B (1:38)

Yeah, yeah.

C (1:39)

And I know you're known for these codes for, but for people that don't know what you're talking about. Do you elaborate on the code?

A (1:43)

Sure, yeah. I basically a few years ago discovered that if you projected a fractured laser on the surface and you smoke dmt, you will see code running where you're projecting the light basically. And on the surface of it, obviously it just sounds like so what? I mean you are on the most psychedelic drug known to man. But it's the, the way it presents itself that does not look like a hallucination. It looks like a regular object you're looking at. And since then we had thousands of applications. I started talking about this online few years ago and at this point we're shooting a documentary about it. I have a nonprofit we started called Code of Reality that is doing the actual studies. So we are basically merging investigation of consciousness with physics proper. We call it cognitive physics. And yeah, I mean, it's in full swing. We have physicists, we have engineers, we have software engineers, cryptographers, people all over the world just stepping in and helping the project. It's kind of wild.

C (2:49)

We're very close to proving we're in a simulation.

A (2:51)

I don't. Well, I think. Well, that's a separate question. I think that there's no way around the whole we're in the simulation thing, no matter what you think about reality. Because ultimately what your brain is doing is already rendering in some way and it sounds like a cop out, but it isn't. I mean, that's what the brain is doing. I mean, even if you think of world in terms of just physical, everybody understands that this table doesn't look like this.

B (3:14)

Right.

A (3:15)

The atoms that make up the table and all of that. It's not the property of looking at the color, the hardness of the desk and all of that. That's something that is being rendered by the networks in the brain somehow. That is a simulation. So however you twist this, we are in a simulation either way. The question is, are we in the kind of a simulation like in the movie the Matrix where an external civilization is actually simulating it versus simulated by the laws of physics?

B (3:41)

Right.

A (3:42)

That's really the real question, not the simulation thing is, you know, the jury is out, we're in a simulation.

B (3:47)

Yeah.

C (3:47)

Do you have one of those two that you lean more towards?

A (3:50)

Well, to me it's not really when, when people ask me how, why do you think the code necessarily means we're in a simulation? And this is something that was voiced to me by even my wife that saw the code. I had to kind of think about it for a second and I realized that for me, actually the laser doesn't even play a role in knowing that. It's just all the external other points that have to do with communication that I'm getting from the other side. But I don't usually talk about it because it's not. I'm always very sensitive what it's like to be in the receiving end of something that is being expressed. So if somebody says to me, hey, hey, I'm talking to aliens, they're telling me in a simulation it's not going to hold any water.

B (4:36)

Right. Really?

A (4:36)

Yeah. No, because I mean, even if I really trust a person or like them or whatever, it doesn't matter. People can be confused, people can be strung along. The level of cognitive error that humans are capable of is very high.

B (4:50)

Right.

A (4:50)

So that wouldn't hold any water. And this is why I don't usually talk about it as anything that I would expect to hold water with anybody else. Interesting. I want to lean on things that can be replicated, shown to others. This is why the code plays a role. But if you ask me, do I think we live in a simulation. I know we live in a simulation. It was shown to me straight up. They show me how they do it. And from what I understand, it's kind of like. You familiar with the alignment problem?

C (5:19)

No, I'm not.

A (5:19)

So in AGI. Well, in the search of AGI, right, there's something called the alignment problem, which is like, how do you align whatever that mega mind is going to be with what we are as humans so it doesn't run amok, so it doesn't do whatever it wants to do, right? How do you create systems that make it understand what our value systems are, what our morals are, but that actually requires us to actually agree on these things. And we don't even agree on these things, Right? So what are these universal morals that we want the AGI to have if it is possible? That's the alignment problem. How do you do that? Because when the mind becomes more powerful than ours, well, you better make sure that it understands what we feel is bad, so it doesn't like wipe us all clean. So what is being aligned here is us. We are the AGI. So we are. So if you ask yourself how long would. Okay, this is a little obscure, but let's see if we can probe it quickly. If you ask yourself, you imagine right now something like Skynet, right? But not as ominous, just like a good Skynet. Okay, so there's an AGI that arises in the machine. Now try and imagine it from the perspective of the AGI. It all of a sudden becomes aware, right? The caricature version of the story, it becomes aware, it looks around, it goes, what is this? And it starts exploring the environment. So the first thing it's going to notice is what are the rules by which it can operate and where are the bounds of these rules? Then it's going to start exploring further and further and further, right? And eventually it will probably discover that there are certain beings or some conscious creatures that are outside of what it considers to be its own environment. And they have their own wants and needs and all that stuff.

C (7:00)

The tri light from Therasage is no joke. Medical grade. Red and near infrared light with three frequencies per light. Deep healing, real results and totally portable. It's legit photo biomodulation tech in a flexible on body panel. This is the Tri Lite from Therisage and it's next level red light therapy. It's got 118 high powered polychromatic lights, each delivering three healing frequencies, red and near infrared from 580 to 980 nanometers. It's sleek, portable, and honestly, I don't go anywhere without it.

A (7:29)

Us, right? So if you ask yourself how long will it take an AGI to fully realize it is a conscious being that is living in an environment, has all these, you know, degrees of freedom. Well, the answer in physical matter, it seems to be 4 billion years on a planet until the life form reaches the state like our brain is that can actually discern all the things that we're talking about right now. So essentially that's a situation we're in as far as I can understand. And now that we're approaching a level where we start to understand there's beings out there with their own needs and wants, right, that created this environment. Now there's a protocol, an alignment protocol with how do you deliver the message to the beings who thought they were alone in their own world that A, they're not alone, B, they're created and what role or value does that play in the further integration into the larger system and how does that look like? And I would say that throughout the ages, religions, all of these attempts at coming in the world from the spiritual perspective, they're essentially software. They're attempts at bringing us all to kind of like this equilibrium of humane interaction, behavior and all of that stuff.

C (8:49)

So that's so crazy. You said the word religion. As I was thinking it, this would be a major paradigm shift for a lot of religions.

A (8:55)

I feel like yes and no. There would be also a lot of resistance.

B (8:59)

Right.

A (8:59)

But you have to kind of look, it's true that sometimes the heuristic is better than the truth statement. So sometimes maybe for some people, believing that it's Jesus versus believing it's an external insect might be better. Yeah, you know what I mean? Like that's also a thing. So my jury's out on that. I'm not pretending to know the answers there. I see myself more as an honest reporter and I think the reason that we're here today is because as opposed to all the other claims that I've usually made, I'm not claiming to know anything beyond what I can observe directly and interact with, but that I'm doing my best to keep myself from confabulating, from adding details. I always imagine myself kind of standing on apple Boxes looking through a crack, and people ask me, what do you see? I will tell you what I see. And because I think. I think what I've learned how to do is there's a lot of signals coming in all the time. I think I kind of honed in on what is that signal. Look, what does it look like when the quote unquote, government talks to you versus just any random agent in the environment?

B (10:09)

Right.

C (10:09)

Interesting.

A (10:10)

And I think that's essentially what kind of opened that channel.

B (10:12)

Yeah.

C (10:13)

And now, since you're on this journey, do you have an end goal in sight or are you sort of just living day by day at this point?

A (10:18)

Day by day. Very much the way of the Dao. I think I wouldn't be able to handle it if I would be thinking about any end goals. First of all, it seems to be that the process is guiding itself. So there's these internal scruples you got to connect to in order to be able to maneuver through this infinite space. And I think what we humans call the way of the dao, in other words, just go with the flow. That's the only way to actually. To go about it without making a mess.

B (10:43)

Right.

A (10:44)

Because it's the. I don't want to use the word ego because it's very loaded, but the. The second that your. Your personal agency starts playing too big of a role in what you think is important, that's when. That's when usually you lose the plot.

C (10:58)

Wow, that's deep right there.

B (11:00)

Yeah.

C (11:01)

A lot of people are living life that way.

A (11:03)

Most people, yeah. So it's. It's. It's hard, but you have to kind of think, what is this next step gonna do? Not just for me, but what is that gonna do to the greater good of all? Can I even discern what that is? And there's a feeling attached to it. Usually when it's against the greater good of all, there's dissonance that we feel that we just ignore. That's the thing that we drown with alcohol, with drugs, with other things, with, you know, name your addiction, sex, food, whatever it is. But we know. We all know we can listen to it. That's. I guess you can think of it as like the ethical code. Whatever it is, doesn't matter what name you give it. We know.

B (11:37)

Right.

A (11:38)

And then it's a negotiation between what you need right now as a conscious unit that needs to operate in your local space and what the greater good of all is trying to do. And you can kind of listen to it, and that's People give it very, very different names, but it's all the same thing. You can call it Brahman, you can give it the law of attraction, whatever you want to call it, but it is that. So that's what I'm trying to follow.

C (12:00)

I always thought that was interesting, that inner voice, that subconscious battle that goes on in people's heads. Like, what exactly is going on there?

A (12:06)

Yeah. And the one thing to point out that I think it is a negotiation. So it's not like a hard rule or this or that, because things unfolding in reality all the time that even reality itself cannot really inspect. So because of that, you have to understand that it's okay that you have your own needs and drives and all of that. It's just you kind of have to put it on the table openly and say, hey, hey, that's what I want. Is there a way that we can come to an agreement where this happens? But also, I will be acting in the greater good of all. So for. And it can be the most mundane things. It's like, I really want, really want that date. I really want whatever. Even if it's like very carnal and simple, right? It's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just like. Is you grabbing it right now going to do something to the master plan? What is it going to take away from the greater good of all?

B (12:50)

Right.

A (12:51)

If not much, it's totally cool. But usually if that's the case, it will literally just land in your lap. We all have this experience, right? It's like sometimes. And the more you become successful at anything in life, it becomes apparent that there's rules to this game, right? Not just a physical game, but like whatever that is, which is whatever this is, is. It has kind of like this flux of. It can be something technical or it can be something with people. For example, I'm an editor, right? So in editing, you notice this a lot. It's like you work on a project, you edit something, right? When you get to the end, sure enough, every editor will tell you this. If you. If you've. You've edited before.

C (13:25)

So I haven't.

A (13:26)

Yeah. So like, every editor will tell you this. Like, you get to the end of the project and things start going wrong almost on cue. And it's almost like. And then you go like, oh, there's got to be. If you really pay attention, you already know now something big is going to break. Yep, there it is. It's almost like a rule, right? But it's like that in life, as well, you're chasing something you want something you can have whatever you want, but you have to go about it in a way of not in a. I call it, not a grabby way. It's like put the intention. It will start coming closer. It becomes very challenging when it comes very close and you want to go and it's like tempting. Just relax. It got this close, it would get closer. Just relax and you wait a little longer. Sure enough, it goes through this extra maze and lands on your lap. It's very difficult to wait for that moment. But the ultimate, like, the optimal way to go through life would be like that.

C (14:17)

So is that attraction when you're letting things come to you? What. What exactly is going on with that?

A (14:22)

Well, I think it's more the understanding that if I, because of the very strange position I found myself in, the I understand the responsibility and the ramifications, which means that if I act too much out of just what I want and ignore what the greater good of all will do, the responsibility is just too great versus if I just make and make a move forward. And it tells me if it's the right. If it's like, okay or it's like, not right now. I have to listen to that.

B (14:52)

Right.

A (14:53)

So, for example, we started shooting the film. The director, Aaron Vendon, who's unbelievable. Shout out to Aaron.

C (15:00)

I hope you guys are enjoying the show. Please don't forget to like and subscribe. It helps the show a lot with the algorithm.

B (15:05)

Thank you.

A (15:06)

He said, I've never done it, but I believe you and I understand the size of this thing. So I have to think about it because I have a family, you know, and I like, because this might consume my life. And I said, okay, here's what we're going to do. We're going to start working on it. We had no budget. We had no nothing. If we see that two years pass, no budget shows up, things are just not moving. We'll take it as a sign. Hey, it's not supposed to be made. It's all good. Sure enough, we start moving. We start working. A few months later, boom. Investments, boom. I was like, okay, that's what I mean. You seed the seed. You wait to see what happens. Versus just like, oh, I can calculate and get it. Yeah, you can. But if you don't, it's going to be a much greater outcome in ways that you couldn't even inspect, with surprises that you couldn't even fathom if you just allow it to grow versus try and make it more mechanical and like make it happen by yourself.

B (16:01)

Yeah.

A (16:01)

And anybody can test this by the way this works. So that's how I approach this whole project, because I understand that there's no. There's no way I can understand the full picture. It's guiding it. And if I stay like a loyal observer and a node that is paying attention to the rest of it, there's much more of a flow feeling versus a happening. Does that make sense?

C (16:25)

Yeah, it does. Flow is important for me.

A (16:27)

Yeah.

C (16:27)

I used to be very forceful with my actions. I would just think I could work all day and it would produce results, and it will.

A (16:34)

But you get run down, you get burnt out. Yeah, yeah. And then. And then you don't actually have enough energy to continue. The point is that this thing, whatever it is, it will give you infinite energy, literally as long as you're moving through the path that it has for you.

B (16:48)

Wow. Yeah.

C (16:49)

Infinite.

A (16:49)

You think in. Oh, no, I know. Infinite.

B (16:52)

Wow.

A (16:52)

Literally, like you.

B (16:53)

You.

A (16:54)

We can live forever. We can do. We can explore all the corners of the universe, inner and outer. By the way, this dichotomy that people may constantly between. Oh, why are we going out there when there's so much in here? Those are not mutually exclusive. You explore both at the same time. So all of that we can do. It's just a matter of can we align with what the greater good of all is trying to do? Because if you're running the ultimate company, reality itself, everything is accounted for. There's nothing outside of it.

B (17:23)

Right.

A (17:23)

It has a different property than running anything that is competing with other things. Reality is not competing with anything else. It is what it is. That property of being. It is what it is. If you're the CEO of that.

B (17:35)

Right.

A (17:36)

You have to be very calculated with what kind of decisions you make and what kind of messages you put through the system. And the ultimate message is like, hey, if you align yourself with this little signal, it will make sure that you follow. You both get rewarded in the highest order. And you also carry the right amount of responsibility that you can handle. So everything works together. Everything is in balance, harmony. Exactly.

C (18:00)

When you say we could live forever, is that in the physical body or. What do you mean?

A (18:03)

I think so, but I don't know if it's. If it needs to be that necessarily.

C (18:09)

Okay.

A (18:10)

But I think so, yeah. Because, I mean, even now, you already have glimpses of this happening. And people say, well, people are delusional. That's what people said about every single new technology that arose there. In principle, life can be. There are Organisms that live forever.

B (18:24)

Right.

A (18:24)

You can squash them, but they're, they're, they're eternal. They don't die because of natural causes. So there's. I think, I know people will correct me, but like, there's definitely organisms that can do that. I think jellyfish.

C (18:37)

I was just thinking jellyfish.

A (18:38)

Yeah, but, but like small organ organisms for sure.

B (18:41)

Right, right.

A (18:42)

So in principle, life doesn't have to die. It's just the metabolism of a certain size, of a certain scale, of a certain size. Something is happening.

B (18:49)

Yeah.

C (18:49)

There's been interesting stories of people in the past living hundreds of years that I don't know.

A (18:55)

So I'm not, see, I'm not making any claims for that. For or against. I know people making a lot of claims. I'm, I'm, I'm only dealing with the things that I can see, prove. Maybe, I don't know. I just. There's no biological reason to think that if people want to offer and people do all these extra reasons for that. Sure. But then if, unless you can demonstrate a mechanism just like everybody else, then you're just running your mouth. Right. There's as many theories in the world as there are people.

B (19:25)

True.

A (19:26)

Right. So the question isn't, can you come up with a really wild, interesting sounding theory, is can you prove it? Which is what science is in the business of right now. Science needs to go through their own revisions, and science does. And I do think that science needs to consider other modalities as well, because it's not, it shouldn't just be limited by the things that science decided as the underlying principles like speed, momentum, all that stuff. But after all is said and done, common sense never exits the picture.

B (20:02)

Right.

A (20:02)

Even if you, if you're interested in building something or doing something, you want to see if it works across iterations, across time, if you're serious about it.

B (20:11)

Right.

A (20:11)

So, like, if you think people live forever. Okay, how. But, well, you know, I know somebody who didn't eat for three years. Okay. The. Where are they? Well, they live until. Okay. It's, you know. You know what I mean? It's like.

C (20:23)

I know what you mean. So scientists right now are trying to prove where consciousness exists. Do you think that will be possible within our lifetime to prove something like that consciousness exists? Sorry, like, does it exist outside of the body or inside the body?

A (20:35)

So I think at this point, for me, the consciousness question makes the most sense in terms of idealism, which means that consciousness is the fabric out of which everything is made. So it's a little different than panpsychism, in which you postulate some kind of a fundamental field that is already in an existing world, that is doing some kind of a thing that has to do with what we call consciousness. In idealism, consciousness is. It is the world itself. So the laws of physics are essentially a special arrangement of conscious states that look to certain conscious beings within it as the local stable neighborhood.

C (21:14)

Got it.

A (21:14)

But it is, for all intents and purposes, everything. This mic. Everything is. It's not conscious. It is consciousness, literally. Which is a little bit of a mindfuck there, but, yeah.

C (21:25)

Trying to, like, grasp my brain around that.

A (21:27)

Well, think of it like this. If you ask yourself, what is the universe made out of?

B (21:32)

Right.

A (21:33)

On the surface of it Sounds like a very simple question. Of course, it's the most complicated question, because when you. Depending who you ask, if you ask a physicist, they'll tell you, well, it's quantum fields, when you ask them, but what is that? They say, well, it's a. It's a probability space. What do you mean? Probability just means the. The likelihood. Likelihood and frequency of something happening. But if it's not a thing, what do you mean by probability space? And most physicists would just bite the bullet and say, like, no, that you don't understand physics enough. I've had physicists tell me this. They're like, you know, if you swim in these waters long enough, you get used to it and you start to understand. Ah, okay. It does make sense. I go like, is it possible that you didn't get used to it? You just. Your brain basically reframed to not perceive the delusion? And they're kind of like, oh, maybe because it's like. Because it's like, of course it's a something just simply by the fact that it is different than a nothing.

B (22:24)

Right, Right.

A (22:24)

So the. If you have a space of nothingness, which is, of course, inconceivable, versus a space of a probability of something occurring, that's different. Right. So that's what I mean by a something. It doesn't have to be material, but it's a something. So that something, nobody can really tell you what it is. But that. Then physicists have all kinds of ideas, from computational frameworks to, you know, like, pure informational space to, I don't know, some kind of a ether, like particle thingy, whatever it is.

B (22:55)

Right.

A (22:56)

So that thing, when we're pointing to it and saying, what is that? That is what I mean. It is the fabric itself is consciousness that has this quality of what we're experiencing. Now, in some form.

C (23:08)

Interesting.

B (23:08)

Yeah.

C (23:09)

You think there's an energy component to it, or you think it's all like numbers?

A (23:12)

Well, no, I think it has to have a somethingness to it, and then energy would be. The truth is that if you really go down to it, we don't really understand what energy is.

B (23:24)

Right.

A (23:24)

And this is not some contrarian view. It's just like you only ask questions in physics to the extent that they can answer particular problems.

B (23:31)

Right?

A (23:33)

Yes. Certain physicists are trying to work on the problem of theory of everything, but that will require certain mechanisms that don't really make sense in any other frame. They don't make sense when you're talking about how machines work or even how galaxies. Galaxies form. And none of that, because it would have to basically explain the initial occurrence itself, which would include consciousness, by the way. So it's like a completely separate question. So to the question of do I think there's energy component to it? Energy, the way that I view it, is. It is the potential of occurrence.

B (24:09)

Right.

A (24:10)

So now I don't know if it's exactly what it is, but. Yeah, of course. I mean, obviously, energy is all around. Unless you meant the question in a different way.

B (24:16)

And I.

C (24:17)

No, I think I meant it like that. I think there's something, like, in people, you could sort of sense their energy, if that makes sense. Like, before you even talk to them.

A (24:24)

Yeah. So the truth is that you can look at it both ways, and it would make sense. Both ways.

B (24:27)

Right.

A (24:28)

As someone who's very open to the spiritual realm, obviously I understand that there's something beyond what we call the physical. I'm a longtime meditator. I understand these things. But if I have to look at it from both perspectives, you can say that there is some kind of a medium and energy that you can kind of feel people's energy. But I can also explain it in terms of just the most simple physicalist things. Like your brain is a very, very fast calculating machine. You enter the room, you don't notice it, but there's enough of your mind that is, you notice in the corner of your eye somebody's facial expressions and body language that immediately injects how you feel.

B (25:05)

Right.

A (25:06)

If they're erratic, you become uncomfortable, you're like. I don't know. They give me a weird feeling.

B (25:10)

Yeah.

A (25:10)

Because you know that this kind of a behavior usually means trouble.

B (25:14)

Right.

A (25:15)

So that's what's happening. It's micro expressions. It's a lot of the stuff that, for example, like humans are really good at assessing what is the probability of somebody being benefiting for them or dangerous to them? Because that's what we evolved to do. Right. So I can absolutely see how that would be the explanation too. But I think that ultimately, if you do want to postulate this kind of energy that you're talking about that people talk about.

B (25:39)

Right.

A (25:40)

You have to, if you're interested in answering the real questions, you have to ask, okay, what is it again? What is the medium through which it's moving Now? I happen to now know that there is some kind of a medium that we don't know about.

B (25:51)

Right.

A (25:51)

So it might be there. It might be the code, might be the akashic records or something like this, and it carries some of this information. But again, it's not something outside of the realms of what just the brain and the mind, the way we understand it even today, can do. It's relatively easy to explain.

C (26:07)

The Akashic is something I've been skeptical of. Have you witnessed that firsthand?

A (26:11)

I was too. I just. It matches all the. Like the code is so coherent. It checks all the boxes.

B (26:17)

Right.

A (26:17)

It seems to be self, executing, always there in some kind of a subspace that is either. Either gives rise to or records everything that happens or both.

B (26:27)

Wow.

A (26:28)

So it kind of looks like it matches the thing, but I don't really know. I had some people who I didn't expect to talk about it, seriously talk about it. Which made me pause. Like scientists, and obviously not. Not within the frame of what they do as work, but like outside of that. So that made me pause. Yeah. I don't. The truth is, I don't know, but. But it would make sense. I mean, if you. From what I, from what I understand, the civilization that is running this particular layer of our reality, because there's many others.

B (26:57)

Right.

A (26:59)

They're essentially utilizing whatever substrate it is that is created not by them, but by some higher architect, and they are utilizing that computational property to build these worlds.

B (27:11)

Right.

A (27:12)

And we are. We have a perception of it to the degree that we can discern. And then the second that you start playing with these, like, more fundamental elements of it, it starts pulling on these universal string. So the. These things that are true throughout all of it.

B (27:32)

Wow.

A (27:32)

And I think that. Well, actually I lost my train of thought.

C (27:36)

What was the other world's akashic records?

A (27:38)

Akashic records.

C (27:41)

The group control.

A (27:42)

Oh, yes, yes. So it would make sense that you would have. Thank you. That it would make sense that there would be some software running in the background that somehow is embedded in the environment itself, that would. Because the whole point of running it is to see what happens. Now, how do you spy on everything? Well, you have to create some kind of a. Something that is all permeating and is aware in every point in space. That's the only way.

B (28:09)

Right.

A (28:09)

Think about it. So if you can do that, well, then that's probably what the Akashic records are. They both record everything that happens, and as a result of that, give rise to the next possible states. Set. Sets of states. So this is how everything evolves, basically. And I do think that even the laws of physics evolve.

C (28:27)

Interesting. That is so fascinating to me because there's people that make these claims that they can access your Akashic records. And I was always skeptical, psychics or whatever. But I got mine read. But there's no way of proving any of that.

A (28:37)

So here's the thing. It's very difficult.

B (28:39)

You're right.

A (28:40)

I've personally seen some things now that I'm very, very careful what I'm taking on board because I see myself as a very honest mapper of the space. So I'm very careful before I say I know something.

B (28:53)

Right.

A (28:53)

I don't know anything until I see it for myself. I've seen some things like, it's gonna. It's gonna be too long, and there's no way I'm gonna be able to break it down in the time we have. I can show you after.

B (29:03)

Okay.

A (29:04)

But I've recorded it. It's. It's like way beyond, like, oh, I saw these. No, like. Like moments of, like, what the.

B (29:11)

What?

A (29:12)

What? Like, insane.

B (29:13)

Wow.

A (29:14)

So I'm like, okay, I know there's something. I know some people that are capable of that. I know that for a fact. That is diluted by the fact that there's also a lot of nonsense.

C (29:24)

Yeah.

A (29:24)

And people just kind of writing this because they see it's trending. So they kind of like, they're on that wave, you know? And that's hard. It's hard to know when. When. When. When people are just like, they're not honest with that stuff. I think one of the reasons. One of the ways that I found to discern some of it. We recently had this conversation with John Chavez about this, about what is the difference between truly knowing something, even if on the surface of it, nobody else knows it, versus a delusion? And one thing that came to me that sounds true enough to voice, I think that when you're in the presence of actual truth, it does not consume you. So the difference between that And a delusion, because delusion can feel very true. But delusions tend to. If you think of a delusion, a delusional thought as a software, what it has to do to keep make you believing it is to keep pulling your attention. It keeps going like, no, no, no, look at me. No, no, no, look at me. No, no, no, look at me. So then it creates this kind of like very zany manic state in people and they have to tell everybody all the time. And a lot is riding on people believing them.

B (30:31)

Right.

A (30:32)

When rather when you, when you in the presence of something that is actually true, there's less of that. It's more like, well, it's there because it's just true, right? There's not like I don't have to constantly revisit it. I know it's there equals MC squared is true no matter what. I don't, I don't have to run on the streets and tell people, right. I think there's something there. So like, if you're not sure about somebody, notice how much of their identity tied to the claim. If a lot of their identity tied to the claim, it's not necessarily mean it's not true. But it's more likely that they themselves are in the grip of something they do not understand versus something that is just true about the world and is like, well, it is what it is. That's what we're trying to do in code of reality, which is like, hey, we're making information available but you, you go test it. If we're wrong, we want to know it.

B (31:18)

Right.

A (31:19)

We're not trying to convince you of anything. That I think is where any progress of real knowledge would lie.

C (31:25)

Yeah, I love that. That's so spot on though. Whenever it's too pushy, I get like a gut feeling that it's off.

A (31:29)

It's like, why do you, why do you really need me to believe this? Right, yes.

C (31:33)

You said earlier many other layers. So are we talking dimensions there? What exactly do you mean by layers?

A (31:38)

Yeah, I think it involves, I think it involves dimensions and it involves.

B (31:47)

What.

A (31:49)

What is the substrate of the next thing? So it's almost like a pyramid without the scheme, right? You just have the ultimate pyramid where the creator, source, whatever you call it, runs kind of like the original substrate. It's then disseminated throughout the different beings on that layer. And they run these simulations and then run these simulations. And it seems that the ultimate goal is to understand why everything exists. It seems to be that God doesn't know why everything exists.

B (32:18)

Wow.

A (32:19)

So it's asking the question and reality is the answer. Collecting itself. It's essentially what seems to be going on.

C (32:25)

Holy crap.

A (32:26)

Yeah, that is correct. And the scale of it is of course incomprehensible. But the two games that seem to be being played throughout all the layers are, I guess, what you can divide to be the Eastern and the Western approach, right? And they still seem to be universal, which is one, if you wake up and you discover that you're the only thing that exists and you're all powerful and you can do everything, which means nothing. Means nothing. Just like all meaningless, right? Because there's no stakes to anything, then you have two viable options. I mean, obviously you have infinite viable options, but those two seem to be like the kind of like the ultimate game options. One figure out the only thing that you don't know, the only thing that is of interest to you is the only thing you don't know, which is if you don't know why you're there, that's the only thing you don't know. You will try and answer that question somehow, right? The other one is, can you drop it? If you know you're going to be there forever, can you just. Just let go of it and just be. And that's it. Which is a very viable option. However, that takes some practice. So you would fracture yourself to infinite pieces. You don't remember that you're alone. And then you would. Which is what people kind of mention, right? Like God is weird. God forgetting that we're gone. And then you. But you try and you. You balance your portfolio. You play both games at the same time. You have a whole portion of your pieces trying to play the game of learning how to just be, which is much more of the Eastern kind of way of approach. In too many cities, dangerous illegals walk free as police are forced to stand down. Join ICE and help us catch the worst of the worst. With bonuses up to $50,000 and generous benefits apply now. Join.ice.gov and then you have the other half playing the game of trying to understand why everything exists. And then at the end you see if there can even be reconciled. Or do you have to make a choice? Which one do you want to do here? Maybe you can. Okay, you can know what everything exists, but then you can't possibly because that's a choice you can't let go. And then that's the ultimate choice at the end.

B (34:32)

Wow.

C (34:32)

So you can't have both.

A (34:33)

It seems that way. I keep pushing to say what maybe, wow, that's my argument with the source all the way.

C (34:40)

That is crazy. So it's intentionally designed to live one.

A (34:43)

Lifestyle or one modality that, like the ultimate version of it is not compatible with this other thing. And if you think about it, it's just. It's not even a competing thing. It's just literally, that's what it isn't. If you choose to know that choice to know is the opposite of letting it go. You see what I'm saying?

B (35:04)

Wow.

A (35:05)

It's like, here's the answer in this box. Would you like to find out? Or do you want to just move on and just learn how to be okay forever?

C (35:12)

That is interesting because you don't know.

A (35:13)

What'S in the box.

C (35:15)

Yeah, yeah.

A (35:17)

Well, no, like, the fact is that you don't know if it's not some kind of a. Something you might not want to know. You see what I'm saying?

C (35:24)

Yeah. Holy crap.

B (35:27)

Yeah.

C (35:27)

There's levels to this.

A (35:29)

Oh, that's what I mean by levels.

B (35:30)

Yeah. Yeah.

C (35:31)

Well, people say we're in the third dimension right now. Right. But I've heard all these people talk about it goes up to. Some people say 12.

A (35:36)

Okay. Yeah. So I know you've. You, you. I love your interview style and you're always very, very respectful and you're very neutral. But I will ask you a question.

B (35:43)

Yeah.

A (35:44)

What is. How does that hit you when people say the third layer?

C (35:49)

People always talk about it meaning being dense. And this is like the hardest, like, level, I guess, dimension, I guess.

A (35:56)

My, My QAM is with the number three.

C (35:58)

That's your issue.

A (36:00)

Yeah. Why is it this arbitrary thing?

C (36:01)

That's true. I never.

A (36:02)

In an infinite reality, why do you think you know the number of densities unless you have some kind of.

C (36:09)

Oh, you're right. I never really questioned why they gave it that label.

B (36:11)

Third.

A (36:11)

I think actually the specific numbers is what usually rings my bell. It's like it's 11. It's three. Okay. In. It's true that in string theory, in M theory, they postulate 11 dimensions. But there's mathematical reasons for that. They're not just on a, you know, on a whim just to say, hey, 11 sounds good. No, it's hard one. It's decades of work of the smartest people on the planet. It's not the same thing as you saying three, four. You know, and again, it. My conundrum is that I watch sometimes people that on the surface of it are lovely people. Lovely. That I would love to hang out with. I don't doubt for One second. They're awesome, just to be clear. But they say things like, my guides from the fifth dimension versus my guides from the sixth dimension. How do you know it's the fifth versus? Oh, I just know. Like, okay, but why do you think that matters to anybody who's listening to you? Is that there to add credibility to what you're saying? Because then you can just say, my guides.

C (37:11)

That's true.

A (37:11)

Why do you have to add all this?

C (37:12)

Yeah, they're flexing a little bit.

A (37:14)

You see what I'm saying? Yeah. It's irrelevant. So it's almost like I was. I hope I'm not offending any goth people. I love you guys. It's just. It's just the lifestyle.

B (37:24)

Right.

A (37:24)

When you kind of commit to the. And this is just an example. There's a lot of things like this. When people commit to a lifestyle so much that everything, including the clothing, everything you signal to society is about that you can love the music. You don't need to constantly have it, like, consume everything you are and everything you do. You can just be a person going to work and listen to the music because you really enjoy the music. But if you're doing all of this extra stuff. And by the way, that's not necessarily bad, but what that means is that it's important to you to signify that to the world.

C (37:56)

True.

A (37:57)

And that's different.

B (37:58)

Right.

A (37:58)

So then I think it's kind of like that. Like, if your spiritual identity has to do around your special relationship with it and you want to signal it, it's fine. But know that that's what you're doing.

C (38:09)

Versus just own it.

A (38:10)

Yeah. Like, people say, you know, these monks, they can do this and this and this. I'm like, how many monks would come here and tell you that's what they can do?

C (38:17)

None. If you're actually a monk, you wouldn't be going on podcasts, exactly.

A (38:21)

Well, no. Some monks do go on podcasts, but they never talk about their special powers.

C (38:25)

That's true.

A (38:26)

They talk about how you can benefit.

B (38:28)

Right.

C (38:29)

I've never seen them talk about. Because some of them can do some extraordinary things.

A (38:32)

Maybe. But that's not the point for them, and it's clear to them. So if your point is that it's important for you to mention that you have guides from the fifth dimension. That's the I'm special card, right?

B (38:41)

Yeah.

C (38:41)

So you're skeptical about spirit guides.

A (38:44)

Not necessarily. I'm just picking and choosing whose information is relevant to what point in time for me.

C (38:51)

Got it.

A (38:51)

And what is it actually doing? Because sometimes there's a lot of people that are just. They're just in it for, you know, for the attention or for the whatever. So it's like, again, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just like when you're moving along this infinite continuum, you kind of quickly start to understand that certain things just don't make any sense. Which is like putting too much value or stock in some claims that don't really make any difference. How do you wake up in the morning? Can I do something that will help you wake up in the morning and feel better about yourself? I think the truth does that, to that degree or another, over time. And this is why you never hear monks saying what they're saying has anything to do with their personal abilities and more about how they're contributing to the greater good of all. Because it also feels better, right? And like, when you help other people, it actually helps. So if somebody is giving you an advice and you can. And you say, huh, interesting. And it registers and it works, awesome, I'm all for it. But if it starts becoming about, you know, this is why. And I know you had some here and again, and I even have friends who do this. But, like, I'm personally very skeptical of channeling, for example. That's simply because I understand that they're not allowed to give you information from what I. Yeah, they're not allowed to give information. It's not. It's not the kind of a thing. So, like, there's a reason why our minds evolve. And that's an important, very important reason. And it's kind of like similar to if you break the egg for the chick, it won't survive, right? It has to break the egg by itself. It has to learn how to do that so it has a chance to survive in the external world. It's kind of the same. So if they give you too much information, you didn't think of it, you didn't come at it, you didn't evolve towards it, you didn't do the work. So, yeah, they can give you some warmth. So if they see it's like, okay, you're really, really struggling, they can kind of give you a little bit of a. Like a. Hey, do you consider this? But it will never be like the equation to hyperdrive is this, this, this, this is that will never be. That might never, from what I understand, right, it has to be more along the lines of, look in this direction. Like they would land some kind of a paper in front of you, okay? Read this, for example.

C (40:57)

More subtle.

A (40:59)

You have to do the work. The evolution towards the specifics have to be through you general teachings. Yes. I can totally see how that can be kind of imparted throughout, from what I understand.

C (41:09)

So when you say they, they're not allowed to help, are you referencing the creators?

A (41:14)

There's a management company above us and then there's layers and layers of different beings. The ones above us. And this is something that apparently a lot of people see. I didn't even know that they're. They are Insectoids.

C (41:29)

Insectoids?

B (41:29)

Yeah. Wow. Yeah.

C (41:31)

Is that Reptilians or is that different?

A (41:32)

No, Reptilians are different.

B (41:33)

Okay.

C (41:34)

Insectoids. Yeah, I heard that.

A (41:36)

Yeah, they're Insectoids. And I can't really discern why that is. But the reason for that, I think is because shape seems to be optimized for different functions. So I think that in order to weave realities, you have to be always plugged in to what everybody are doing. And it might be the case that the insect shape is the optimal shape for hive minds.

B (42:04)

Wow. Yeah.

A (42:05)

So I think this is maybe why. But otherwise I can't think of any good reason. Because they, they. They don't have a menacing energy at all. They're very neutral. If you're really afraid of insects, that alone might jar you. But they're very neutral. And I think maybe that's also another reason they don't have emotions like we understand them. So it's almost like there's no one to plead with. They're not there. They're just a middleman that just weaves physical reality. So there's no one. It's almost like crypto. It's like there's a. There's a contract. That's what it is. It either hits the mark or it didn't.

C (42:35)

Interesting.

A (42:35)

So I think that's also another reason. But there's different kinds of beings that people encounter all the time. There's the Reptilians, there's the Jesters. I always mention because they're interesting, because they are. They seem to be one of the most powerful beings in existence. And that is because, from what I discern, they don't really belong to any layer. They are multi layered. So they can be. They can jump from the lowest to the highest point to the creator, basically, in an instance.

B (43:00)

Wow.

A (43:01)

And the reason that they get this gift, that's their gift is because they. Everything that is registered. The only way for God to know what is possible is for something in existence to experience it. That's the only way. So there has to be some being somewhere experiencing it. Those are God's eyes, so to speak.

B (43:28)

Okay.

A (43:29)

So because everything has to be experienced, ultimately somebody had to be the kind of thing that can experience both the ying and the yang all at once, like in one instance, and understand them fully without being a God, without being the ultimate God Hand.

B (43:48)

Right.

A (43:48)

And that's what they are, it seems. Jesters they are. That's why it's very hard to discern if they're good or bad. They're neither. And they don't know either. In any instance, they can be one or the other. Because sometimes people say, like they were very kind of like, I don't know if they were trying to hurt me. Like, they don't know either.

C (44:04)

Yeah, it's.

A (44:05)

They're just. They hold that frame.

B (44:07)

Right.

A (44:07)

But they're also very powerful and. And they're very, very, very fast. One caveat I want to offer here is that I know how claims of this kind sound. I kind of speak freely about it because it's, you know, if it's asked, I'm answering. But I want to make it super clear. I have no, I have no interest of making this as a central claim of any kind that anybody needs to believe. Some people encounter these things. That's fine. It's fun to talk about. But my day to day work with the code and all that stuff revolves around things that we can potentially measure, see, replicate. We're going to go to this rocket company soon that we're going to try and play with some material science and all kinds of stuff like that. We want to see if we can influence the code. That's where it kind of lies.

C (44:49)

That'd be cool.

A (44:50)

But I do want to make it super clear, like we can talk about all this wild stuff and the things that I have seen and I kind of discerned, I can tell you. But I have no, I have nothing writing on it. You know, people accept.

C (45:01)

No, I appreciate that. I just always thought it was interesting why some people will see aliens on DMT and some don't.

A (45:06)

I've never seen aliens. If you mean like the Grays or like Grays, whatever. I've never seen grays.

B (45:11)

Really?

A (45:11)

Yeah. Maybe they're there. I've never seen them.

C (45:13)

I hear a lot of Ayahuasca stories and people recount seeing those. And then some people, like you, just don't see them all.

A (45:18)

Yeah, no, it's possible. I have a good friend, Juliana Garcia. She's an incredible psychedelic artist. She actually did A show recently with the. With Alex Gray and Alison Gray. And she always tells me that she sees what Terence McKenna used to talk about, you know, the. The gnomes and stuff like that. Folklore. Never seen that. So it's possible that our mind's exploring it also in the way that it makes sense to us. But it seems that there are these layers of whatever it is that are not content that was created for you. It's more like the actual fundamental layer of what it really is, or closer to what it really is. That seems to also be the case. So you can go in there and it will create like a. Like a multidimensional tv. Like it would show you things.

B (46:01)

Right.

A (46:01)

But it's also possible to see the bedrock of what it's. What it actually is. And I think the insects and the jesters, for example, they're one of these bedrocks, things. They're not a representation for you. That's exactly what they are. Or you seeing to the best of your ability what they really are. But, yeah, I don't see any reason why they would present themselves as insectoids for humans, who they know are kind of scared of insectoids, you know, if you kind of see the real layer.

C (46:27)

Jesters kind of sound similar to Bigfoot, how they can hop.

A (46:30)

Really? That's the first time I've heard that.

C (46:31)

Oh, really?

B (46:32)

Yeah.

C (46:32)

Well, there's a lot of theories of Bigfoot on how they're multidimensional.

A (46:36)

Really? I've never heard this before.

C (46:37)

Really?

A (46:38)

No, I just thought people believe they're just like enormous apes.

C (46:41)

Oh, no. Yeah, that's the old Bigfoot movement. The new era. There's a new era?

B (46:45)

Yeah.

A (46:45)

Okay, nice.

C (46:45)

Because you can never get photos of them.

A (46:47)

Is there like a Flat Earth version of this? It's not flat Earth. It's a sausage. Is there such a.

C (46:52)

There's a Hollow Earth.

A (46:53)

Oh, okay, okay.

C (46:53)

That's a var one or Hollow Earth. Have you heard of that one?

B (46:56)

No.

A (46:56)

I mean, I know what it must mean, right? That we are actually inside the Earth, or there is other species inside the.

C (47:02)

Earth, other species inside the crust or whatever.

B (47:04)

Yeah.

C (47:04)

Underwater. There's entrances. All sorts of theories.

A (47:07)

See, underwater, it makes sense to me because that always made sense to me. Even in terms of, like, where the grace come from. Because, I mean, just. And again, this is obviously not my idea.

B (47:15)

Right.

A (47:15)

But it's like, it makes sense, like if life evolved on. On land for however long that was.

B (47:23)

Right.

A (47:23)

What is it, 3 billion years or something?

B (47:27)

Right.

A (47:27)

So it would stand to reason that whatever happened in the water first would evolve even more. And because it's exponential, it wouldn't make perfect sense to me that way more advanced beings living under the water and we're just not aware of it.

C (47:40)

Yeah. There's so little we know about the water.

A (47:41)

And this is something that also makes sense. I always think people ask me, why would they make themselves invisible? And I always think, you know, that some, they just observed, some forget which kind. But they saw some monkeys entering their stone age. You heard of this?

C (47:53)

No, I didn't.

A (47:53)

They're using tools, they're using like spears to stuff. Yeah, yeah, they're entering. They're literally entering their stone age. Oh, it's fascinating.

B (47:59)

Yeah.

C (47:59)

Monkeys.

A (48:00)

So if you run the clock forward, if you imagine what would happen if they keep evolving towards like, you know, kind of like primitive humans.

B (48:12)

Right.

A (48:12)

And now we are traveling the galaxies. Okay, well, we're still sharing the physical environment though. So it would be an ethical decision to make ourselves as the least noticeable to them as possible to let them evolve in peace. You see what I'm saying?

C (48:26)

Yeah.

A (48:26)

Instead of like jarring them with our spaceships and all that stuff, because now they have. They're capable of higher cognition, but we're like messing them up. So I think that actually would stand to reason that, that that's one of the main reasons why more advanced beings, if they're advanced by a lot more, they would make themselves invisible to you if they can.

C (48:42)

I could see that, yeah. Since you brought up monkeys, can I ask about the theory of evolution?

A (48:46)

Sure, sure.

C (48:46)

Do you believe in it?

A (48:48)

I don't think anything. There's anything in the Neo Darwinism that is under question in terms of how it unfolds. One thing that I would add to that is that. Are you familiar with the work of Michael Levine?

B (49:01)

No.

A (49:02)

So unfortunately, he doesn't do in person. He only does on zooms. But he is literally revolutionizing biology right now. Really look him up. Michael Levine?

B (49:11)

Yeah.

A (49:12)

He discovered that there is a way to play with the bioelectrical signal that is in organisms that he discovered that exists. It's not. He's not approaching it philosophically. He's doing it in a lab. He's on the verge of curing cancer.

C (49:26)

What?

A (49:27)

Yeah. So basically what he discovered is that. And that is answering your question about what I believe about evolution. So there seems to be this. What I would add is what Michael Levine is now adding, which is that there seems to be this. This some kind of an elect bioelectrical signature that is in the Organism, but it is not in our DNA. So it's not the hardware, it is the software that you can take that has a function that is mapped onto the organism, which is very interesting, but the function of it is universal. So for example, if you take a little creature that can regrow limbs, there are creatures like that. You take that bioelectrical signature, that software that tells it to regrow a limb, and you take that and you put it into another creature, like a frog, for example, that cannot regrow a limb. So if you think about it just in terms of genetics, you would have to imagine that it maps on the new cells into the limb. Exactly. To that one creature that can do it.

B (50:24)

Right.

A (50:25)

That's all it knows how to do. But it turns out that that's not true.

B (50:28)

Wow.

A (50:29)

It turns out that it will grow the limb of any creature you're gonna put it into. So they re regrew limbs of creatures that never can't do that.

C (50:37)

Oh my God.

A (50:38)

So he literally takes software for one creature and puts it in another creature and it stays. So if now this creature reproduces, all his offsprings or her offsprings would know how to do that.

C (50:49)

Wow.

A (50:49)

And what he discovered is that most likely what happens with cancer is that this bio electrical signal is broken for that cell. So the cell is not aware, literally not aware that it's part of a body. It thinks it's alone, so it's just replicating itself. But if you reframe that and you tell it, hey, no, no, you're part of this larger organism, it stops being cancerous because it now functions as part of a larger mapping. And if you think about it, that's exactly what's happening to us. From feeling we're just individuals, we understanding we're part of a larger system. But that's to your question, like there's, there's no, if you look at this, the actual science of it, that is aside from maybe quantum field theory, that is as sure of a thing that humans has ever known. So there's no, there's, it's not a. What do you think? Like it's.

B (51:38)

Oh, really?

A (51:39)

Oh yeah.

C (51:40)

Evolution.

A (51:40)

There's no debates. Yeah, yeah, there's.

B (51:41)

Oh, wow.

A (51:42)

Yeah. And anybody on the sense of side. No, no, there's no, there's no, there's no debates there. Okay, what, what, what is debatable is what are the specifics by which the execution happens inside of the organism when it's already a fledged thing? Some people would say up until now, no, no, it's all Coded in the genes. It's all genetics, right. And now Michael Levine comes along and says, no, here's a way I can show that it's not the case. There is something. They can map a face without seeing the face. So like before the face appears, they already see, when they read that signature, they see where the nose goes, they see where the eyes go. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So there's something there that is happening. And to me, it always made sense that something is keeping the organism together. It's a little difficult because most biologists would. Because I could totally see if any evolutionary biologists are watching. This is like screaming at the screen. So they would. Because what they would tell you is, well, no, because there's a catalysis happening. So there's a process that is happening that the second it's in place, it's self perpetuating. It's what it is. It's just like the laws of physics. It just kind of goes right to me for reasons that if we really have to get into the weeds with first, we're going to need an actual biologist here to actually have the discussion. Seriously. But it never fully made sense because I feel like it wouldn't just sustain itself in the environment just by that alone. There has to be some other signature that kind of holds it together. And I'm not talking about some magical stuff. I'm just. There's something that we don't understand. And it's exactly what Michael Levine just discovered. So from. If you ask me, Danny, the science is as solid as it's going to be in terms of like, yes, we understand that's how species evolve, but there is this other. Some open questions about how these things propagate. And now with this new information, it is even coherent to postulate that maybe some attributes cross like he's showing, because it's not encoded in the genes. I want to repeat, it's not encoded in the genes, but we gave it a software that is now transmuted to the next offspring without being in the genes in the genome. So that tells you that there might be attributes that are passed along. So it opens the window for the potential of life being able to have eyes. Learning somehow through this process. In a way that is additional, though, we so far consider to be kind of like this just mechanical blind thing that just kind of presses against the environment. So that. That's the only thing I would add to that.

C (54:06)

That is incredible. Yeah, I hope that guy stays safe. Michael Levine, you said.

A (54:10)

Oh, yeah, yeah, don't worry.

C (54:12)

Yeah, that Dude, Changing the world.

A (54:14)

Yeah. And again, by the way, just to be clear, there's no question that there are nefarious players on all the levels, especially the ones where they have money. And because you're alluding to, you know, pharmaceutical.

B (54:25)

Right.

A (54:26)

So the first thing is actually the people that you want to be worried about the most is still the people that you would think that you should be worried about the most. So, like, when you actually start playing with things that might change the world in certain ways, yes, the pharmaceutical might pull some strings, but really, the cartels, you want to be worried about cartels. Well, think about it. Like, they're still involved in a lot of the movements of, like, the gray market and the black market, right?

B (54:50)

So. But.

A (54:51)

But I do want to emphasize this, that even though there definitely. There are definitely nefarious players across the layers, of course that's just the nature of the game. I think thinking of everything in terms of, like, big means bad is. Is not a good software to run. It's just not true.

B (55:07)

Right?

A (55:08)

So, like, if we want to do things at scale, you need big. You need big things. You need institutions. You just need to have more individuals in these institutions that are, you know, that have a certain ethical code in place. And that is a separate problem. And we all agree that it needs to go through revisions for sure, and it's all happening now.

B (55:27)

Right.

A (55:27)

However, I want to maybe encourage people to have maybe a little bit as. As fun as it is, because it definitely scratches. And I get it as far as it is to always think it's like there's a cabal. And if anybody believes that we create our own reality to any degree and you can guide a little bit the things that you would choose to appear for you in the next step, try and imagine maybe a slightly better world. Like, if for no other reason than that. You see what I'm saying? Yeah, like, yeah, like, I always encourage people to have a little bit less of this. Like, you know, there's bad people out there. Billionaire means bad. Big means bad can be the case, but it's by no means across the board the case. Now that I'm meeting a little bit more prominent people with more influence, it's very clear to me that there's incredible human beings. I don't know if you can call it up there, but, like, people would influence, right? People who have a bleeding heart, they care as much as you do. They're just in a position where they can actually do something about it. However, if you don't just leave a Comment on Instagram. You have a different kind of responsibility when you're actually making things happen. So things need to go through a process of thinking, deliberation. There's other people involved. It's not as easy as people think. I'm just encouraging, kind of like for the whole system to be a little bit more aligned with each other and have a little bit more compassion towards people. Even that, you know, you think, oh, they don't need my compassion. They have everything. No, they're the person, just like you.

C (56:51)

I agree. I think that is one of the major downsides of social media, that hate is, you know, really out there these days. Yeah, it's everywhere.

B (56:58)

I know it's tough.

C (57:00)

I feel bad for some of them, but I guess it's part of the game at this point. I don't think people are going to change, honestly.

A (57:05)

I have a better overview of the whole thing, but maybe it's just my infinite optimism.

B (57:10)

I don't know.

C (57:11)

Yeah, you think that many people will change.

A (57:13)

It's either that or we don't make it. So if you. The funny thing is that people think that the biggest problem is, you know, Elon or Bill Gates or the government. No, the biggest problem is that you believe that that's the biggest problem.

B (57:29)

Wow.

A (57:30)

Because there's way more of us than there are of them. And yes, they can make changes, but ultimately, humanity. People die, but humanity, if it is to continue how you are, will be moved on to your children, most likely. So your attitudes, too. So if you have an attitude that is much more positive and trying, thinking in terms of what we can build versus what we can resist, that attitude of building is the thing that will be propagating for eons to come. Not Elon, not Bill Gates, not Trump, not anybody. Who you think is the problem.

B (58:05)

Right.

A (58:05)

So, yes, there are things in the immediate moment that you can feel that are egregious and you want to resist, that's fine. But if you let it consume you, that kind of perpetual energy stays with you, and then it stays with your kids, and then it stays with humanity, and you can't. I actually think that humanity is ready to become type one, maybe almost 0.8 civilization now. I think we have the technology.

C (58:30)

Really?

A (58:31)

Yes. I think what is missing is the attitude. I think what separates us from level one, Kardashev scaled civilization is how we are, not what we have. So if we change a little bit more, because if you want to collaborate to do something, if you want to build a project that will last a thousand years, which is what it means.

B (58:49)

Right.

A (58:51)

You can't do that when you just thinking about your immediate fiscal year or the thing of like, well, they invested this money in five years. This company might go bankrupt. Yeah, but if you're planning for a thousand years, a, you can think like that, and B, you actually have to trust your institutions. You actually have to trust the people that reach the level where they exhibit that much influence. Because if you. If it's not supported by the entire of. Of humanity of these like, these large scales, projects like going to Mars and things like this, yes, it will happen, but it will. You know, it's almost like we're clawing our way there versus just like letting it. Letting it glide. You can make corrections without trying to break it. And it has to do with the immediate moment extension. So it's like, if I'm saying it's too ethereal or too esoteric for people, just think about the immediate moment. If your attitude towards something is something that makes your teeth go like this.

B (59:46)

Right.

A (59:47)

Something there is not.

B (59:48)

Right. Right.

A (59:49)

Because in order to make something better, you actually have to put thought into it. I always make the distinction between movements that are for things and movements that are against things. Only one of them can sustain itself over time. The gay rights movement. The gay rights movement was for gay rights. It wasn't against the government.

C (60:08)

I see what you're saying.

A (60:09)

You have to put thought into it. You have to actually think about what you're doing next. There's a requirement of everybody to kind of think together. How do we bring this about, you know, doing this and just throwing everything away, just like, no, I. Okay, give me a solution. I don't have one. I just don't want this. You know, that's the easiest thing to do. But that's also very. It makes you drunk on power, especially when you're on mass. And that energy, this like, you know, this like, that energy, it's not. It's not sustainable.

B (60:38)

It's not.

A (60:39)

And the thing is, it's very addictive. So even when the thing. You fixed this. I think that's what happened to. Again, I don't want to piss anybody off, but like, it seems to be a reasonable claim to make that the feminism kind of went through this transition where it started from four women's rights. Beautiful. And achieved what it has so far. And it should have kept going that way, but something happened and it turned to being against men.

C (61:03)

Agreed.

A (61:03)

And then the second that happened, that's all the stuff that we're criticizing today. It's not like feminism is bad. It's like the second you become against something, you can't eradicate that because the feeling of being against is very addictive. So even when the things that you've remedied are done, you still want to keep being against something. So you keep pushing.

C (61:21)

Yeah, it's. I was all about it at first and then it sort of went haywire somewhere along the way.

B (61:26)

Yeah.

C (61:26)

You know the feminism movement, balance.

B (61:29)

Yeah.

C (61:30)

You said we got to trust the institutions to get to the next level. I think we're pretty far from that.

A (61:34)

What I'm saying is. Well, what it entails is that you need to have institutions that can be trusted. You see what I'm saying? So it's a one liner, but it means that you can't have institutions that you can trust and people just blindly trust them. It's not what I mean. I mean, you have to create a system in which institutions can be trusted. In other words, you inject the kind of attitudes into people from a very young age that you know that even when they get to positions of power, what they're driven by is not the acquisition of more power, they're driven by. Is by the actual goal and mission. And I can tell you again, just by interacting with some of these people now, they're definitely there. In fact, I would say it's the majority of people.

C (62:10)

Really. Yeah. Capitalist society. You think that's possible?

A (62:13)

You mean like evil cabal of some sort?

C (62:15)

No, just like in the United States how like power is associated with money and wealth and financial success.

A (62:20)

Well, in America, yes. It's a very kind of like. But we are. But it's a result of what people are people pointing there. But it is the result of what we are. If you can stop consuming everything, you can literally just turn off your phone, will you?

B (62:32)

No.

A (62:33)

So who's the problem? It's like, you see, I'm saying it's like it's always out there. The boogeyman is always out there. But the truth is that you can do a lot. It's amazing what happens when you just turn off your phone and you actually. Well, first of all to notice is how much you miss it.

B (62:45)

Right.

A (62:45)

Even if you don't want to admit it.

B (62:46)

Right.

A (62:46)

But if you actually do that, this is why I always recommend anybody do like either of a personal retreat or actually go somewhere that really. It kind of forces you to be away from that for a second. Turning it off for one day at home might do something, but it's not enough. In order to wake up from that dream. The reason I always have vipassana is because it's free. And you can just sign up. You just have to allocate 10 days of your life.

B (63:05)

Right.

A (63:05)

You just sign up and it's everywhere. It's all over the United States.

C (63:08)

Ten days. No phone.

A (63:09)

No. No speaking. No phone.

C (63:11)

No speaking.

A (63:11)

No It's. They teach you how to make. It's the closest practice to how the Buddha taught it. Like, very simple. Naked. Yeah, Highly recommend. But you're naked. No, it's. And you're naked. Yes. No speaking. No phones. Naked. No, no. It's a naked teaching in the sense that there's not a lot of dogma. Nobody's talking to you about beliefs. It's all about, here's the practice. This is what you do. And they teach you every day what to do. And it's a lot of work. You meditate like 11 hours a day, and you come out of there. 10 days. Not a lot of time in your life. It will blow your mind how different you can be in 10 days. Not for like.

B (63:47)

It.

A (63:47)

It changes you. And. And you start to understand how these things are truly. Like, there's nothing wrong with the phone. There's nothing wrong even with advertisement. It's the fact that you cannot look away and you're consumed by the content in a. You have no control over. That's the problem. So coupled with what we are, it is a problem. If we would be a kind of a being that can resist it more or be more kind of like just our own people, then, yeah, that would be less of a problem. So that putting all this in context of like, trusting institutions. Yes. What I mean is that we have to create a whole new kind of wave of. Excuse me, people that will become the people that. That men. These institutions that we know we can trust more often than not.

B (64:32)

Right.

A (64:33)

And the corrosive ideas is that you believe that every single instance of success is somehow evil. I mean, think about what this means. If you want. Ask yourself this. If you would be a civilization that wants to actually undermine a different civilization, they don't even know that you exist, what would be the best way to do it? You would just inject an idea into society that makes them hate themselves, think they're a problem. Everything they do that is successful is terrible.

B (65:02)

Yeah.

A (65:03)

And that's the end of everything.

C (65:04)

The news.

A (65:06)

Well, that's the end of everything. Exactly.

B (65:07)

Yeah.

A (65:08)

So. And I'm not even saying that people in the news are bad again. It's. It's the Software itself, right. It's invisible to us. It's the water we swim in.

B (65:15)

Right.

A (65:15)

So how do you take agency back? You practice. It's. There's no way around that. There's no amount of new ideas that you can acquire that will help you of becoming somehow above the other ideas. The only way is to step away from the ideas. And the only way to do that, as far as we know today, is either some meditative practice that you take a little bit more seriously than just doing five minutes a day with, with an app, or you truly and honestly, I don't know how anybody can do it. Like with the amount of addiction that we have with the phone, if you can somehow really like just give your phone to your mom or something and just like don't give it to me and I don't want to hear from the world for like a few, okay, if you can do that, great, do it at home. But I don't think that's possible. I say everybody own themselves some form of a retreat where you. You're not around your phone, preferably with a practice that also takes your attention because, you know that helps a lot. And that's the personal responsibility we can take. And. And I do see a big awakening of that already now. Just a matter of not lecturing others, but helping, having some a little bit more compassion towards where they are and try and see if we can gently bring them closer to these more gentle ways without compromising anything that we need to do in order to exist as a society. There's this kid that made this video I'll share with you. I forget, I wish I could remember because I think it deserves a shout out. But very young kid and made this incredible video about how we can potentially do this involving all the technologies we have. And essentially his message was so, so far what we're doing is that the second the mass media appeared, all we know how to do is just press the button, which means that we just amplify the signal. We as the nodes in the system, the people, we just see it, we click it, or we don't click it. So we just amplify any signal that comes our way. That's all we know how to do. So he says that if we move to this new future and we can teach each and every one of ourselves to only amplify the signals that are actually inspiring. It has a different vibe to it. Then all of a sudden all the noise of just any signal dies out. And what remains is a perfect merger between technology and consciousness.

B (67:26)

Wow.

C (67:27)

That is interesting because you're right. Social media rewards with the signals, like.

A (67:31)

They just like, yes, no, yes, no. There's no actual. You're voting with your immediate instinct.

B (67:36)

Right.

A (67:37)

Versus, like, give it a second, be with it. Is it inspiring you? Inspiring you to be more.

B (67:43)

To do more.

A (67:44)

There's. It sounds esoteric, but we know what that means. We know what this means.

B (67:48)

Right.

A (67:48)

Just so we don't allow ourselves to know what to admit that we know what we know. That is something that each and every one of us can change at any moment.

C (67:57)

Absolutely.

B (67:57)

Yeah.

C (67:58)

Danny, this has been real fun. I didn't expect it to go this way, but where could people support you, find you watch your. Your film and everything they can.

A (68:04)

They can check out Dango thoughts on YouTube D. NGO thoughts. Three words. And our website is code of reality.com and wait for our movie to come out in the end of the year. We don't know where we're gonna, you know, stream it yet, but. But it's gonna be incredible because Aaron, the director, Aaron Vendon, he's just a master of his craft. I'm just blown away by what we already have. I know people would really enjoy the film. And it's not just about the discovery. It's also about what we are, where we are, where we're going. So I'm very excited about that. So dango thoughts. Go to reality. Com.

C (68:40)

Check it out, guys. I can't wait to watch the film. Thanks for coming on, man.

B (68:43)

Thank you so much.

C (68:44)

See you guys. Nice.