not giving him good information because the only way this worked is that first you had to get to. You had to sweat and tears and blood. You had to get there. And when you got there with all that effort and you go, oh, still I'm not happy. Ah, okay. The emphasis has to be different. And hopefully maybe there's a way that we can convey that from a much younger age. But by the way, I would say that if we do that, even the lack that a lot of people feel when, you know, the anxiety and the fear of becoming less and all.

of that will not exist. So the scarcity will not be a concept. And then you don't need these crazy drives. You can just explore for the sake of exploration and, you know, and still discover way more than you ever would if you would be driven by fear. But I fully agree with you. Do you mind if I ask you, were you alluding to something that specifically happened to you or you were just using it as a general example?

What was the thing that you let go of that you realized was bullshit? Well, for me, it was a series of events. And it was a series of events where my child had died. I was really unhappy with the world. I realized the things I was unhappy about and everything that I saw in other people were things I didn't like about myself. And then I realized, oh, this is a mirror, all these things. And then I got fired from my job for doing what I thought was right.

And then it was a loss of identity. Holy cow, I am not this guy. that I built myself up to be. And I don't even want to be that guy. And then I had my wife end up getting cancer. And it was like, holy crap, the people I love the most might die. You know, when you look back at it, it's sort of, it's the same thing you see in so many of these incredible foundational myths of like getting to this point.

And, you know, maybe it's what it like, maybe this is what it's like to become more human or become a man or become further down the journey. It's like you come in confrontation with these. bumping up against the real world. Like, look, yes, time is, it's only, you're only here for a little bit, at least in this aspect, the same way that a silkworm spins, spends its own cocoon. I don't know that I was spinning my own cocoon, all these lies and all these things, you know, and then it's, you begin to emerge out of it.

And you're like, what is this a wing over here? I'm biting this old detritus. Like, what is this world I'm in? It's so foreign to me. How can that be? Like, I was just in this thing, you know? So for me, that's when I really began to have a lot. lot of respect for the idea of a breakthrough or the idea of a breakdown. Like, look, I'm,

I've broken down and now I'm this new form, even though I'm the same form. What does that mean? And so when you had mentioned that part, I was like, oh, I recognize that. That's the necessity. Like you must have the ordeal before you get the medicine to make sense of, which brings us back to the idea of kids maybe shouldn't have it until a certain age. Like maybe you need that ordeal before you get the medicine. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, absolutely. I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I really think that everything from the educational system to just how we do things in society as a whole needs to go through a revision of what should come first. If, you know, in school, the much better way to teach anybody, anything, is to first stimulate

their imagination and want to know this, right? So if you go to physics, I don't know how till this day it's not clear that the first thing you got to do in the first semester is just to fill kids with these crazy amazing, like the cutting edge of what we know, teach them about black holes and playing scale. But like, you don't have to go so deeply. It's true that you need to understand a lot of mathematics before, but just give them the concepts with some specifics, just stimulate them. Go like, isn't it wild?

Like, look what we understand about these grand things in the universe. when you finish with that semester, the kid will be like, oh my God. Like, what do I need to do to know more about that? Ah, I'm glad you asked. Now we got to do calculus. Okay. So, okay. But now, now you're there.

You're like, okay, like, you remember that you're doing this toil because I want to, I want to know. Like, if it resonates with them, they want to, they have this imagery. They have this emotional connection to it, right? When you just kind of learn, just like, you know, statistical mechanics. this is like, why are we doing? It's like, don't worry about it. And then it's just like being in a factory. You don't know anything, just like this.

Do the thing. So this needs to change. But also in life, like you need to let, I don't know how you make that happen because, you know, there's certain incentive structure to, you know, how the economical system works and everything. But I'm sure there's a way you let them go instead of, you know, internships, let them go, travel and explore the things that they really are about for like a year. Let them hit it head first.

Let them have the heartbreak. Like, let them have the. And then when they come back, they're like, ooh, it's not as easy as I thought, huh? You'd be like, no. By the way, that would also solve the like, kind of like the overly, you know, young naivete about like, just like, oh, no, well, like, why aren't you guys just justice?

Justice is like, well, you go try change at first. then you'll see why it's not just like that, right? So like, I love the idea, sure, but like, how do you go about it in a realistic way? You've got to meet reality before you meet what you can become in it and how you can transform it to something better. If you don't understand the thing you're trying to, if you don't really understand the thing you're trying to transform, you're never going to be successful.

That's not in the cards. So I think that's exactly what. We have to allow ourselves to play more in the beginning. so there's enough of this like forward thrust created of always wanting to explore more, understand more, contribute, like all of these things. I think they would come online a lot earlier if we allow for this kind of exploration in the beginning. Yeah, I think that's amazing.

How could you roll or how could you begin to get simulation theory into like an education model? Have you thought about how some of the ideas you're thinking about could apply to children earlier in life? So I don't know if it would start with a simulation theory. I think it would be with just what we understand about the world. So if it's just a theory, like in terms of like we have no connection to it experimentally, then I wouldn't teach it because I think it's a, it's just too many variables. But ifs and maybe to be a serious investigation of reality, right?

You can learn about it in other frames of like, here's some ideas about the world. But if we have some connections through experimental attempts, then you can say, okay, well, here's what we do know about the world. When you do this and like our experiment, right, you see this weird self-executing code in walls. Okay. What does that mean? I don't know.

Can we probe it? How? Well, let's say we discover that if you turn on like a really powerful magnet, somewhere in the room or something and something happens, well, now we know in response to magnetism. Okay, well, now it's just a thing we know about the world. but the truth is that I think then within the next three years

everything is about to fully transform so like we're about to be letting on the know like there's a lot that is going to happen that just all of these things are going to be absolute like it would just be known like you know

it would just be declared basically first gently and this and then a little less gently and then a little less gently. Still at first than all at once. Yeah, yeah. I've got to shift gears here, man.

Sure. Fascinating conversation so far. And I wish you, I'm so stoked you're so interesting, but I get all bogged down on these awesome questions. And some people are asking like, hey, didn't Danny do a pretty awesome experiment pretty lately? Why aren't we talking about that, George? So let me shift gears.

Didn't you do a recent experiment of extended DMT? Yeah, we did the, as far as I know, I'm now holding the record. Okay, okay. Yeah. Blow me up like, you're not even. talking about, okay, I'm sorry, chat, I'm sorry over here. Yeah, yeah. You can give people a foundation of that.

Yeah, so we just, the chemist that was attached to the project in Colorado reached out to me and he's doing his own thing now. His name is Kevin and his partner, Haley. They're amazing. I highly recommend you guys reach out if you're interested. I can't say enough good things about them. They're amazing. And we basically did it for the movie, but we also tried to do a bunch of,

of experiments with it. And we ended up doing, so we did total of four hours and 50 minutes, so basically almost five hours, and the total was 468 plus milligrams of DMT total. So that, as far as I know, Kevin says as far as he knows, that we weren't trying to break a record or anything.

We just kept on doing experiments. So I ended up basically doing like seven boluses in the, I think seven, seven or six. I think seven. bolus is total um so basically i was like up there quite a bit of the time and it's just it's phenomenal like i if you're already into this i highly recommend it because it's uh it's it's such a first of all anybody who's familiar and i'm assuming the audience will probably guess it would be familiar but so the big difference is you don't have that initial torque so like that

that boom that you feel when you smoke a lot of it is not there, but it can climb higher. So it's more of a hockey stick, so there's more of a root, but it's not quite the, you know, like that, like you've been taking off like from zero to a hundred all of a sudden.

And super stable, very beautiful experience. I, in the first hour, I was propelled into basically heavenly realms, and I was shown kind of like, you know, it's not something I'm not familiar with, but it was kind of definitely emphasized for me, like the role of the ethical code, what morals really are, how it plays into the larger picture,

how it leads to certain trajectories of worlds. It was the most beautiful. I felt like the first 30 minutes, all I could say is like, oh my God, I'm so grateful for you guys. It felt so, there was so much love. And then we, you know, we were in a bunch of experiments. We had two brain scans running at the same time. We tried all kinds of lasers. We tried polarization lenses. I tried to interact with my console.

If you're not familiar, I have this computer console that appears for me like 100% of the time, basically. I think we came to that a little too late because I forgot that that happens. We did it after already like three and a half hours. I was ignoring it most of the time. But then when I tried to look at it, it was already. kind of going, so when my brain gets tired, the console just gets wonky. Instead of like just hovering in space, the way it does, it just starts doing this like,

like it just kind of goes off guilt. And I'm like, oh, man, my brain is like, and now I was super happy to proceed, but it was basically saying, yeah, like, you're out of juice, bro. Like, it's like you got to, you know. So next time we're going to do, we're going to start with the console. what we might have discovered that I think has like real validity is that Sterling Cooney, who was our brain scan expert, he's actually, he's a he's been doing a lot of work with, do you know who's Stuart Hammerov is?

I don't know. So you know Core OR. Some people might know this theory. It's the microtubules thing. You know what I'm talking about or no? I've heard a little bit about it. Yeah, so Roger Penrose and. Stuart Hammerow wrote this now infamous paper about microtubials called Core OR the theory.

And basically their postulation is that consciousness arises on the microtubia level by translating quantum states into whatever we experience is cognition. I happen to think that consciousness is fundamental, so I don't think it's correct. But I do think that there might be some translation happening on that level. So they're using an electronic eG device. So it's like it's called DDG. So basically you measure in the megahertz range versus the Hertz range. And we saw definitely a lot of differences in oscillation where we're doing, you know, my experience.

Oh, and we were also doing like every time they would give me a bolus, a few minutes after that, I also smoked five in me on top of it just to see if we can just to see if we have something interesting happens. I was like, let's go cowboy. boys. In for a penny, in for a pound, baby. So what's interesting is that it basically doesn't really mix. They just, the 5MEO just washes in, completely engulfs everything. And then it washes out. And then you just, again, and they add an experience, which is amazing.

It just, you know, 5Mio is all love. And it's just like amazing. But then we definitely saw some differences in the readings. And what was interesting is that Sterling works with Sturling. works with Stuart Hemmeroff a lot. Stuart is an anesthesiologist, and they've been doing a lot of brain scans with people with trying to measure in that range.

That's because they believe that macotubules oscillate in the 2.6 to 26 megahertz range, which neuroscientists, most of them say, no, that's not possible. There's no oscillation on that level. I can tell you 100% there is a difference. Like, there's no question that there's oscillation. There's no question.

even when people just drink a red bull, you can see a difference. Now, there is some legitimate pushback even on that. I don't know how many people here really care about this, but I think it's important to mention. There is this possibility that the second that your emotional states gets aroused enough and with secular as they do, and bodily states, they feed back into your brain in such a way that causes, it's almost like a, like, it's not actually, the pushback is that what you might be measuring is

not an actual oscillation in the brain on that level. It might be almost like a feedback from your changed state. So just like from your emotions and stuff like that. So it's almost like it washes back into it and that's what you're seeing. I don't know. I can tell you definitely we see a difference, but one thing I can tell you for sure that worked for us. In this experiment, Sterling noticed that he could identify clearly when he thinks I'm looking at the laser versus anything else. And he's in the other room. He's not seeing me. So he's only looking at the screen.

And he said, okay, so I think I know when you're looking at the laser. And what was interesting is that he did many, many, many, many brain scans, I think thousands. And he said, it looks very similar to language process. I said, that's interesting. Now, he knows when, you know, looking at a code in a laser, so there's a bias there. But I said, okay, let's test this. So the way we controlled for it, kind of quick and dirty, just to, because maybe it's just my brain registering light, just like, you know, a lot of light.

So I looked at the screen instead, the screen where we have the brain scan. And I tried to also resolve some patterns in it, which means that what if he's just registering so I'm just attempt to, you know, consolidate information in some forth. And without him knowing, we ran it three times. He nailed it every single time. And without a doubt, I'm like, okay, now I'm looking at one thing. Okay, now I'm looking at the other thing. Which one was the first one?

Which one was the second one? He was like, first one was the laser. No question. He knew every time or second time was the later. Like he knew every time as I was looking at. So we're going to test this further because if we can substantiate this, then we have something very substantial. The next time we're going to do it,

we're going to try and do it with just written code on a piece of paper, and then the laser, and then just my imagination. And in all three cases, we're going to have me look at the paper, register the symbols, say them out loud, and then just think them while I'm looking at them at the paper,

do the same thing with my imagination. So just imagine the characters in my mind's eye and say them out loud, then imagine them and just say, them in my mind's eye, and then do it again with the laser. And if the pattern of the brain scan looks similar to the paper where the characters are written and to the laser, but it looks different when I imagined it, now we have something very substantial.

Because that means there's definitely something very similar happening in reading versus just imagining something. So we'll see how that goes, but we're going to be running a lot more tests in that direction now. So this is cognitive physics. How do you reconcile the fact that currently, the only way to measure this is humans' experience? Now, obviously, the Holy Grail is, can we also come up with a way to have cameras pick up on it? And I think eventually we'll be able to maybe. But until that moment comes, how do you control for the fact that the only way you have access to this now is through people's reports?

That's a problem that cognitive physics needs to solve. A whole new frontier. Yeah. You know, I sometimes I, was there a period when you began that you had to get comfortable with the terrain? You know, there's the great line that says, um, uh, death by astonishment, right? Like, was there a period where you had to like, okay, I'm in this space now. Let me not be deceived by all this incredible stuff going around. Like, how did you become familiar with the territory?

Was that like a, did it appear? of like you need a period of like a half an hour, 10 minutes, or an hour? Or did you ever become comfortable with the terrain? And what was that process like? Do you think our mutual friend okay by being mentioned by name or you think we just say our mutual friend? I say it by name. Okay.

Yeah. So I think I'm very similar in my architecture inside to Eve in that regard. She's amazing. Everyone should check out of you. Eve is one of my favorite people on this planet. She's amazing. And so shout out to Eve also because she connected us. And she,

aside from being this magical creature, she's very similar to me and that we got where I'm very similar to her. That we really thrive. We really enjoy the chaos. Not chaos in terms of just mess, but just like the crazier to better. Let's go. Like, you know, I've actually,

I don't think I've ever met anyone else aside from her. heard that is like that. So definitely, so my answer is no. I never had to get used to it. I just, the crazy or the better, just how I'm built. I don't know why. I can't take credit for it since I was a little kid. Like I started doing acid.

Yeah, I started doing acid when I was 11. And then I, and I just, you know, did psychedelics since. So I have like over three decades of experience. And every time, I mean, you know, some, there's, one story that I always, I told this, I'll tell you what it is, but when I told it to a neuroscientist, she told me I'm lying. And I said, no, no, I did this. She's like, no, there's, there's no way you did this because you would go into a shock. Like, there's no way. I said, I did this. I, I drove to Vegas and I consumed over my drive, 5,400 mics of acid. So, like, I ate 54 of these things,

and I know each one of them had 100 on it. And I was, and I was also, on other things as well, which, by the way, probably helped. But I really wanted to see my thing is that I always know where North is somehow. Like if there's an emergency, I'll snap out of it. There's no matter how crazy it is. I don't know why that is. So I tried numerous times in my life to try and see where my line is, and this was one of these attempts.

And it's not like it wasn't, if you're in loading in Vegas, baby. And I was driving and it got to a point where I wasn't sure what was going on. Yeah, it got there at about 30 plus. I think it was in that range. I had to stop on the side of the road because I wasn't sure that I understand what's going on. And there's no better way of describing it. I wasn't sure that I know what's happening, just in general. But then I realized there was enough of a recognition in me that, wait a second,

I don't even know where I'm parked right now. And if a police officer stops me right now, I'm, I'm fucked. So I had to like, okay, well, I, whatever it is, I got to keep moving this thing. I didn't even, it was not enough of me to think of it as a car or like, I had to go keep this thing that was moving. I have to keep it moving now. And then I kept it moving.

And then what my thought process was, I realized that if I focus on my knuckle on the steering wheel and I always just noticed the distance between it and that line on the road, the, the one that goes like this. So like the, my distance from this knuckle to the line either on the right or the left, if it's not big enough, I'm good. So then that's all I focused on. It's just like, and then I kept on eating them and I finished all of them. And I was driving to a Canelo fight.

It was great. But, but, but, but, but I, fall in tons of purposes, I've once, uh, swallowed the sugar cube that we thought there was acid. on it. It was definitely not acid. We later discovered it was 25I, an N-bomb. I don't know if you know what it is. It's like a designer's drug.

I think it was synthesized in like 2003 or something. It's like acid on steroids. It's like imagine, so it's the closest thing if sometimes not more visuals than DMT. It's like what you would imagine

a cartoon a cartoon depicting acid as. It's like straight up. You see like snakes flying around. Like it's just nuts. And what we didn't know. So, and by the way, to be a very important disclaimer,

25I actually has an overdose. So you can actually die. So like obviously we didn't even know what it was. We didn't know like, but we discovered later that each one of those cubes had like five doses on it. So like both me and my friend, we had a five dose,

whatever it was of this. That was the only time in my life, the only time where I could see the line that people don't come back from. I was like, oh, okay, so the interference pattern was so intense that if I did this, I could not see my hint. That's how crazy the visuals. I could not see my hand. But I could see through the sky, through the earth, into multiple dimensions. And by the way, it peaked, peaked full on for six. hours and it lasted for like 48 hours or something like this thing yeah this thing is just like and i and i

remember seeing that line of like of you you you stay bunkers that that's it like there's no it's it's a you hospitalized for life basically and i was like oh okay i see what it is and i can't describe it but there was and even then i was like dangling on the line like you know you know If I live here, I live here. So I don't know why that is, but I'm not a good example. I didn't put any work into this. It's just how my brain works. I just can go crazy and it's fine.

See, okay, that brings up the, this seems like a paradox here. Because earlier we said maybe kids should never do these drugs. Oh, it's not a paradox. I'm saying, I'm not an example, bro. Do not follow my lead. I'm saying now they've done this. I'm looking back. I'm like, yeah, like the healthy.

trajectory is what I said. But no, it's not a paradox. I'm not a good example. But maybe you would never be here unless you had those experiences at 11. Maybe it was that early adoption of neural plasticity that allowed you to get where you are now. No, I think that it is no, no, no, no, no, there's definitely, no, I can tell you, George is my natural high. I love it. That's perfect. What was, what was that comedian? his name. I forget who it was. Maybe it was no, I forget who it was. But basically he said, like, I don't need drugs.

I'm high on life. And then he goes, like, but over time, I develop tolerance. So now I need drugs. So, yeah, I mean, I'm not a good, because, look, just because somebody overcame adversity and got to a stable place, does not mean that you, that was the optimal way to do it. Like, statistically, I think it's a much better situation where you have all the right periods of time,

you know, allowing you to experience what you need to experience. No, I would not recommend my kids having this at an early age at all. And by the way, there would be things that I would omit from the picture that people, things are innocuous. Weed I would put at the bottom of the barrel, 100%. Like, I don't think you should start with weed until you 35. Like that thing, because it's not that there's anything, it's not that there's anything wrong with wheat. we can be a beautiful teacher.

It's just that for a lot of people, it's also a will killer. And it's a silent will killer. You don't notice it because you just feel like, oh, I realize that this thing doesn't matter. But that this thing did matter. You just didn't care. And that is not a good, you know,

because fulfillment is resting a lot on what's your track record. And this is something that a part of you always remembers. and if you remove a lot of the stuff that would be part of your track record because you didn't engage with them, you're not going to be as happy of a person. So, like, there's certain things, you know, and this is to all the people who really love weed, this is, I'm not throwing any shade on weed. There's just like, but I think if you want to be honest with yourself, there's a, it's actually one of these things that I would absolutely recommend when you already just want to discover more about your creative process and all stuff, but don't, not like when you're still forming like a young mind. I think that. It's, if anything, I think a beginner's drug should be like mushrooms, like gentle trips into the mud. Because they're much more Zen. They're much more earth.

So connecting to your environment. They're much more that. I would say the mushroom should be kind of like the beginner's tool, basically. Man. Danny, I feel like we're just getting warmed up. But you have something really important you need to do. So you have to come back because I feel like we're just getting warmed up. Yeah, if you want, we can run one or two more questions.

And I'll definitely come back regardless. Yeah. Yeah. Let me see what I got coming up over here. Okay, this one comes to us from Maya. Maya says, is there, is there, in your opinion, a universal alphabet of consciousness? And if so, what would it look like? What a beautiful question.

Yeah. Thank you, Maya, for being here. I appreciate it. Yeah. Funny that it's from Maya. Why is that funny? Because Maya is illusion. Imagine that.

There's no coincidences. No coincidences. Maya is asking. We love you, Maya. Thank you for the question. Yeah, it has to do. I always think about the most general case. I'm trying to always make the most general case, just like in physics, right?

So what language is, is a symbolic representation of meaning. is you take pure meaning, which we can get into next time we talk, and you construct it in symbols in some form, written, spoken, or any other form that you can come up with through different mediums, and you transmute the meaning, you channel it towards another direction.

So when I'm speaking to you, there's a general tapestry of just the inner wiggles in me, they kind of excite and de-emphasize things. and when I speak, it's the result of like my brain doing a very complex process of sampling from what those inner wiggles are, what I'm actually trying to convey, and then makes it specific to language. And then I use air pressure in this case to communicate that. And then your brain picks up on it and it translated back to pure meaning. And that's how you hear me. Terence used to say, we already have telepathy is just that the medium is air.

we just, you know. So if you think of language in that way, so the question is, is there a universal version of some symbolic representation that is so universal that any conscious being that is in the presence of it should be able to, on some level, recognize it as that. I believe that universal languages are possible, but I also know for a fact

that there are certain truths about the world that are so complete that it is, If you use any bit of information to describe them, by definition, you now made them not what they are. It's almost like the uncertainty principle. It's like if it was exactly what it was, it was so complete that the second I used one symbol to use to represent it, at that instance, it stopped being that thing. And then you can't actually convey it. You experience it with meditation quite a bit, which is that you come face to face with these truths that you know,

that there's no way to say it. And it's so annoying when people say that. It's like, oh, come on. It's like, no, no, it's what it is. It's just, you're like, oh, you understand. But you also understand that if I'm going to open my mouth to say something about it, it's going to vanish. So is there, I think that ultimately the universal language,

if we want to be extravagant with our assumptions, would have to be some form of potential representation that points to a layer of direct experience that actually encodes that truth. That, I think, is possible. So I can totally see how they can be an architecture of this kind of thing. And maybe what we're seeing in the laser

is one form of it. People definitely report that they think it's uploading itself into their brain. Like, it's almost teaching them how to look at it and how to perceive it. I've recently think I've identified some thing that we can do with our attention with it, where you kind of pin it in some kind of a,

new direction and then it reformulates itself into some kind of a structure that looks like a almost like schematics it's almost like you can do that like it teaches you how to twist the information in a different way and absorb it in a different way but that's in very early stages of assumption so i'm not i'm not sure that's the case but if that's true then that would be interesting to explore from the perspective of what may ask like is this a form of a universal language that's trying to teach itself to us basically thank you so much clinty i appreciate it Yeah, Clint's awesome. Everybody check out the Clint Kyle's podcast, the Psychedelic Christian podcast.

Clint Kyle's an amazing orator. Thank you so much for being here, Clint. Thank you, Clint. And yeah, the next time we chat, we should definitely get also a little bit into the, because I was, and definitely we're not going to do it now, but you mentioned Christianity. It's just a very long conversation. I was one of these things that you asked me in the beginning that I had to kind of come to terms with. I was presented.

It was on four ACO, but I don't think the substance. mattered. I had a vision that basically included part of the kind of like the ultimate structure of things and I was shown Jesus part of the picture. And I was like, huh? Like I never expected that. It's like, you know, it feels so arbitrary to me. Like why? And no offense to Christians. I, you know, I have a lot of very deeply devouted Christian friends. but from my perspective, I'm like, oh, there's just another idea to kind of make us get in line. But no, it was shown to me like, no, no, like the whole thing. Yep, that's also what's happening, which shocked me, to be honest.

But, yeah. I love it. Polar Knights, shout out to Polar Nights, amazing human being. Thanks for always hanging out with me, Polar. I'm super scoped. You're always here hanging out. And before we, in this particular session, I want to think. throw it back to you, Dan. You got a movie coming out. You got the book. Where can people find you?

What do you got coming up? What are you excited about? Well, the book is, I don't know how you, you got the book idea with, I am, yes, I am compiling what will eventually become a book, but I think that's a little bit far away. I think the book is, yeah, I think the book is probably, if it will become a full-fledged thing in the near future, probably closer to the end of next year, the movie is coming out the end of this year. It's called The Discovery. We're going to be releasing a new teaser very soon. It looks amazing. Aaron is just like a master of his craft. Aaron Vanden, shout out to Aaron. He's so good at what he does.

He's the director and the head editor of the film. Chris Paris, our producer, is also like in there, in the trenches, and they're working very hard because it's post-production now. Yeah, so I'm very excited about it. Sometimes I'm watching a scene he made, then I literally forget I'm in the movie. That's how good he is. Like, I literally forget it's a movie about what I do. It's like, so people are going to really enjoy the film.

Oh, and you guys can check out a new thing we just built, by the way. It's called veilbreak.ai. So just one word, veilbreak, but one word. That AI. And it's basically a tool to onboard anybody on the project without them needing to go and watch all my conversations. So everything that people usually ask, like, did you try this? did you do this, do you do that?

It's a website where you can upload all your experiments, completely anonymously if you want, and it collects all the information, and then you can see all the stuff that were done, and you can ask the chat, hey, was this tried? How was it tried? And it will give you all the information.

And then what we also want to use with this, do with this eventually, right now we're working on ways for people to also upload videos and things like this. And eventually we want to have, well, we have it already, but we're still thinking about how exactly to execute that. It's going to be based, when there's enough information, it will basically start writing white papers and the back end of it.

So, like, actual publications are becoming out just from the amount of the sheer volume of people doing this all over the world. And then you can, you know, take somebody else's experiment. You can fork it. You can change parameters. You can do whatever you want. And, yeah, we're very excited about it because Aaron, oh, my God, my brain. David Carter was my partner in Code of Reefat.

reality. Shout out to David. He's amazing. He came in a couple of years ago and helped me build something actually that is a real thing. Build a team and everything else. And our software engineer, Carmelo, he's the responsible for Vailbreak.aI.

We really won. We have all these incredible, very high caliber people that are already doing beautiful things in the world and then just, you know, come in and then at this point, still volunteering their time and, you know, we're working very hard on these things. So, I just have to mention that all of these beautiful things you guys are going to see coming out

is due to the fact that just masters of their craft just stepped in and just like, let's go. We want to help. And without that, there's no way that all these beautiful things would be happening. You know, I would also mention that you have an incredible, super consistent, awesome live stream you do on the daily. Where can people find that? Then go thoughts. Thank you for mentioning. D-A-N-G-O thoughts, three words, on YouTube.

I do a daily live or semi-daily live because sometimes I have to travel. We have some fun episodes coming out. I have also a new show on Spotify called Zero to One with Danny Golar, from Earthbound Minds to Cosmic Citizens. And this show is basically going to be focusing on thought leaders, scientists, philosophers, religious leaders that think about the future of humanity in real terms. Like, what does that mean?

how do we move zero to one alluding to the Kardashev scale, but it's just an idea to collect ourselves around. Obviously, it's a toyish way of looking at it. But the idea is what is our future looking like? What can we do now to cater to a better future, both in terms of how we look at ourselves and, you know, healing, all that stuff? Plus, what kind of attitude should we have towards the world and technology and all of that? and that can be fine on Spotify,

but it will also be streaming on YouTube as well. I actually have Andres Gomez is going to be coming to the next episode, so that's going to be a lot of fun. Anything else? No, I think that's about it. Just Danny Goler and all the other social media stuff. That's about it. All right.

One more for Polar Night says, Danny, I see you every time I go to church, you're on the wall surrounded by angels floating in the air. Polar Nights, I love him, man. Thank you. What more for my friend, Click, Kyle. I call it the ephemeral knowing. And ladies and gentlemen, if you're within the sound of my voice,

go down to the show notes, check out Dian Eagle, our incredible conversation. And I hope you all have a beautiful day. Hang on briefly afterwards, Danny to everybody else. I hope you have a beautiful day. Thank you so much for being here. Aloha.