TrueLife - The Psychedelic Roundtable - Quantum Science Debunks Determinism

Episode Date: December 12, 2022

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/In this episode of the Psychedelic Roundtable we explore the flaws of deterministic thinking. We are joined by author of the book “Are we really Biochemical Robots”  David Lawrence, Tor Seppola creator of the FML project, Benjamin George author of “No Absolutes - A framework for life” and Jason Sheffield owner of Integration 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. Fear is 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 Codex Seraphini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Ladies and gentlemen, well, welcome back to the True Live podcast, the psychedelic roundtable. We are traveling the globe here today. We got Toro Sipola coming all the way in from the upper north in Scandinavia. We got Jason Chiming in from Colorado. We got Paul from Maui and, of course, me live from Milwaukee right here.

I thought maybe we could just introduce ourselves for those of us who may be watching, but may not thoroughly understand who everybody is. So Tor, for the audience, would you be so kind as to introduce yourself? Yeah, that's always an interesting question. I'm a psychedelic enthusiast turned legacy forger for, from the mountains of Norway, trying to just create the life and the reality that I choose to have. And learning as much about that as I go, I guess. Nice. Paul, maybe you could send out a voice to those who are listening for you.

Hey, what's up, George? What's up? Jason, what's up, Tarr? How are you guys doing the day? Good to hear your voice, Paul. Jason, what's up with you, buddy? Man, I am, I'm not nearly as eloquent as tour and what I'm trying to do in life. I'm curious to learn more. But, yeah, just kind of getting into the rhythms of the holidays, busyness, and laying into playing on the year.

I've kind of been out of pocket for the last couple weeks. So I'm kind of, it's good, glad to be back and hanging out with you guys. Yeah, it's good to have you back. It's good to see everybody. And, you know, before the show, I was talking to tour a little bit about this particular article that Jason had sent. And for the listening audience, there's a really interesting article. And it was on the topic of virtual reality and integrating a psychedelic trip. And for those of us who are familiar with psychedelics, it's almost like it's a different reality in which you're in.

So for those psychonauts out there and those are listening, think about going through your full, whether it's an LSD trip, a ketamine or whether it's probably for most of us, like a psilocy. and trip, imagine what it's like to come down and you begin finding yourself in this philosophical phase of thinking about your life and trying to integrate what happened in your trip. And then imagine strapping on some goggles and going into this virtual world. You know, I'm curious, like, for me, here's how I thought about it at first. And I'm curious to get your guys' opinion. You know, coming down from that trip to me is like, that's where the gold is. Like, because that's when you begin to start making these insights, whether it's new

connections that you were being formed or whether it's ideas being processed in different parts of the brain. But that's when things begin to start making sense. And so when I imagine strapping on these virtual reality goggles, it kind of blew my mind. I wasn't sure what to think about it or how it would integrate in my mind. And I'm kind of, I got some thoughts on it. But what, Tor, what do you think about strapping on some virtual reality goggles right when you come down from a trip?

Have you ever, I'm reading ready. player two at the moment. Yes. Yeah. 100%. It kind of blew my mind, just reading and seeing how this could play out. And then we were talking earlier with Ben about how he has been running

freaking marathons on psychedelics. And then, you know, as you were talking right now, I was picturing being inside some virtual reality environment on this map that you can just continue to run that. And you can move your body, have the intention that Ben was talking about, just run, and then have all these things appear

real time as you're in a psychedelic trip. And if what he says, like he's basically he's basically doing the work ahead of time of them popping up. Like, it's not real time, it's ahead of real time, right? It's that psychedelic thing.

So having that virtual reality element to it, and with what I'm now reading in Ready Play-Doh, too, I think it's a freaking super potent medicine. I can't even imagine. I would have to try it. What do you think, Jason?

When you read an article, what were you thinking about? So I just, I can't help but feel like the darker side of that energy of the ability to like get, you know, let's just say you were tripping on it the entire time. and you have to go through, maybe, you know, sometimes the beginning of a trip is the letting go, the surrender that can be kind of difficult before you can release yourself to another realm. And so to basically have a pair of goggles on that takes you through that rabbit hole, whatever that difficult thing is for you to land in another world where you don't really know what's real or what's not anymore, like you can be completely lost in that. Like you could begin to develop a second reality, which is the whole premise of Ready Player 1 and Ready Player 2, which is, you know, that there's this whole virtual reality that people drop into. And, you know, maybe the way we get there is by this medicine really kind of taking you there. So I don't know. It scares me.

Like on some levels, like, yeah, I don't know that I would ever touch it. Interesting. Paul, what's your take on that kind of stuff, man? I mean, I think it's interesting. I think it's probably more for the experienced. You know, like if you're going into this and you're relatively new using psychedelics, and I probably wouldn't recommend something like that. But, you know, if you've got a lot of experience and you kind of, you know,

you know what to expect somewhat. And you kind of worked out a lot of the kinks in previous psychedelic experiences. then I think, you know, it's probably, you know, something at least interesting in doing that. And I would depend on the content, too, like, you know, what it is you're going to be doing with those VR goggles on. Yeah. I have a interesting perspective on that. Yeah? Because right now, as I'm talking about this, a friend of mine is in the psychiatric hospital after a psyched electric trip.

And it happened shortly after we met, Monty. And it has offered me a lot of new perspectives on psychedelics and psychosis and how a person with psychedelic experience seems to be able to communicate with someone in a psychosis. Because it's very similar from what I've seen so far. I'm currently learning about this. But the whole thing, the theory as to why he went into that state is because he never let his brain integrate what he learned. and he didn't have any pegs to put the knowledge on from the psychedelic experience. So he had no preconceived knowledge, which means that if you don't have anything to kind of wrap your head around these new emotions and this new mental state, then it would be overwhelming.

Like Paul says, if you have new fresh people doing this, it could just toss them into a completely new dark void of not understanding what this actually is. and yeah we were talking about like we should just spike the water supply right and everyone should have a a psychedelic experience but that is probably one of the outcomes of that when people don't have the experience and something to put it on they could get into psychosis or what we conceive of as a psychosis yeah that and not like if someone spikes something you don't know you're about to trip then you're really tripping what the what's happening to me because you're not aware you like you didn't personally take it so you're not prepared for it like that. I'm curious about your friend. Like were you there? Like did he start tripping and then like he never came out of a trip?

Or what does it look like from psychedelic experience to the hospital? Like what happens in between there? Yeah. I think this is a very valuable. I just shared the stream in my community as well. So people have been asking what dose do one have to look out for before you trigger a psychotic event or a psychosis? And I'm like, I don't think that depends on a dose at all. It depends on the brain that is going into the experience, the individual and the knowledge they have about themselves and how much experience they have with psychedelics and the Christ consciousness and everything that happens when you become love, right? Things that is inexplicable for a reason.

You can't really go in and articulate a meditation because that's too very individual. So we were having this experience and everyone was doing their things. You know, you get faced with the things, in my humble opinion, you get faced with what you need to see. And some people might have layers of the ego that is still being stripped. And because of that, that might get the focus. So we had one who kind of focused on being separated from the group. He felt like he was ostracized. He felt like he was not one of the tribe.

And we had to kind of reel him in. It was like, no, no, no, no, listen here. This is a lighthouse. This is the love. This is who we are. and this is what you are for us. You are completely safe. And so we got him back.

And it was a very nice experience because one of the other people did not have experience in guiding people. He wanted to guide people, but he didn't know how. And he just stepped straight into it. So we saw that in that case, everything was playing out fine. And then the guy who's now in trouble, trouble being very relevant, it's because of a system that is ignorant. But he was talking to me. And we were talking about things that I have had many conversations about.

It's like when you can read another person's mind. I just had to look at him and just have that mystical fire pit lit face as I just... Yes. Right? He didn't have to say anything. I could just create everything from a knot. And he was like, oh my God, it explains everything. And I just let him have his experience.

We went back to the cabin. Everything was going perfectly. He was going on to his own. journey of letting go, he was able to come down into a room full of people, whom two of them he just met, completely naked, squat in front of the fireplace, and piss, just release himself right there, because he said he was going to see if he was able to relax to that level. And this was the same day we had gone into ice bathing and seen if we can relax to the degree where we can actually release ourselves into the ocean. And it was a journey.

When he did that, I was like, dude, as long as you cleaned that up, I'm impressed, right? So everything looked fine. And then we had the day after, as you say, like, that's when the insights come and you get to reflect a little bit. Everyone said that that was probably one of the three top best psychedelic or experiences in general of their life, because you knew things happened. It shifted. And we cleaned up. We drove two of the participants to the airport.

We had a long talk in the car, me and him. Everything was fine. And then I think it went wrong when he came back to the old environment that he had been in for three years. So let's just picture that you're in a stripped out renovation object. You're in a living room that has nothing but concrete floors. There's nothing on the walls, and you have this little fireplace and a small kitchen table and a chair to sit on, and you're all alone. And you're sitting there with nothing. You're just left by yourself.

And then people around you call you crazy. They have done so for three years because you talk as if you were seeing things like you are in the psychedelic experience. Love is the answer in these things, right? Without knowledge to really, to stay firm or to understand that there is a balance. That even though you could do things, that doesn't mean that you should do things. But he had, he tried to make sense of what he felt. And he started to talk about God and how he had. he himself was a reincarnation of Yeshua or Jesus,

and that he had to share this love. And one day, he had been in a psychiatric ward before. So he said to me, like, I think I have to go and visit the hospital. I said, if that is what you think you should do, then that is probably a good idea. Because at that time, for two days, he had been really acting out and doing things and scaring the neighbors. And, you know, when people of no experience sees these things, they might act in different ways. So I went down there to pick him up. He had dressed himself in a blanket that has been reshaped as a toga.

I was like, yes, that's what the war two thousand years ago. Why do you do that now? Well, because I am this. I was like, all right, fair enough. I'm not going to stop that in any way. I'm just going to, we just went into that rabbit hole together and talked, and it seemed completely normal. Other, like, decide the fact that he was dressed in toga in November.

And we got him into the, to the ward. He had been there before, so no challenge. The only thing that was really interesting to me is that when we got into the ER almost, like a small clinic, before we got to the hospital, we had to get him prepared for the admission. The doctor in there smelled cannabis because he had legally been prescribed cannabis for his condition. And he

had a joint before he got into the office. The first thing this guy does, this professional health care dude, right? He gets up from the chair, gets over to the window, and starts to breathe outside because he doesn't want to get high. I was like, wow, that tells a lot about your awareness of the topic, right? And then he proceeded to tell, not to ask, to tell my friend. So you do realize that this looks completely ridiculous and that you're a danger to yourself and others around you.

We have to get you admitted forcefully. So right now I'm going to write off the documents and he's going to take you to that hospital. Do you understand that? What year is it? And I was like, wow. And this guy is meant to help us. So that was the first kind of encounter with how the system is set up to help people with the psychosis. I said that I was going to take him in.

I got this legal document that said that I could restrain my friend if I had to. I was like, I don't think that is needed. Thank you. And then I drove him in. They welcomed him. They admitted him. And I thought that was it. But then two days afterwards,

they just throw him back into the environment. And it didn't take more than three days after that, I guess, until the cops were called. And again, it happened again. He was just picked up at his house. Same thing again. This time he was drawn in by cops. And released again.

And then for the third time, after a week, he got put in a restraining jacket or yeah and then just put back inside again. So I see that the way the system is handling this is producing more problems than this psychosis itself because if they had people around them that could understand and talk their language, things would have been different.

But now, as he has drug-induced psychosis, he did take LSD and cocaine at the same time, which is stupid because you're also responsible for your own actions, right? And after that, we've just been observing but to answer your question again this was a very long-winded answer but it seemed completely

normal from inception from everything up until he was left alone with his own device in the same environment that created the problem in the first place and then met with people who did not understand yeah that's that's where we're at right now

yeah there's some there's some deep rooted psychological issues there I think whether it was the way he was brought up, whether it is being all alone, whether it's not being able to integrate. But yeah, and it leaves a lot of questions. You know, I see what you're saying about the system not really being the most applicable

solution for harm reduction. Or maybe that's maybe that guy, the doctor has seen some crazy things and he's fearful. You know, it sounds like my friend Paul always talks about. about people living in fear. And it seems to me that like these doctors are living in fear, maybe because they see violent outbursts or they see some things like that. But I think I've read somewhere that if you're going to do any sort of study, at least in these clinical trials and these trials that are happening in United States,

one thing that makes it invalidates you as a participant is if you have ever had any sort of psychological breakdowns before. Like if you have, say, bipolar disorder or you have mental illness in your family, like they won't admit you to any of their studies because there's written documentation that says that this kind of thing can't happen. So it's interesting to think about. On some level, it makes me think, you know, there are plenty of cases prior to this wave of psychedelics being reborn where doctors would take the psychedelics. and then they felt that would allow them to understand what it's like to move around in a world of someone who may have a psychological disorder. And I think there's a lot of truth to that. I think that the people that should be working with people that have psychiatric problems are people that understand that state of mind. Now, you can't have like, you know, it would be irresponsible probably or it would be silly to think that.

every therapist should have a psychological problem in order to help someone with that same problem. But I think psychedelics can put you in a state where you could more empathize with somebody who has a psychedelic problem. Let me share a story with you guys about what happened to me. Like I took a while back, I took a big dose of like 18 grams. And I like, you know, I sat down. The first waves kept coming. And then like I started hearing voices in my mind. And all of a sudden, it was like a reality shift. I felt as if like everything I knew was wrong,

but this new information I was getting was right. And like I had believed, like, I believed that I was talking to some other, some godlike figure or an alien. And I started believing all these things like, you know what? It makes more sense to think that we as human beings, at least some of us are aliens.

Like how do we get to this planet? And I just went down this crazy rabbit hole of like, yeah, we of course were the aliens. Of course Jesus Christ was an alien. Like look at these white people here. They get sunburned and like they don't even fit on this planet. Like we have all these diseases, but we're not even from this planet. And I just went down this, I just went down this rabbit hole.

And I began going so deep. Like it shifted and I'm like, that's the truth. And like I believed it more than more than the bookcase in front of me is made a wood. Like that's how much I believed it. And like I started thinking like, oh my God, it's so true. And then later in that trip, when I started coming down, what really blew my mind was how much I believe that to be true. And even to this day, I kind of still believe I'm a little bit of an alien. However, like I, it gave me this perspective like, oh my God.

Now I know what it's like to believe something that everyone else would think was crazy. So I have this empathy for like when I see people now that like, if I see people, some guy walking on the street like saying something's like, I know exactly what that guy feels like. I bet you I know exactly what it's like to say something so obtuse that people would think you're crazy. And I think when you get to that point, that's when you're able to actually help somebody that's in that point. And that's what I mean by taking psychedelics and helping other people. So, you know, I think that there's something to be said about future therapy of people with psychedelics. And I don't know. I think there's something there. But Ben, welcome to the show.

my friend, have you caught a little bit about what we're talking about? Oh, yeah. We were talking about this earlier today, I think. Yeah, that was a great podcast you guys had earlier, man. And we were, Tor was kind of, we were talking a little bit about running and psychedelics. And he had a friend who ended up, you know, after taking psychedelics, ending up in a sort of psychosis or whatever the doctors call these things. But what's your take on the relationship between psychosis and psychedelics? Well, the mind's an interesting place, right?

And I think when you take psychedelics, you're, you know, you're putting yourself in kind of, quote, unquote, psychosis in a bit of a, you know, you're putting yourself in kind of these different brain states. You know, the definition of classifying this guy as in a psychosis is just one of those clinical things that is, you know, that's when somebody acts this way, this is what we label them via the literature. And it leaves a lot to be a lot. You're kind of breaking up on us there. My bad. This is like in a second. I'm like experiencing this. Yes.

Time has been realigned. Time has been realigned. All right. That was interesting. All right. Yeah. Now you're back. Now you're back.

Yeah, that was interesting. Okay. So yeah, I think, you know, these psychedelic experiences kind of put us into, you know, a state of quote unquote psychosis. We're just like you were talking about your story, George, you know, you believe these things. And I think, you know, we've talked about this before and I've mentioned it, but belief is a dangerous work. Because belief is kind of, you know, you're suspending our gift of reason. And, you know, in order, you know, to, in accepting something outright. And when you do that, you know, that is a psychosis by the definition.

Usually, like you said, after the trip started to come back down, you kind of realigned. And, you know, and then over time, you integrated that experience. And then, you know, you're like, well, yeah, I still kind of have some feelings towards it. I still believe it a little bit. But you're not going out there and standing on the street corner and be like, right, we're all aliens. Yes. And so, you know, bringing it back is, you know, integrating that process is a very important step of the psychedelic, you know, practice. And it sounds to me, and we talked a little bit about it before, is that there's just that there's that perspective missing.

And, you know, in that perspective could be classified a few ways, but it also could be classified as, you know, giving back, getting back to that gift of reason and then, you know, analyzing these things, integrating that experience. Yeah. I did pick up one thing, though, that I want to get your opinion on. Because I also think that belief is dangerous, but I also think it's one of the most powerful things one can have when creating. Yeah. So if belief is a frequency or like an emotion, then how? having that belief that this is actually true,

like with a cosmocentric worldview. Like everything is possible, I am limitless, and so is the universe, which I am, right? Yeah. Yeah, I like that. Something I think though that is worth looking at with the psychosis, and I think if you guys follow like Gabor Mante and some of the work that he's doing

and really working with people that maybe are in such a state where they're no longer connected to this reality, but a lot of times it's trauma, that's leading people to that place. And that, you know, looking at the potential of psychedelics is that potential to go into that trauma and to begin to work with those addictions or whatever those strategies are that people have been trying to work with to handle that trauma and being able to go into those places. And if you're not able to come back out, too, I really like the way that you said to kind

of hook things, begin to build the restructure. And I think someone that, you know, has experienced psychosis could come. continue in that phase because the real healing has never really been able to take a hold in the sense of going into the trauma, going into that place. And then if it, the strategy after that is to then continue to party with it or play with psychedelics in ways that are not, you know, avoiding that trauma, then that could keep you in that state of psychosis. And I think that's one of the beautiful powers of psychedelics, but also like where they can be something that needs to be seen almost as therapy for people versus, you know, just experiences.

Yeah. I want to try to tie that together. Like I think that these two things go hand in hand. Like the power of belief and trauma are intertwined. I think that someone who's been through a traumatic, whether it's a being abused or, you know, any sort of traumatic thing that happened to you, I think once you find yourself in a psychedelic state, it allows you to either suspend belief that that happened or it allows you to believe another. reason that it could have happened. And that to me is the is clearing out the blockage right there, but you have to be in either a state of mind where you can believe something that you've never believed before because that's what trauma seems to be is like this repeating cycle,

this yes, it's my fault, it's my fault, it's my fault. You have to put yourself and maybe that's what this belief does is it allows you to see things the way you've never seen them before, whether it's your being an alien or you know what, even though my fault, even though my my dad did this to me, he still loved me. You know, like you can believe, you have to, you have to find a way to believe what is possible in order to release the trauma because so many times we don't believe things or we can't believe things or we refuse to believe things. And that's what leads to the ongoing cycle of trauma. I think maybe those are connected. What do you guys think? I mean, I think just one thing to that I want to hear from everyone, but the idea of trauma,

a lot of times at its foundation level is an incomplete circuit. So if something isn't completed, that's what creates the trauma. And so what you have to do is go in and belief is the thing that allows you to complete that circuit. Because you're able to see it from a different perspective or believe something different than what that incompletion of the circuit is the story that you're telling yourself. Because that's all it is is you're connecting yourself to the story. But yeah, I totally see those two connecting. Yeah, it's promise, that's the reason why a lot of Hawaiians are Christian and Catholic.

Yeah, complete the same. You know, like the spread of Christianity around the globe is all done in a very traumatic way. Yes, indeed. You have a lot of people here that are like, you know, that they ban the Hawaiian language, they ban hula. You know, they ban traditional Hawaiian practices. and if you you know if you tried to

practice any cultural things then you know the the punishment was severe and then they glossed it all over with a bunch of missionaries of Christianity with all the system and all of that

and now we have a bunch of Hawaiians over here in Hawaii that if we go to church every Sunday I find it really odd I agree you know that that makes me wonder too

like when I look at the major religion right now. It seems to me like one thing that has happened Oh, David Lawrence is here too. Hey. Hang out, hang out. Welcome, David. How are you, my friend? I'm good. How are you guys doing?

We are living the dream talking about psychedelics right now. Oh, gosh. Don't ask, don't tell when it comes to me. I'm going to share this story with you guys. Like I, when I look at a lot of the major religions right now, it seems to me that they have done away with the ecstasy and the trans, like the, you know, if you find yourself in a really deep psychedelic state, like there's almost like this fear, but it's like an ecstasy sometimes. Like it's this like, like it feels so good, but it's scary in a way. And I think that that's one of the things that was previously celebrated in a lot of religions was like this, this ecstatic moment. But in today's world, that seems to be completely wiped. away. Like, people go into church and they eat the Eucharist and stuff, but there's no ecstasy in these types of religions anymore. But anyways, I wanted to say, for those that

don't know, David Lawrence here, has written an amazing book. And I think we should, if you guys don't mind shifting gears for a moment, I kind of wanted to get into what David wrote this book about. David, would you be so kind of to maybe introduce yourself to everybody and tell them a little bit about what you wrote? Sure, but before I do that, may I, go back for a second and comment on what you just said. Of course. I think I mentioned to you in our first exchange that back in the old day when I was a lawyer, I used to represent Ken Kesey. Ken Kesey was like the, you know, the god of psychedelics. For those who don't know, he wrote one flew over the cuckus nest. He wrote a sometimes a great notion, which is even a better book, but it's long so nobody knows it. And he was the subject of Tom Wolff, the electric collate acid test, which you know, chronicle, Keyesian is crazy,

he's running around the country and a bus taking acid. And so, and this was at the very beginning of the hippie movement, maybe even a little bit before. I think he was exposed to psychedelics while he was working at a mental hospital. In any case,

you reminded me that that movement, if you want to call it that in quotes, had that ecstasy. For good or for bad, you know, they were just high all the time, having a good time rebelling in a very soft kind of rebellion against society. I say soft because they weren't protesting or doing anything violent. But they were freaking people out, running around with a colored bus, yelling and screaming

on the top, blasting the Beatles or whoever they were blasting. And he became an icon of that kind of, and so what I was getting up to it is in some sense you could think of it as a religious movement. You know, they had their own. It was freedom. It was sort of bucking authority in a bit in creating a new religion where ecstasy and freedom and self-expression

was the core of it. So you just reminded what you'd said about ecstasy reminded me of Kesey and the Pranksters and his group was called the Mary Pranksters and we had talked about it earlier. Okay, so saying that part right there, like this is so relevant uh david torr's good friend torr has torr knows a gentleman who tor have you read the book one flew over the cuckoo's nest no okay i'll send you a copy it's

it's phenomenal blow your mind but in this story it's about a gentleman that ends up in a mental hospital and he's wicked smart and he ends up kind of out maneuvering all the all the people in the hospital and it's i have to bring this up david because torr was just telling us about a friend who ended up in a mental hospital and the doctor seemed a lot like the nurse in one flew over the cuckoo's nest the way they admitted them and you know it's just it's it's it's a it's hey tord can you can you can you tell david a little bit about what happened when you just really rehashed the story about when you brought your friend into the hospital and what happened yeah um after we got back from the psychedelic trip where everything looked normal every everyone had normal experience

quote unquote normal. He started to go back to his previous patterns of psychosis. He had been in a drug-induced psychosis before when he thought he was Joshua or Jesus and felt like he had to proclaim the message to everyone because he didn't have the knowledge to really understand what he had gone through so he was trying to make sense of whatever he was feeling at the moment. And then that happened again after this last psychedelic trip and when he was admitted, they basically branded him

as a crazy person who was a danger to himself and others. And I was bestowed upon me a piece of legal document that allowed me to restrain him if possible or if necessary. And I just think that the whole way of dealing with it, after he actually went away from his desk to avoid him, avoid smelling cannabis because he didn't want to get high in his presence, because my friend had just smoked a joint before he got in, and the doctor just avoided him as a plague.

and it just really painted the picture of the ignorance that waits on the other side of the system. That makes sense. Well, you have to read Cuckusness then. I mean, this book was written for you and your friend. Yeah, I have to. You're going to love it. It's a movie as well. It's a very popular movie that's fairly faithful to the book.

Yeah, I think it was Jack Nicholson that played the lead character as well. Yeah, I have to see it again because I don't have, I didn't have, my understanding of the things that I have now when I saw that the first time. It's fascinating me to hear Tor tell that story and then have David come on and talk about the merry pranksters. That's so crazy to me. But speaking of books, David's written an amazing book. I haven't read it yet.

I've only read a little bit of the blurbs and stuff. But can you maybe, can you fill us in, David, on what this is about? I wrote a book about free will in the spirit of the merry pranksters, I suppose. It started when I read a book by Sam Harris. who wrote a popular book called Free Will. And his book mirrored the prevailing view that everything we do is determined. We don't have any choice.

We're biochemical robots, as he put it, which I stole us the title. And everything we think, everything we do is situated in a causal chain. It's a chain of causes, because before that cause, before that cause, it goes all the way back to the Big Bang. And I read the book,

and I just sort of said, what? And then I didn't find the arguments compelling, but I was willing to do some exploring. And I decided to write an article on it. And the more I explored, the article became bigger and bigger and ultimately became a book. It's not just about Sam Harris. It's about determinism. He makes some arguments that I address, a half dozen arguments. But it's, you know, most scientists looking at reality as physical reality, sort of where comes from the determinist point of view. they're all determinate. And, you know, you go on the Internet and you'll find, you know, 90, 95% determinists and maybe one or two percent free will guys or gals.

And the arguments against free will are just don't stand up. And I thought it was time somebody just said these arguments don't work and showed why. So it's not so much a book that proves free will, But it's a book that says, Determinism is an unsubstantiated, illogical fantasy of a theory. Other than that, it's fine. So I go through a bunch of arguments to show why it doesn't make sense. There's scientific arguments. There's linguistic arguments.

There's historical arguments. And these arguments aren't addressed by determinists. They're just ignored. And so I thought it was time to throw a punch or two on behalf of free will, although again, I'm sort of agnostic, I'm leaving it open. I'm just saying, hey, you guys, and gals, just one or two gals too.

Answer these arguments, and then you can talk about determinism. Don't ignore them, answer them. Maybe you have an answer, but you can't credibly argue that we're robots and that we're just following our program unless you answer these questions. And so that's sort of the big schema of the book. I like it.

Anybody want to take a shot there? Well, I'm on the same page. And if you're determinists, take your best shot. I'm not deterministic. No, I come from my school of thought on it is, is that, you know, the infinity of possibilities that exist out there. So everything can happen, has happened. But the navigation of that path and how we utilize our free will, our freedom of choice, is a very unique thing.

And something that, while you don't necessarily have free will, ultimate free will, we are constrained in our choices via, you know, our previous experiences. what we're built on, you know, what sort of indoctrination we received as children, what sort of traumas we've experienced in life. And so those are, you know, they shape our possibility, our probability of choice. But ultimately, I think that there's an infancy of potentiality, and that probability is an amorphous thing that we can, you know, through conscious effort and through walking down, you know, the path, we can then expand our freedom of choice and gain more and more free will as we navigate this world.

Well, what you just addressed was the first argument in the book, and it's called the absolutist view of free will. You said that we're influenced by a lot of things. Our indoctrination, our background, our education, our parents, our culture, economic circumstances. One of the first arguments in Harris' book is that in order to have free will, we would have to completely control. Those are the words, completely control everything that determines us. Okay? Big gravity, stars, the Big Bang, our parents, our economic back, being born into the world where and when we were. And what you were just saying is really the most common sense and rational version is, look, free will is an absolute. I'm going to say in slightly different words exactly what you said conceptually, which is that we have all these influence.

We don't have, I think you may have said absolute or complete free will. We function within circumstances. Circumstances are limitations. We can't jump 10 feet higher, usually. Most people can't. With gravity being what it is, your body being what it is, your education being what it is, all this stuff is influences and determinists seem to confuse. influence with causation. It's no argument as far as I'm concerned to say we have influences.

It doesn't limit, sorry about that, it doesn't limit free will. As a matter of fact, we argue that free will has to have limitations. It has to have circumstances. It only functions within limitations and boundaries and limits and constraints. It has to. That's what it pushes against. That's what provides the alternatives because you can go right or left because you don't, you can't go straight or down and you can go right or left that's the circumstances you're confronted with you can't change that doesn't mean you don't have free will it means that we operate within circumstances so that was the first argument that i made in the book and you just just made it as well or better than i did well i also wrote a book called no absolutes

we're back from a pretty similar page i have a feeling exactly and the thing is this argument that there is no argument that free will has to have complete control he just assumed He just assumes it. If you don't have complete control, you don't have free will. Why? He never says why. He never gives an argument. He never says what his premises are.

In fact, that's the premise. You have to have complete control. Okay, you might want to try some argument or explanation or evidence or what your thoughts are. And maybe he has some, but the book presumes it. That was argument one. I have any other of a number of them, but, but, um, want you guys to also, you know, go where you want to go. I think that there's a, um, it's obviously I would never say all, but it seems that a lot of

determinists, it's just my opinion. It seems to me that a lot of determinist people have like, maybe a lot of guilt or something for being in a position that they don't feel that they should be in, you know, whether it's, whether it's having so much or whether it's not having enough, but it seems it's a very clever excuse to tell yourself why you are where you are. Oh, well, this is just how it's supposed to be. You know what I mean? It does, it allows you to escape the choices you've made, whether good or bad. And I think that when you start peeling back the onion, I know a lot of people that are like, they tell themselves this thing like, well, this is the way it's supposed to be. Like, this is how it has to be? Well, is that how it has to be? Or are you a product of all the

decisions you've made. You know, and I think that that seems to be something that I see in a lot of people that have a deterministic point of view. Have you, have you guys seen something like that? Oh, yes. Well, first of all, in the terms of the guilt department, I don't believe in determinism, but I have a whole hell of a lot of guilt. So I just want to say it's not monopolized. Dilt is not, determinists don't have a monopoly on free will. That's what I want to say first. And I can prove it. Yeah, one of the things I talk about in the book is, oh, let me back up for a second. I think what you said isn't true with most of the smart, intelligent, educated people who are arguing against free will. And how I think of it is, they're not really determinists. They're

determinists in their heads. But they're very smart, educated, rational people who, get up and say, what am I going to have for breakfast? Which pair of pants should I put on? What are my favorite socks? And it's just one decision after another. Nobody lives like a determinist. So in their heads, they've got a framework that they believe in as to how reality works

at some deep level. But they don't believe in it in terms of going about their lives. You can't. So they're of two minds. And most of the determinists who are speaking about it, including Harris, are very, you know, bright, moral, decent people. They seem to be very decent people. And they have a real problem when it comes to morality, because if everything is determined, all of our thoughts are determined, then nobody's, in our

actions, nobody's responsible for what they do, and they have a hell of a problem when it comes to morality. That's a whole another section that we could talk about. But I also have an analysis about how they have it both ways, how determined. talk out of both sides of their mouth. You know, one minute, you know, we're determined by robots. And the next minute, you have to, we have to take criminals off the streets. So we have to choose how we're going to do that and choose who's guilty and all that kind of stuff. So, so, I do think the part of what you said that I think rings true for the future is that if you imagine that everybody was, was from grammar school on,

told that they were determined and that you told all the kids that their behavior was not their responsibility that they had no hand in it and uh it is a ready-made excuse for misconduct completely and i think that's one of the points that was in what you were saying um in terms of the responsible educated adults who are arguing against determinism they don't live like determinists they think they think that there's some way to justify moral principles you even though we're robots, there isn't. And I make very clear that this is fancy dancing and nothing else.

If we're not responsible for what we do, there's no personal responsibility. And there's no morality if every moral principle we ever think we have is a thought that's planted in our brain by mechanical causes going back to the Big Bang. So all of them do some fancy dancing and complete leaps of illogic to try and justify morality and responsible,

because they don't want to get rid of it. They're decent people. They don't want to get rid of it, but it's, but it's probably the biggest thorn in determinism's side. How can anyone be responsible if they, if they can't control their actions and they can't control their thoughts? They can't. And that's kind of bled into society at large too, right? You know, we have this grand appeal to authority. You know, if you're, you know, if you're a kid and you get in an argument, you don't settle your own argument, you go tell the teacher, you go tell the principal. If, you know, And at every seeming instance and iteration of levels of moving up in society, there is always this appeal to authority, appeal to authority, appeal to authority.

And so it's interesting how this is kind of also bled into the kind of the zeitgeist of the Western world. From the scientific point of view, the authority is a physical universe, a physical universe that works by causal laws. even though quantum and other aspects of science have said that's not exactly the case and that's a whole other discussion but I think the authority is science and the scientific method and I mean what's behind that zeitgeist and that it's a physical universe and that mental events and consciousness sort of have a backseat

you know can't explain them can't see him can't measure them. Absolutely. To the detriment of society at large, really. I mean, you know, we were just told to believe the science, which is counterintuitive to what science actually is. But that's the same train of thought, right? You know, it's that physical universe kind of, oh, this is the science, this is how it is. And, yeah, I think it's a fascinating thing.

I agree with you. I'm pretty sure probably 100%. I haven't read the book yet, but I'd love to read it here soon. Maybe you don't have to. Something that's really fascinating to me, and I don't understand the science side, so I'm adequate on that front.

But what's fascinating to me is the correlation to the religious side of things. That religion, and specifically Christianity and science are at least these arguments of determinism and then in the religious world or predestination. are very much the same argument. And what's interesting is to think about two institutions that have gotten so ingrained into their dogmas

that they now basically mirror each other. And the rest of us are waking up and being like, yeah, no, both sides of that stuff is bullshit and it's time to start going this new way. And yeah, but both institutions are crashing. The religious institutions are breaking, the scientific institutions are breaking, and something new will emerge.

Yeah, it's the combining of both of old. It's a unity, basically. Well, there's another tradition, though, in which Judeo-Christian thought is anti-science, because God gave us free will. And if you look at a lot of the free will websites and podcasts, a lot of them are Christian websites. Yes. They champion free will.

So within some framework, I understand what you're saying. There's a, but it's, but you can't put the same hat on all of religion because there's a huge core that champion free will. Now they don't, they do it for a specific reason that God gave us free will and that's part of, you know, we have to learn, make mistakes and so forth. So there's an agenda behind it in a sense. But if you can do like the end, they're the ones who who write books, not the only ones, but they write books. but they write books and talk all the time about free will. And the first show I went on was a Mormon show. I was like, wait a second.

And then I realized that, yes, you have to equate free will with a huge religious tradition, you know, with a caveat that they're coming at it, not from a scientific point of view, but a theological point of view. Do you think at some point in time, like it seems to me that if the head, the people that seem to be in charge

of science as it is now seem to be determinous. And it seems you have people like Sam Harris and probably some other really intelligent people that are seem to have the reins in their hand. And if we look at the schools now, I'm going to, my daughter goes to a school and, you know, everything is kind of tracked and traced and database. So it seems to me that if we continue to go down the road of determinism and we look at education moving the way it is, I could see a bridge there were like, oh, this child has always been very moral, therefore they'd be a good judge. You know, I can see us continuing to move down this deterministic road. Do you think if we, if we don't push back on this that we could find ourselves in a future that is really focused

on determinism? Sure. That's a good point. That's a good point. You know, they've done studies that I mentioned that they have people read determinist and free will literature and then they give them a and they tell them that there's a glitch in the test and they can cheat if they look at this page, but don't look at this page. And they set things up like that. And as you'd imagine, those who are read the determinist stuff are the ones who cheat and who what the heck, you know,

I was determined to do it anyway. And that's the sense in which it's a ready made excuse and the ones who are primed on free will, are more responsible. And there's other tests about how determinist beliefs encourage antisocial conduct. There has to be a big footnote, which is these tests are done in artificial conditions,

and there's not been a lot of them, and there's not a lot of subjects, and people debate about, well, did they really redeterminist doctrine or fatalistic doctrine? And they're also based on a narrow. I mean, these aren't people like the scientists who've thought about, with philosophers, who thought about this.

a lot, these are people who are just being exposed to some momentary influences. So there's a big footnote about how you can rely on it. But in terms of common sense, it goes back to what you said. You could imagine, if you think that we're robots and you start treating us like robots, you're talking about a different world. And if you start teaching kids from grade school up

that they don't have anything to do with their actions, no matter how bad or heinous or destructive or antisocial, their behavior is, I'm going to get a pretty different world than what we have now, which is part of the reason why I think this subject is important. In your research, have you done, in your research in looking at these two things, have you done any research? Are certain cultures more deterministic than other cultures, or is there any sort of, like, link there? No, I haven't. I haven't.

I imagine that those that are based on a scientific, you know, post-enlightenment, rational, kind of a base would tend to have the deterministic scientific point of view, although there's always a current otherwise in all of these cultures, and there's a current otherwise in ours. And there's many scientists who don't support the deterministic point of view. They're just losing the demographic battle right now and the control of the airwaves, so to speak. There's a lot of people who, Einstein didn't believe in the, well, he's a mixed bag a little bit because he went back to the classical version and said, I don't believe in this whole probable thing. And in a certain sense, I'm simplifying. So he was a determinist in a sense, but he was a scientist.

There's a lot of scientists who weren't. One of the guys who proved one aspect of his theory's wrong was named John Bell. he was, he, he made a choice, he said there was a choice between free will and certain axioms that he tried to prove wrong in quantum theory. So there's many scientists out there who, uh, who, who, who do believe that they're just the minority, the silent minority currently. Is it possible that maybe instead of it being an either or, it's kind of a both and? Like it seems like in some, in some ways, we are determined to age and get old.

and die and you know but there are small things we can change is there is there like a medium like a like a both and like yes we are deterministic here but we can tweak and tweak it a little bit yes I mean there's two ways to answer your question there's a school of thought called compatibilism and compatibleists say that the free will and determinism just go together but that's another a lot of fancy dancing in which they have to change the definition of free will and play with that a bit and ultimately it's self-contradictory. If you take the free will that most people mean, the common sense view, that we have a choice and that consciousness has alternatives and we can make an impression on the world by which choice we make.

And regardless of the circumstances we're in, and regardless of the configuration of subatomic particles in our arms and brains and everything else, apologies for that. But if we, oh, it's the watch, sorry. These days you have to say, is it the watch? Is it the phone? What is it? Or the fridge. Or the what? Or the fridge. Or the fridge. Or the microwave.

My microwave goes off and does that be. In any case, apologies for that. Where were we? Tell me what the thread was, the chain was. I lost it. You were comparing free will and determinism. Oh, yes, compatibilism, right. So there is a school called compatibilism,

and they have different definitions, but they fiddle with a definition so that free will and determinism can work, basically. If you define free will in the most vigorous, robust sense of common sense, we make decisions within some parameters with a lot of structure and influences, and we influence the world. And the world changes because we make decisions. And that's called libertarian free will.

Compatibilism doesn't include libertarian free will because the idea is that no matter where the physical universe is, no matter where the subatomic particles in our body are, brain and the neurons firing in our brain, we can make a decision that changes things, changes the future, changes physical reality. That's the libertarian view. Determinists can't deal with that because you can't put that together with a physical universe that functions by way of causation. So by switching definitions, there's a compatibleist definition. But the other sense in which you used it was in terms of influence. We make choices, but there are aspects that are

determined of us. Sure. I mean, there are aspects of our liver if we drink too much that will give us a determined result, or at least a probable result. And if we take poison, it will probably give us a determined result with very few probabilities. So sure. But it goes back to the first argument that Mr. Wizard made, which is that we have influences, and that doesn't mean that influences quench free will. It's the opposite. Free will needs influences and structure. and resistance to push against and make choices. Quite the contrary of the absolute disposition. One thing I wanted to mention, if nobody has any questions about that, there's a core flaw in the heart of determinism, and nobody talks about it. No determinist talks about it.

Noam Chomsky has mentioned it. He's not a determinist, but he's mentioned one of the few people who's mentioned it at all. And then there's a guy who, I'm blanking on his name who made the theory famous by saying of postmodernists who say that there's no such thing as truth and everything is relative. He said, well, wait a second, isn't that a truth? Isn't that relative also?

And so he came up with a way of looking at things. He didn't really come up with it, but he started applying something called, it's a contradiction called a performative contradiction, where what you say when it has to apply to you, and if it applies to you, it negates any kind of truth about what it's saying. So the classic examples of everybody's a liar. Well, if everybody's a liar, then I'm a liar.

If I'm a liar, then you can't trust the truth of everybody's a liar. And other people are all kind of like very similar postmodern things and I give some examples of these common things. You know, nobody knows anything. Well, sounds like you know that. Somebody knows something and so what you're saying is false. Nobody knows anything is false.

So there's a whole category of claims called performative contradictions. They contradict themselves because they can't be applied to the person who's making them without falsifying themselves. Nobody talks about this, but as I said, except Chomsky and I'm sure there's some that I didn't run across. But determinism is a bunch of self-contradictory claims that break this rule. They break this logical rule. And the simplest way to see this is to look at the claim, my thoughts are determined. My thoughts are due to causal force.

Now, if you say that, the problem was saying that is you're saying that you're believing that, not because it's true, not because you went out and found out about it, not because you investigated it. It's true because you were caused to believe it by forces you don't control. So every determinist is in effect saying, my thoughts are determined, and I don't have any say in them. I don't know if they're true or not. It's what I'm being made to believe. So the answer is the same as nobody knows anything. Well, if your thoughts are determined, you were determined to think that. How do you get out of that circle? You know, it's illogical. It's contradictory. And you don't hear any of these guys talking about it or these gals. And it's a critical point. Another way to look at it is that,

that if we really are biochemical robots, and that's the title of the book, Are we really biochemical robots? And I took that phrase from a determinist book, biochemical robots, we may be living, but we're following this completely programmed deterministic path of our molecules and our atoms and our systems and everything else.

So if you follow it through, it's really about truth. If you say that we're determined, then there is no truth. Because every belief you have came from something that you didn't control, something that you had no choice, you couldn't investigate it. You believe it because no other reason then you're made to believe it. And if you say, well, I investigated it. I went out and I did tests and I took notes and all of that stuff.

The answer is every single one, every single thought you had while you were doing that. was determined according to a determinist who does all this. So they believe in the facts that they're determined to believe in. They believe in the conclusions that they're compelled to accept by causal forces. So there is no truth. So they undermine truth just like the claim nobody knows anything. You know, all of our thoughts are based on causal force. It's like saying none of them are true.

You can't know anything it's true. If I say it's true that we're human beings, that's under determinism, that's a thought that we believe because we were caused to believe it. Maybe we are, maybe we're not. It's just what we were caused to believe. So they take the whole truth out of the equation,

except for their own, because that's the contradiction. When they say all of our thoughts are determined, they're saying that from a place, they're making a truth claim. So, David, go ahead. I'm really curious to get like to the why. So like why go through all of these mental acrobatics to deny truth?

Is this a reaction to the religious structures of a hundred years ago and God over religion? They said, fuck God, fuck truth. We're going to go down this thing. And did, you know, kind of create all of this mental, you know, acrobatics to not accept truth? Like, why? Why go this far? I don't think they're aware of it. I really don't think they're aware of it at all

that what they're saying is self-contradictory, like everybody's a liar. I don't think they're at least been aware of it. In one video, I believe someone asked Harris about that argument as they're leaving at the end of a Q&A. And he throws out very tentatively, I never understood that argument. I don't know.

And I don't think he meant he didn't understand it in the intellectual stance. I think he was saying, I don't understand that there's any merit to that argument. That's what I took him to say, but he didn't address it. And I guess he brushed it off, although it was the end of the show,

so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The only one, as I say, who's really said something fun about it and really just nailed it on the head, is Chomsky, and I quoted him in the book, this is a paraphrase of what he says. He says, if you're really a determinist, what are you doing out there talking about it? Why are you trying to convince anybody of anything? You know, they'll believe it or not based on what they were determined to believe.

You can't do anything to make them believe it. What you're saying to them has been predetermined, so you don't even have a choice but to believe it. Why don't you just go to a ball game? Yeah. In the determinist argument, do they ever talk about who is the one that determines it? Like, where does the determination come from? Yeah, physical events. Causal forces, acting under the laws of physics.

Molecules, quarks, atoms, electrons, the whole shebang of physical reality. pre-programmed to just happen? Well, the Big Bang happened, and then everything's scattered, and everything scattered in accordance with strict causal laws is the idea. So everything that happened was meant to happen, because that's the way the force was thrown by the Big Bang. And then determinists have to allow in probability and randomness because of quantum science and so forth,

but the argument is, well, that doesn't help free will, because we can't control randomness. We can't control probability. There's some questions in there, by the way. It's not so obvious when you start digging in there. But that's the mythology. The Big Bang happened. Everything rolled out from there in a causal deterministic way

following the laws of physics. I think that's a gaping hole in science, too, is like, just allow us this one miracle of the Big Bang, and then everything happens. They have to base it on a miracle the same way like God is a mirror. Like they just say that this is science, but just give us this one miracle and then it works.

It's kind of funny. And by the way, it's in dispute whether there was a big bang. I know, right. There's the big bounce and there's something called a steady state theory. So, you know, I mean, scientists don't even agree on how the universe began because at the end of the day, they can't see it. They can see some evidence of it,

and then they have to interpret it. So there's questions whether there was a Big Bang or not. But whether there was or wasn't, the terminus myth is whatever it was. It threw out the cosmic dust of everything in a way that followed the laws of physics, which also has its problems because Einstein in relativity said that at the Big Bang, it can't follow the laws of physics. And some people think that that's what's wrong. One of the things that's wrong with relativity theory and other people,

believe that there is something other than the present laws of physics in the conditions of cooling and all of that stuff that we now live in, that there is something else, which is also a problem for causation. Well, you know what? I want to talk about truth for a minute because I'm not sure that anything, I'm not sure how to interpret truth. I think things can be true enough that they work, but I'm not sure that things can be absolutely true. Is that kind of a weird thing to say or does that make any sense? No, that makes a lot of sense. I mean, it sort of depends on how you define truth and in what kind of context you mean it.

Do you want to say a little more about that or? Well, yeah, like it just my truth may not be Torres truth, even though we see the same thing. You know, but like A squared plus B squared equals C squared is true enough that it works. You know, but it may not work in a different planet or it may not work in a different atmosphere or a different, you know, a different environment. But it works well enough for me to believe it. So I think that, I think that just the terminology we use when we're trying to discuss complex problems is in fact a problem. You know, it's like nothing is true, but it's true enough. And I, I don't think science can even get there. Like science refuses to believe things that are,

I don't know. I get, I get hung up right there. Like I, it's kind of, yeah, because what I've seen is from what you just said is like you have an ultimate truth within the certain environment of that truth being a thing and then you know do you have an ultimate truth for everything that is in the cosmos in the cosmos right so there's as you said it depends on the definition and how you see truth and in what area of truth gravity is truth on earth but for me love is the cosmocentric truth of the universe so it's kind of in what area do we think of it Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah. But be careful. Don't say that there kind of is no truth, because that's a truth. Yeah, exactly. Nobody knows anything. Contradiction. That's the post-modernist move.

You know, everything is subjective. There's nothing truth. Yeah. Well, really, how do you know that? That's an interesting thing to say, since you're telling us true about things. Yeah. But it's like what we talked about earlier, like with religion, and this is really fascinating because as the conversations carried on, more and more steps to whatever I was thinking just added upon itself. Psychedelics opened up everything for me, quantum physics, everything, like just seeing the universe as limitless instead of, this is just something that I'm a part of.

And then, you know, you see the matrix and the Bible, both being kind of the same container of an absolute truth. It depends on how you see that. Like, do you see that as the Bible being the force and the creator, Neo being the limitless creator and architect of whatever he is in and then instead of seeing that you are able almost to do the same thing. Like if I was to watch the matrix, I can step out of that box, see myself as limitless. And if I want to jump 10 feet high, I can't do that in my absolute biological form, but I can invent some prosthetics that's going to catapult me, right? Humans couldn't fly before until we thought about how to create the things that got us there.

So in that sense, being free thinking and being able to create everything, we can do so if we step out of the absolute box that it's situated in, because in the Bible you have rules, but if you believe in the universe that the Bible is situated in, and just everything being limitless, then you have more of a... Everything is up to whatever you think is going to be created, and then that's how you go about things, limitless.

As also Ben said, like, everything is just... I subscribe to the same idea that everything is just a limitless sea of opportunities and the cosmos century kind of there is no limit to anything yeah i use the matrix it's a good i call it the causal matrix because it's a good metaphor for the determinist world the only problem is that and a lot of people say we're in a matrix right you hear that a lot um it's all of a virtual experience we're having problem is that if you're in a matrix you can't say that it's just like Like determinism. Just like determinism.

It's like, well, I'm being forced to believe that if I'm in the matrix. Hmm. So how do, there's no truth. If you take it literal as the program. For me. If you take it literally as if like the matrix is a simulation. But if you take it to. Yes, that's the sense in which I was using it.

Yes. Yeah. Exactly. But if you have like these choices, right? Do you want to think freely or do you want to stay in the box, right? than using the matrix as kind of the vehicle of communicating the point is just brilliant. If people stopped seeing the thing, like the literature as the absolute truth, or the movie as this is just how it is, there's nothing more to it,

until they make a sequel, you know? I was going to say, shout out for you having a red and blue pill just sitting there. I know. I've had these. I've had these pills on your... I've had these conversations a lot. I was asked to define... I was asked to define truth recently, and what I came up with

was truth is a relative judgment that aligns with perceived reality. Can you say that again? Truth is a relative judgment that aligns with a perceived reality. And that's your relative judgment. It is. But without access to all information over all time, I can't make an absolute judgment.

So you know what you know. Yeah. What do you like Darwin? No, go ahead. No, we talked about this earlier. It's like science level one up until science level unlimited. We have no idea. But Darwin didn't have a DNA sequencer.

So he knew what he knew with the things that he had at the time that he had. So, yeah, I agree 100%. Well, you can agree with Darwinism and agree with everything you said on the spiritual basis. I mean, again, it's a matrix of influence that we have these bodies that may have developed along scientific lines. Not just scientific lines, you can argue that there's spiritual aspects that had a biofeedback into that mechanism. But a fair amount of Darwinism you can believe and still, consider it an influence, not something that determines us. So I've been, Ben, that I don't know if this analogy works with your definition fully,

but I feel like on some levels it could. I heard a teacher one time described truth as basically we have absolute truth, which is effectively like a ball that sits in the center, and we have second tier truth, which is all of our perceived realities of that ball. And while you can only see your tiny little sliver, there's no way that you can connect to all the other understandings of truth. And yet they all are deserving the same absolute truth. The problem with that, which is sort of an absolute subjectivism kind of point of view,

is that she's standing somewhere outside all of that to say that here's what it's all about. You've got all these balls of truth. Where she's getting that truth from? If you say that that's another ball, then she's just another ball. Another ball, an officer is going to say, no, we don't have all these balls, which is there's a different truth. So that's, again, it's very sometimes hard to see these things. If you start looking at the performative contradictions, fine, you'll never stop, you know.

But she's making an absolute truth claim. There's all these different balls and their subjective orientations. Well, then she's just undermined her own claim when she applied, Because it has to be applied to herself. And that's what a performative contradiction does. It messes up the speaker when they say something that has to apply to themselves that negates the truth of what they're saying. So she's saying, well, what? She's not in one of those balls?

Because if she is, then everything she's saying is just another point of view. I think that is the point, though. They're saying there's only one ball and everybody is observing that singular ball. So I have my perspective of that ball. you have your perspective, but it's the same ball that we're perceiving. It's not everyone's relative truths. No, I understand that. Right. So she's saying it's all relative. And that's one of the contradictions that I point out in talking about these things. If you say everything is relative, then you're saying your own point of view is relative. And if your own point of view is relative,

then it's not true. It's only true if you're taking that point of view. So it's a circle. It's sort of a radical kind of subjectivism that she's talking about. And the answer to her is like, well, okay, that makes sense and it's certainly true that we bring so much subjective influences to how we look at things. And those subjective influences,

I think the truth of what she's saying is that those subjective influences are much bigger than we think, right? And they lead to different perspectives on reality and they lead to different conclusions about truth. There's no question about that. But at the very root, of things, she can't say that as a truth because it's just another relative position,

if that's what her point of view is. It's not, she's negating her own truth very much like the determinist who says, my thoughts are caused, you know, I just believe it because I've made to believe it. They never put it that way, by the way, but I'm conceptualizing exactly what they're saying. Yeah. I want to throw this out, like, so it seems to me, Like, for some reason I'm thinking about Copernicus and how, you know, when someone said the world, when we're not the center of the universe and people get locked up and stuff, the prevailing idea was, you know, it was life changing for the world to wake up to this new idea. And it seems in today's world that most people seem to be determinous.

might there be a radical shift forward for all of humanity if all of us begin to understand that we're not determinist? Might it be the same type of paradigm shifting that happened when Copernicus came out with hindsight? What would the world look like? And I think it would look a lot better. I would say that a lot of the problems we have now are because of determinist thinking.

And it's like this small, narrow-mindedness, it seems like. What if we are the beginning green shoots of this, more creative way of thinking. Like, can anyone maybe begin to think about what the world would look like if less people were deterministic thinkers? Or radical personal responsibility. Yes. You know, I think determinism, like we've been talking about, you know, it removes a lot

of that personal responsibility from, from this situation. So now if all of a sudden people were, you know, had just a different philosophy. a different look at this, now you have to take responsibility for your actions because your actions do have an effect on the world. And that kind of mindset, I think, is something that's very important that people actually, you know, these conversations are propelling that process forward. But I think we're moving to that as a society because the determinists appeal to authority, the control mechanisms that then,

you know, sets up, we're seeing that system fracture at scale. It doesn't work. And so I think, you know, there is a grand search being undertaken, you know, a hero's journey of humanity, if you will. And I think that's the pathway leading towards. And I think the outcome of that is radical personal responsibility, which alters, you know, your personal relationships to your community, to society at large. And that, I think, will lead to boring. Because when we were, like, I've been on both extremes, I feel like. I was very set in my ways. I chased down people who thought that the world was flat because it was like,

are you stupid? Right? We're really attacking other people's worldview and opinions because of my own strong opinions, right? But then I went on to the hero's journey and as, you know, talking to Ben, talking to George, talking to everyone, it seems like it is a destination, destination being a very loose term here, but it's very anchored in love, understanding, self-accountability and compassion and just the harmonization of more cooperation of the planet, right? So if everyone, and I just say this from a personal point of view,

if everyone thought like me and I was able to create anything, at some point I would have run out of things to create, everyone had the same thoughts as me, so I wouldn't have anyone to kind of spar with, and everyone was just sitting there someday, just, all right, so I guess I've fulfilled many meanings of my life. I don't really know what to do now because everyone else has done everything else. I have run out of creativity. This is kind of boring now. Well, I would push back a little bit on that.

I think in that instance, we would embrace one of the fundamental things that is human, which is our desire to explore. Yeah. Yeah. And so I think if all of a sudden we had the opportunity to sit there and yeah, you can say that we would settle a lot of these things and it could be boring in some instance, but then all of a sudden that frees involved is time for us to embrace our explorative processes. And I don't think, you know, I don't think it would end up boring. I think it would actually end up transformative. You know, infinite. What's in the stars out there? You know, why not go see? that, you know, could we travel the universe? You know, is there different points? What does a black hole actually look like up close and personal? What sort of effects would not have on consciousness?

What sort of, you know, I think, you know, we would have the ability to then go explore these grander cosmic kind of questions. Yeah. Or I just want to clarify your point of view about something, Tor. The world is not flat. I understand that. But it was created 6,000 years ago, right? You can't understand where you're coming from.

No, see, that's my thing. Like, when people are so narrow-minded that they don't see the whole, everything that we have achieved as humans, right? That is very easily... I mean, I usually just saw the moon. And just don't you see that thing that it follows the same physics as everything else here?

It should kind of dispute the entire thing, the point. because I'm also I didn't respect other people's opinion basically before I was a doucheback that's basically the whole Some aren't worth respecting I mean

I agree with Ben interesting oh so good no I agree with Ben because I just saw this documentary on Netflix that were I haven't actually seen the entire thing but the infinity when you start to go into infinity, what is behind it?

And if we are the creators of the universe as we are focusing and observing it and then just creating more of the universe and all the theories, basically, taking interstellar and how black holes are created and how we are nothing but a subatomic quantum fluctuation of particles in the vacuum on a plonk scale and everything, right?

Then at some point we will go into the infinite possibilities of just creating things that I cannot even start to conceive at the moment of what we know about the known universe. Yeah, that's an exciting thought. That was an interesting trait to go down. It is. And here I was going to talk about Republicans and conservatives. But you know something kind of freaky in this little journey I've been on to figure out and hear what people have to say about the free will question. The two factions that I was surprised are the most zealous free will advocates, although now that I realize it's like, oh, yeah, of course, is that Judeo-Christian faction that I was talking about, Jason, that's that because God created the world, because he gave us free will,

and because we have to learn the lessons we have to, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The other constituency that I'm not good bedfellows with is conservative politicians and conservative philosophy. The root of it there is that we are autonomous individuals who have free choice and that free markets are based on rational decisions and that ultimately all of those rational decisions by free individuals will. is the best system there is and that creativity, the Bill Gates's and all that stuff comes from this VAT of freedom and a system which rewards freedom, the capitalist system. So conservatives don't like too many restraints on that system

and many of those restraints seem to benefit them. So one can question whether even we have free markets, that's a whole other question. But the interesting, let's call, call it freaky since we're having a psychedelic conversation as well. Thing is that the weird alliance of the sort of rational free willish people, if you will, is a strong religious movement and a strong conservative movement. Pretty strange bedfellows, I have to tell you.

But not that strange at all, David, because I grew up in that evangelical free will, very religious, and very kind of low-grade nationalism, especially what we see happening now, these two things have been married for, you know, the last 30 years in many ways that, in a way that it's risen of this religion and free will and freedom. And, man, you used to see it erupting right now out of certain factions of Christianity. It's weird and sometimes disgusting, but like, yeah,

it's a crazy thing that's beginning to, really take hold around some of these ideas. I don't know. I hear you and I agree with you. I just look at Donald Trump and I don't think of freedom and liberation and creativity. I don't know why. Well, the argument here is within these religious systems, those people do not live a life of freedom at all. Like that's the great con.

It's like, oh, you'll have free will, but you're not. You're not free to really be a sovereign human being in whatever way we want to look at freedom. It's a way of control and power at the end of the day. There's nothing to do with real free will. Right. They're surrendering them themselves to a huge authority about how the world works. And that's the marriage of determinism and the power structure that upholds this kind of idea of free will, but at its core does not actually live it out.

In the same way that the time it's out of the court do not live it out. Both of these people are basically hypocrites driving power because this is a great way control the masses. I think they're separate, but the reality is they're believing the same shit. Anyone here familiar with Nagamati on this side? It's all being controlled. It's powerful. Exactly. Anyone here know about the Nagamati library and stuff? I've heard about it, but I'm not familiar with it. It's basically the gospel, the chapter, as far as my understanding, the chapter that basically takes the power of the Bible from the Bible. It was discovered in 1947, I think, in a cave, in Nag Hammadi, Egypt.

And right now it is on a display in the Egyptian, some museum. And it says that in order for you to have your dreams or your prayers answered, you shall view the thing that you want as if it's already happened and feel grateful for already achieving it. And this is kind of going into how indigenous people

created rain. We've talked about this earlier about it, like the whole rain dance and all that stuff, they just felt being there and create a visualization meditation, law of attraction, manifestation, all of these things. That little snippet of a Bible, removed by Emperor Constantine

400 AD, kind of took the entire power of the individual as the creator, put that into the book, and then you have the control system. Because now it was up to the book and the creator of the book, which was this omnipotent being who wrote a book, right?

All these things that just blew my mind. And then, because religion, Have anyone read the Immortality Key, the secret religion with no name, Brian Moore Rescue? Yep.

Yeah. Blue my mind because then it's documented how Christianity, in particular, the Vatican, had been prosecuting psychedelics from the illusion mysteries way back when Demeter and all these people

were the main character and you went to these ceremony to die before you died so that you can live forever and basically be limitless. And, yeah. I think that people, that people just need to understand

that things go way beyond the documentation that they prescribe your life. If they open their mind to religion, science, being kind of the same thing, just being communicated at different times of knowledge and awareness in history, like

Joe at Boeing 747 to a person 2,000 years ago, it would probably not be the same description that we would give it today. Right? And then just seeing how all these things are just the same concept, being communicated from different angles of awareness. Psychedelics being one of the huge ones that's just, think about that. Yeah, it all goes back to psychedelics. All the things that we've talked

about today is like, well, psychedelics. Psychedelics. It's amazing. It reminds me of a line I like to use sometimes. It's like, your reality is reality, even though it's not reality and actuality. You know, and it gets back to this idea of visualization and seeing the world the way you want it to be and try to, in almost creating your own life through it, you know? Yeah, it's interesting to think about it from that angle. And maybe it's this type of imagination that is needed for us to get away from where we are. Maybe all these things we're talking about right now is what we need in order to build like a parallel structure for us to move. move forward from this giant shit storm that we're in.

David, we've been talking quite a bit on some other podcasts about building parallel structures and, you know, Ben, Ben has come up with a, he's got like what he calls the Terra Libre project. And we're, we've been exploring different ways to make your way in this world via through financial vehicles

and things. Right? Like, I think that's the only way out of this thing, right? What is your take on parallel structures, David? Well, I wanted to, before I answer that can i go back to something of course i i just and i say this with total respect not saying fun of making fun of what you said uh because i agree with the point of view about that scripture and so forth but it doesn't always work when i was an early teenager i really tried hard to believe i was

hugh huffner and i really tried to visualize everything about it you know the women chateau and the whole thing. It didn't work. But what actions did you take to actually make it work? I'm sorry, say again? What actions did you implement? We talked about this. If you have implementation, if I had a thought, I want to be Hugh Hefner. I can't be Hugh Hefner, of course.

But I can be someone in the same kind of area. And then if people like me more than Hugh Hefner, then I could create something of a parallel kind of industry. But then I had to act on the thoughts that I saw and not just wait for it to be given. I see. Well, nobody told me when I was 13. that I could act on that kind of thing. And frankly, I'm not sure what it would have entailed.

My five-year-old daughter is actually doing this like a champ, to the point where my five-year-old daughter is the reason that me, my ex, my current girlfriend, and my two children from those two people are now talking about celebrating Christmas together. Like, a completely limitless kind of relationship and everything, because my daughter had that limitless way of thinking and acting on it, actually speaking her reality to other people so that they can see the same vision and move towards it. You know what I mean?

Instead of just waiting for it to happen, she knows that, well, if I'm cold, I'm going to build a damn fire. I just have to teach her how to use the ax and stuff first. That's a good point. You have to take action. Yeah. And that was in the book too, right? It wasn't just concentrate and be grateful as if it happened and pictures that happened. was the book also that scripture saying,

and you have to, that's not enough because a lot of the new age folk say the first part, the stuff that you said, and very few of them go into, oh, actually there's sweat and blood too, by the way. It's not just utilizing and all that. Was that part of it in the scripture you're talking about?

That depends on how you view it, because we were talking about this earlier. Like, let's say relative real-time dealing with things. where you actually ahead of real time and how does that work. So it's like we talked about where are your thoughts when you're not thinking of them. So we went down to the subatomic quantum fluctuations, basically the smallest of the small. If you have a thought that comes from the essence of the universe and you see what you want so clearly that it is a picture in your mind

that you can emotionally attach something to, you know, like you feel grateful and excited to see the vision in your mind and then do things from that emotion, state of belief or power or fulfillment and then you do that energy attracting more of the same you start to put things into motion that is going to create those physical

things in the world we know because now those things are kind of out there to yeah to manifest to become tangible but then regardless of time and depending on you actually accepting that is possible and taking action on what you want

to do also going through the uncomfortable stage of it because it sucks sometimes to do things that is hard, but being able to take up the battle. And then, as Terra Libra, by the way, science amazing, because my thing is the FML project. It's fuck my life. But fuck my life has three levels.

It's fuck my life, I'm stuck, everything's happening to me. And it's, fuck, my life. What is quantum entanglement? I learned something new that opened my mind. And then you come to a place where it's like, fuck my life, everything is limitless. But then the FML project is not just, just fuck my life. It's also fulfillment,

motivation, and love. If you ask my 5-year-old, what is the most powerful force in the universe? She will say, uh, don't you know, is love. Because then you're on a high frequency that's going to attract more of that. And then, then, I think that everything can shift.

And if we talk about the whole rain, how to create rain, something that is so out of our control, if we see that we are nothing but the transmutation, like we are the receivers and the transmitters of the energy that is around us all the time, then we can kind of put signatures and communication into those atoms and frequencies all around us, which could theoretically impact

the heavens above and the weather. So but that's, yeah. Oh, go ahead. No, no, no, that was basically the point. I wanted to ask you about the quantum part of it because I evidently missed some discussion, but I had to do a lot of reading whether I liked it or not, and I really did like it in quantum science over the past year so to you know or more to to have to understand how it whether it was relevant to the free will question and to what extent and and all of that so i had to pretty much steep

myself in it so i was wondering what how that fit into the philosophy that you were just talking about see that's where i'm also the rest of it yeah um well if quantum is the limitless possibilities of everything and quantum is the smallest of the small and we can see ourselves as being part of that and all that stuff, then the quantum physics part of it came from me trying to, because I also had that same fascination by reading books and psychology in a new way, seeing things as unity and being everything, and being so small and everywhere that it can impact larger things incrementally, I guess. I'm still trying to learn how to make sense of it, but quantum physics being the, it ties into everything.

as far as I see it. Everything in emotions, how emotions speak to the things we want. Our psychology is based on how we feel and think, and the things that we think is based on the subatomic particles and all that. I'm not sure how to answer the question even, but Ben is not, am I on this path? You had mentioned entanglement specifically.

What were you thinking when you mentioned entanglement? that everything is one and that you are me as much as I am you and that particles are connected on that level basically. Okay, good. That's a, that's a, now I understand. Yeah. Yeah. There certainly is a weird connection in quantum entanglement that nobody really quite understands. Exactly. And it kind of, then we talk about law of attraction and manifestation and how people are subscribing a lot of woo-woo to that. But if you look at it as not just that is a topic. You look at that, astrology, geology, biology, all the things that we have in separate boxes,

and you see that as one, and just try to communicate that through the understanding of more than one topic. Like Charlie, I can't forget his name, but he's the most wealthy person in the world, right? Said that knowledge compounds. So the more you learn about one topic,

you're going to increase your understanding of something else, and the more you're on that path, you're just going to see things different. paradigms are going to shift incrementally. Yeah. I'm doing a lot of things with my hands. I heard some interesting stuff on like the quantum area. Like I was reading this book on behavior.

And they talked about a biological child and the adult. They have what they call mirror neurons. And so that's how they learn so much. And that seems like entanglement to me. Like if you and I have mirror neurons and I can just look at your face as my dad and know what you mean, like that's a form of community. In like a quantum realm, it seems like. There's this idea of mirror neurons and being able to look at someone and know what they mean because you're part of the same individual.

Like that's like a whole other world of communication that no one ever talks about or a language no one talks about. Yeah, because I think that is also the emotional thing. I think that when you were born, you are a blank slate and people can put their bullshit on you as much as they want. Some people choose to just form them into this box, right? Some people like to raise their kids limitless so that they know that there's infinite possibilities. But when you get born, you are more or less coming from the same thing that created you and you're basically created of the same thing. So let's just say that then you have this telepathic communication.

You're literally on the same residence, the same frequency as the person. So you are connected on more than the physical level. Because I'm saying this, as me and my girlfriend have problems, I start to sniff her thoughts. which is weird, but I started to feel like I knew what she was thinking. And then it was like, are you, because I started to experiment. They didn't say, are you thinking this, you should think that. I start to sense things that I felt didn't come from me. And then I start to feel things that not necessarily came from me.

So I started to look at her and just, are you feeling kind of like this now? She's like, yeah, how did you know? Well, I don't know. And then I started to ask questions into that. And it seems like we had grown to such a like mind. that we were on the same frequency, and I was literally communicating with her. And then I was trying this in different states.

I was sitting in a meditative state as she was doing a psychedelic experience. Now, when I was doing a psychedelic experience, I heard a melody from the universe that I had to learn the guitar to kind of communicate. And I was like, what the heck? That came from somewhere. So I was sitting there,

focusing on almost talking to her, and she popped out of that experience in total silence saying, Was that you? And I asked, what? What was what me? And then she hums the actual melody that I had heard from somewhere beyond me and tried to communicate into this world, but I had never shared it with her.

And then that kind of talk said that there was something more. And then you have that, you know, you're talking to the same thing, you're communicating on a different level more than what we are used to do. I hadn't heard the thing that you talked about, the mirror kind of a thing. I don't know anything about that. But some of this you can explain in terms of science, physical science, and some you can't. And some you can't. Noam Tromsky again, it's funny I'm citing him twice because he's really known for his radical politics, but that's really not what I'm citing him for on either occasion,

his theory of language is that we are born with the innate sense of language. You can't teach it. You start to say a word and somebody, they already have the capacity, an infant has the capacity, the innate capacity developed through evolution and it's our biological heritage

and it has to do the structure of our bodies and our brains and all, but you don't really teach language. You sort of bring out a facility that is already in the structure of the mind. and the consciousness and the body. And you reminded me of that about talking about the mirror thing, because you can talk about that without having to go to mirrors.

I mean, we're part of the culture and we are interrelated. And there's a strange, intuitive sense of interrelatedness that Taurus is talking about. And quantum science certainly brings to the table, the idea relevant to the free will question, that it seems like there's something going on that cannot be explained by causation. There's non-physical connections.

What the heck is that about? Science doesn't like that kind of stuff very well. And Einstein hated it and said it just can't be. He called it famously spooky action at a distance, the idea that things can be connected that have no physical basis or no source of being connected. And that's the quantum entanglement idea, Toro that you were referring to.

There's no basis. to connect these things because they can be galaxies apart or 10 million galaxies apart. And if you do one thing over here, it corresponds to something over there. And it defies all causation. Now, some people try and explain it in a causal way. But of course, like everything else in quantum physics, nobody agrees on anything. But it does seem to be an indication that causation isn't the only thing that's going on. And that's something else that determinists have to deal with.

You're taking it to another level of consciousness and relations and so forth. And I think that's a good place to go because you're tapping into the same connectedness. That is mysterious that Einstein called spooky action talking about physics. About that. You just said that twice. Can I just intersect something? Do you know when Nomsky has his birthday? Chomsky? Nomsky. Was it Nomsky?

No, I don't know his birthday. Okay, no, just sorry, though, because someone... Was it right thing that I didn't send him a present this year? He said that he had his birthday yesterday. It was like Synchronicities. You just mentioned his name twice. But then if it's not Nomsky, then it might be another person. Did I miss his birthday?

I may have missed them both. Synchronicities jumped into my. Tombsky's birthday was December 7. So, yes. It was yesterday. Nomski or Chomsky. They're often confused. Yeah, because here it says Nomsky. Who's Nomsky?

I don't know. And how long has he been missing? He's on the back of my milk carton, so it's been a little while. You know what? I just read a new article that talked about breaking down quarks into an even smaller smaller unit and they this story went on

to talk about how if there is this yeah what there's no it actually goes back to the ether like the alchemist back in the day and they were talking about how some of what the alchemists were using as ether

like there's this black liquid light that connects everything it's kind of esoteric but you know this idea of dark matter being the ether might that be the scary action at a distance that Einstein was talking about. I mean, it's just words or whatever, but it just seems to me like there is, you know, maybe these guys were onto something 400 years ago, you know,

this idea of the ether, this idea of a connection, we're all connected. And then if you think about how, like just, just look at the way in which we have gone to specialization. Like, you know, you have a specialist for your toe, a specialist for your knee. And it's almost like these specialists don't know what the other professionals in medicine are doing. The same, you know, the same. thing I think holds for science as a whole and our community as a whole, we've become so specialized. We're not even speaking the same language. So maybe there is something to this connections. So I have a specialist for my specialists.

I mean, they drove me to it. I mean, there was no other way. I have specific things that relates to this, actually. Michelson and Morley, they tried to prove the existence of ether in the 1800s. They weren't able with that technology. So they just said, no, this is not possible. not possible. We're going to put this in the drawer and forget it forever. But, you know, chi, ka, ether, god, this is where the religious structures just crumbles because we were not

able to see that then, but then the Copenhagen double-slick experiment proved that there is a field, something there, that we can measure the drag of a particle and we can start to see things different. I think that yes, the ether definitely is the thing that they have tried to communicate over eons. And now we're just able to see that with technology that we created. Because as you said, looking for something small.

That's where the theory comes in that if we are focusing on that and looking for something, we are going to find it because we're going to develop methods and technology to do so. Are we then creating the universe in the micro?

And are we then doing the same thing in the macro as we are looking into the limits of everything? Ben is agreeing. Well, so, you know, we were talking a little bit about this earlier in a different podcast, but this is where my take on the information theory comes in. There's a vast interconnecting this to everything. And if we're talking layers, we have the atomic, the subatomic, or we're talking about

all these quantum fluctuations and blah blah, blah, blah, where the quantum fluctuations come from. And that's what I like to describe as basically the field of information. And that information is that vast interconnected. in this, the ether that we're talking about. And, you know, the spooky action at a distance, I think I've been able to describe it mechanistically through my efforts in this research over the years. One or two scientific thoughts about

from the history of science I've been reviewing. We have to pick something other than the ether, in a sense, know what you mean by it, But the ether has been pretty much discredited. Mickelson Morley was the first one to do it. And then relativity theory overthrew it and said it wasn't necessary. There didn't need to be a physical medium in which light traveled. That's what they were trying to figure out.

How did light travel when there was no, there's no medium for it? Everything waves, ocean waves, it's got to be water, a medium. Everything air, your voice, sound waves has to have a medium. So the ether. is considered in the scientific stuff to not be around anymore. That's not to say that the connections that you're talking about in a larger way. I just wanted to throw a little history at you to say that when you're talking to scientists or someone who's somewhat versed in it, ether is not the best word to use in the scientific community.

That may sound like a nitpick, and I'm sorry to there. I take it all back. But that's why I dub it, that's why I dub it information. That's why I see. I think it's a much more applicable way to describe this. And, you know, that field of information, and everything's emitting information. Everything in motion is generating waves. It's all putting it out there.

And it's interacting with that field. And those interactions, just like a wave and a wave pool, right? There's this really cool video where they have a spike wave that happens by directly correlating a couple different mechanistic movements in the water. All of a sudden, you get this massive spike that goes 40, 50 meters in the air. And from, you know, just two, three foot waves interacting at a very precise way. And, you know, we have this, like the double split experiment is all about wave cancelization. And, you know, and so we have the, we have the, we have the. the kind of terminology from a, you know, as above so below perspective to kind of look at this.

And then so I took that to, well, how do you articulate it better than something of the ether? And that's where I have gone into information theory. Both of you. I call it SLS. What? SLSA. You're not going to find it yet. They're still writing it into psychology, which is a very interesting journey.

But it's the same thing. It's like, how do you define truth? What is truth? What is reality and where are your thoughts when you're not thinking of them? And how can we kind of communicate what that is? But yeah, the information field, it's like psychedelics just taught the truth and everything makes sense when people are communicating what you felt, you know? And then communicating what that feeling is is very hard. But being that feeling is everything and you and people have been trying to explain it for so long, so it's kind of lost in translation across the eons that we've tried to figure it out. Yeah.

And I think we're getting progressively better at articulating those mechanisms, right? I think that's what this process is, is us, you know, being able to articulate this fundamental aspect of reality. And, you know, yeah, you know, the spooky action at a distance was Einstein's kind of, well, holy crap, this is what the math does and this seems to work. but I can't explain it in the framework that I have built through this relativistic perception of reality. And so we're just, this is the next iteration of that. You know, maybe information isn't the most proper way to articulate it. But in looking at the world, you know, that's kind of how we,

that's kind of how all of this works, right? You know, us having this conversation right now is ones and zeros on a computer chip going through air correction and 13 layers of different programming languages in order for us to have a real-time conversation with each other. That's information being processed around in a very specific way to enable an emergent process. And then is arrogant of us to think that we can create that, but we cannot be that. I don't know if arrogance is the right term, but I get what you're saying, yeah. Yeah, exactly. We can create a TV that can take a signal that is wireless from space

and transmute that into audio and video, but then we're not able to do that same thing ourselves with the brains that is the most complex system in the universe, right? Yeah, yeah. I got to tell that to my iPhone that it's ones and zeros because I have to reboot it all the time. It's coming up with something besides one and zeros. Well, that's planned oxalessence,

so I think that gets into a different thing. Yes, indeed. You ever think of the chart that's on Apple's Wall? Okay, we're going to do this in October. and we're going to hold that back till January. And that's really cool. You can do it. But, you know, we've got to have that announcement in April.

You imagine what's on their wall. Oh, yeah. We want to talk for a second about the double-slit experiment, because both of you have mentioned it, and it's just kind of fun if you want to kind of have a review of it or something. Change my reality. I mean, it was, well, it may change your reality again. Yeah.

The main thing that came out of it was that in a big picture sense, is that reality seems to be a wave and a particle. And that's just not possible in a classical sense because waves propagate and they're spread out and they have dips and troughs and all that kind of stuff. And a particle is very BB-like and concentrated in a point, basically. And they saw that reality was behaving both ways. How they did that is they had these two slits in a screen,

they had a back screen that they would land on. And they would shoot a stream of particles, little BB bullet particles at the double slit screen. And when nobody was looking at it, there was a wave pattern formed on the back of the screen of alternating bands of density, which is how a wave would land because in going through the screens,

waves would start to cross each other, and there would be dips and troths, and they would magnify each other, and then they would splotch as the dips and troth, which becomes the wave pattern. So it looked like a wave went through the screen when you looked at the back, but wait a second, they were shooting particles through a stream, these BBs, and that was freaky. So then they put something on there, a meter to measure what

was happening at the slits. What was going on? How could a wave be created since particles got to go through one slit? They're just a bullet. They can't go through two slits. They can't interfere with each other. So how the hell could there be a wave back there? When they started, when they would put a monitor on the slits, one or the other or both, all of a sudden the wave just, disappeared and you got a bunch of particles landing as clumps off of the slits that they went through. Well, what the hell is that about? Now all of a sudden reality is doing some weird stuff. It's not only particles seem to be turning into waves and created by interference that the particles can't do. But then when you look at them, they become particles.

If you don't look at them, they stay like waves. So that was sort of the fundamental mystery of what the hell is going on here. And then to make it a little bit more complicated, they added, there's a couple permutations of it, is that they could look at the particles after it went through the screen, after the point where a wave had to form or not form. Okay. And if they looked at it, it would land, the particles would land as particles in particle clumps. So it's like, wait a second. It's already gone through the screen.

If we don't look, it's going to be a wave and we look, it's going to be a particle. but the screen was prior, and the screen is the only place where waves can be created. So what the hell is going on here? And most of quantum mechanics is about that. I mean, the famous physicist Richard Feynman said that the double-slit experiment is the heart of quantum mechanics. And it sort of ultimately divided reality into what's going on before we look, and that's described as a wave function, and what's happening when we do look, and then one of any number of probabilities

that are calculated by the way function manifest. What's happening when there's this conversion and how does observation, then that gets into the whole mess and I've concluded after doing a lot of reading that everybody disagrees about it. Nobody has an answer.

They know how to do the science and the math, but it's how do you interpret it. I think I have a pre-eat- interpretation. But I wanted to throw that out there. Oh, one other one. Let me give you one other permutation. It's kind of fun on the double-slit.

experiment. So they it's called the quantum eraser effect. So they shoot the BBs at the double screens. They go out the other side in the back. They come out the back. And they're split by a beam splitter. So one goes straight and one goes down another path. And when they're measured at the the first junction, the beam splitter, they're going to look like particles because we're looking at them, right? So they send them down another path. There's just half of them down another path. And they have a scrambler at the other half. So before that other half lands on the screen, they scramble the information that the first station had about their trajectories and where they were going, the looking, the measurement. Yep, sir. So they destroyed the information. And then

afterwards is a screen that they ultimately land on. Well, when you destroy the information, they land as waves again. So now they were seen as particles because we were looking over here. And again, this is after the point where any wave can be created as far as classical physics goes. It's already past the screens. There's either interference or there isn't

under classical rules. We watch it at a station here. They watch it. One goes and lands as straight and lands as particles because that's what they are when you watch it. The other half sent down here and the information is scrambled, goes into some kind of prism where you can't tell where the paths were coming out because it just

whatever the devices scrambles them so it's like we're not looking again and then it lands as waves so what the fuck is that right particles go in uh they're observed they become their they're particles that's after the point of no return for the wave creation but when you stop looking by scrambling the information and then they land without anybody knowing what the paths were that they took, which is observation of the looking. There waves again. I learned, I experienced this before I learned it. But we had this talk earlier today actually as well.

I have this very simplified, without going into the whole definition of SLSA, which is just harmony, basically. When I was sitting in meditation, I viewed myself as a particle. When I popped out and was able to see things that was not in my immediate area, I was able to go out of where I was meditating, look down upon myself meditating, and then see a different world in meditation. So my consciousness escaped my body. We talked about what happens when you push the observer out of the equation, that if you're a particle once you meditate, you become a wave when you pop out. You become something different.

You connect to the field of information, basically. You become the field of information because you've lost awareness of whatever vessel you are situated in. And then we start to talk about where are your thoughts when you're not thinking of them and how this is also something that it's everywhere, limitless, until you focus on them, and then it becomes something that you can act upon. Because people ask me, where are my thoughts when I am thinking them? Yeah, exactly. That's a different problem.

Yeah, my whole thing, my entire, quote-unquote, career and journey has been the, journey of the thought from the feel of information and how that is interacting with the physical world using things like electromagnetism and quantum entanglement and quantum theory and like this information theory. SLS, law of attraction, energy attracting all the same, all of these things and also how our bodies are optimized to communicate it. With mirror neurons, our brain neurons on the heart and how the heart is basically a separate system yet working in unison with the brain and how we are feeling the world

actively creating more of it as we are feeling and going towards it, how we are communicating. It has been my entire essence of living lately, but the Copenhagen double-slave experiment kind of communicated what I was feeling to a point where I was like, oh my God,

this is it. Now I can learn more. And then, you know, as we said, knowledge compounds, I just continue to see the world in that perspective. And Ben is, I know that, see, even if we talk about it from different angles, we are talking about the same thing, the same understanding, which is fascinating to me, because that, to me, speaks of some relative truth. It sounds to me like the particle and the wave are both happening simultaneously, but you can only be aware of one at a time. That is a huge subject of dispute in physics. But, yeah, there's a lot of people that interpret that way.

I would call those people accurate. Well, they just did another version of the School of Accuracy of Quantum Physics, the accurate school of quantum physics. Are you guys familiar with the... The other guys are going to get mad at you for that. But that's okay if you don't miss their birthday like I did. Nomsky, watch out for him.

Nomsky. Are you familiar with the double slit experiment? that they did on neutrinos? No. This is just recently done. I pulled up the paper here. I'll just read kind of the conclusion of it and it says the results show that individual particles experience a specific fraction of the magnetic field applied in one of their

past indicating that a fraction or even a multiple of that in each particle was present. So basically what they did in that double-slash- experiment is they created a magnetic field in one of the slits and then as the neutrinos passed through each the other neutrino that wasn't subjected to the magnetic field had experienced a fraction of that magnetic field and it adjusted its spin or actually a multiple of that magnetic field and they were able to detect the differences in the spin so what was the um Wow. Was there a new principle that was discovered from this or was this a twist at the end of? Right. So the twist is that, you know, and it goes at the end, it basically says the obtained path presence is not a statistical average, but applies to each individual neutrino.

And so it's basically kind of a kind of a take on, you know, entanglement in a way. these neutrinos were experiencing a form of entangling as they passed through the double-slit experiment. It blows my mind, Bill. Yeah, it is blowing my mind. Gentlemen, my wife tells me it's time to go, and I'm going to be a double-split experiment if I don't leave. I can't tell you. You'll be entangled in a lot of trouble. You better believe it.

You better believe it. This is such a fun conversation. I'm so thankful to every one of you for taking a few moments to participate. I really, really enjoy it. And believe it or not, it makes me get through my week talking to people and learning things. So before I go, I wanted to give everybody an opportunity to talk about, let me just start over here with Jason and I'll go around the horn here. Jason, what do you got coming up?

Where can people find you and what are you excited about? Yeah, people check me out on experience integration. My partner and I have our podcast telling secrets. which we're getting ready to land the plane on for season one, which is basically this year of podcast. So we're excited about that. And yeah, things coming up, doing some good stuff coming out, getting ready to happen with Dad Balls.

So really excited about what's coming up there. And Tor, you can expect to be hearing from me soon, my friend. Look forward to diving into some stuff. Thank you guys. Nice. Thank you, Jason. Tor, what do you got coming up? Where can people find you?

And what are you excited about? working on the BFML project and trying to create a more tangible thing. I'm creating Valhalla, a human development system that is, or center that is based in Norse archaeology, but taking in these understandings that we have and trying to create something of a personal development center. But for that to happen, I have challenge.torsepolar.com, which is a hundred-day challenge to find your authentic truth, so that way you can actually act upon this and try to see the the principles that is learned how to be taught as we go.

I also have a podcast called The Shift that has been dormant for years, so I thank you all for the inspiration to start using that again. And that's it. What I'm excited about is life and forging my own legacy through the limitless possibilities of cosmocentric worldviews. I love it. I love it. Ben, Mr. Wizard, what, where can people find you? What do you got coming up and what are you excited about?

It can be found on Benjamin C.George.com, the No Absolutes Podcasts. Same as the name of the book here. A lot of stuff coming up. Great podcasts. And also a lot of stuff dropping with the Terry Libre Project here pretty quick. So that's exciting. We're going to talk about that. Yeah, we need to talk about that.

But definitely looking forward to more of these conversations, man. These are moving the needle forward. Yeah, I really enjoy him. David, thanks so much for being here. Where can people find you? What do you got coming up and what are you excited about? Well, the big thing is I have an illustrated version of the book coming out with a fantastic illustrator who did all kinds of robots and things and entanglements. Got this robot flipping a coin, huge coin and beautifully from the perspective and everything.

So I'm going to come out with an illustrated version of that. And I think it's pretty cool. The website is biochemicalrobots.com. And the Gmail email that anyone can reach me at is biochemical robots at gmail.com. The big excitement, I think, for me is the book. And it's how it's sort of laid out. It's a weird amalgam of sort of a highbrow scientific, academic, complicated thing that I'm presenting in a, because I'm not a mathematician, I'm presenting it in a very, I think a very accessible way with sort of cartoon robots. So it's a it's a blend of sort of a tough highbrow subject in sort of a fun cartoon form if that makes any sense. And so I don't know if anyone's done quite that kind of a thing and but I think not to pat myself on the back, but more the artists. I think I think that's, I think, I'm not to pat myself on the back, but more the artists, I think.

think it came out really well. So I'm looking forward to releasing that on Amazon and hopefully a couple weeks, months at the worst. Yeah, I think it's going to be a huge success. And everybody here has got their own podcast. So I think we could all amplify it. And I think all of us have some pretty unique questions. We would love to talk to you. I bet you everybody on this panel would love to have you on their specific podcast and pick your brain about certain things. That would be fun. That would be fun. I could show some of the illustrations and things and explain them. It would be kind of fun because I'm looking at them now, all the robots on the side of my

computer and going, hey, that's cool. What's that about? Oh, it's my book. All right. Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for being part of the podcast, everybody out there who's commenting and watching or listening to it. Thanks again. Reach out.

I'm going to put everybody stuff in the show notes for the podcast. Please reach out to everyone. If you have any questions or you have any ideas, reach out to us. We got a great time today, and that's all we got for the psychedelic roundtable. Ladies and gentlemen, I will talk to everyone soon. Aloha. Nice meeting you all. Take care.

Aloha. Aloha. Aloha.