← New Thinking Allowed Audio Podcast
New Thinking Allowed Audio Podcast
Deeper Into My Big TOE with Tom Campbell
02:41:49
Deeper Into My Big TOE with Tom Campbell Tom Campbell, a physicist, is author of the three volume set, My Big TOE, describing a meta-theory that offers an account of the paranormal, as well as other scientific mysteries.
Loading summary
Transcript180 lines
- [00:01]
A
Much of what goes into the subconscious is not just heartbeats and respiration. Much of what goes into the subconscious are the things that we don't really want to deal with. We could deal with them, but we don't want to deal with them. They are things that we don't want to see, things about ourselves, things about our world that we just don't want to deal with them. And we kind of stick them down underneath the rug there in the subconscious.
- [00:30]
B
Keep watching to learn more. For early access to our videos and live stream events, sign up for our free weekly newsletter@newthinkingallowed.org New Thinking Allowed is presented by the California Institute for Human Science, a fully accredited university offering distant learning graduate degrees that focus on mind, body and spirit. The topics that we cover here. We are particularly excited to announce new degrees emphasizing parapsychology and the paranormal. Visit their website@cihs.edu.
- [01:15]
A
Book 4 in the New Thinking Allowed Dialogue series is Charles T. 70 Years of Exploring Consciousness and Parapsychology, now available on Amazon.
- [01:34]
B
Thinking Allowed Conversations on the Leading Edge.
- [01:39]
A
Of Knowledge and Discovery with Psychologist Jeffrey Mishlove.
- [01:51]
B
Hello and welcome. I'm Jeffrey Mishlove. I'm here in Albuquerque with a live guest in my studio, none other than Tom Campbell, the author of My Big Toe, the founder of the center for the Unification of Science and Consciousness, and an individual who is a physicist and who has been a guest for seven previous interviews on the New Thinking Allowed channel. They are all available through our listings page. I certainly would encourage viewers to take a look at the earlier interviews if you haven't seen them. But of course we'll do our best to make this interview accessible to all viewers. Welcome, Tom.
- [02:39]
A
Thank you, Jeffrey. It's good to be back in the chair again.
- [02:42]
B
It's a pleasure to be with you. And of course there's so many details one could drill into with regard to your. But for the benefit of some viewers who probably are tuning in and maybe even hearing your name or learning about my big toe and your work for the first time, let's do a brief summary to get people oriented.
- [03:08]
A
The very basics of this is that our reality is a computed reality. Physicists pretty much agree that reality is information based. Quantum physics tells them that, but they don't know what to do after coming to that conclusion. Reality is information based. Well, if it's information based, that means it can be computed. If it can be computed, then it could be a simulation, which is the same as saying it could be a virtual reality. But the reason physicists don't go there is because they don't know how to answer the questions, well, where is it computed and who's computing it and why? And the answer to those questions is consciousness is computing it. Consciousness is an information system. Consciousness I define as awareness with a choice. Consciousness takes in information, processes information, compares that information, that processing to its memory, and does a little more processing and then decides what to do about that information. Is it actionable or what is there to learn there? So what is it that takes an information, processes it, compares it to memory, processes it, and then takes action, does something, has an output? Well, that's the very most fundamental definition of an information system. That's what information systems do. So it is my idea that consciousness, an information system, can configure a piece of itself into a computer. And that is what is computing this virtual reality that we call the physical universe. Now, why would it do that? It would do that because a little more logic will bring you to the conclusion, which I won't derive that here, but it'll bring you to the conclusion that an information system evolves by lowering its entropy, and in a social system which we have here, with all of us individuated units of consciousness interacting with each other and with the system, we have a social system. And lowering entropy in a social system means being cooperative, be caring, working together, taking care of each other. And I call that the love path. And then the opposite of that is really self centeredness. It's not about other, it's about self, it's not about love, it's about fear. And on that path, because you don't have trust, then you don't share, you don't cooperate, and you don't work together for the benefit of the whole. You work together for the benefit of yourself. So that is the kind of the bare bones idea that we live in a virtual reality. This physical world is computed. We are here, we are individuated units of consciousness, and we are playing human avatars, making all the choices for those avatars. We are that avatar's mind. We are that avatar's memory. We are that avatar's soul. We are that avatar's spiritual component. So the avatar is simply computed as eye candy so that we can look out there. It's a multiplayer game and to see what's going on around us. We can just look at the pictures, see, hear, smell, touch, taste. All of our senses basically are given to us by a data stream that gives us that information, A data stream from the computer. Just like any character in any Virtual reality gets a data, you know, is defined by a data stream from a computer. And the player, which is us, the piece of consciousness gets that data stream, assesses it, looks at all the data, decides what it does next, and then makes a choice, takes an action. That action is then sent back to the computer. The computer computes the ramifications and consequences of that action, sends it back to the that player, then makes changes, does things, sees the consequences, its actions, and so on it goes. So that idea, though it sounds kind of outrageous that this physical reality is really computed. It actually turns out to be very useful in a scientific way. Once you understand this things like, why is the speed of light a constant? How come the speed of light has changed its value in the eighth decimal place four or five times? Well, how does the placebo effect work? How does remote viewing work? All of these questions that we have that we don't know the answers to other things like, what is my purpose? Why am I here? All those answers fall out as simple logical deductions from this theory. So it answers about. I think I have about 35 to 40 of these paradoxes that this theory just clearly answers in a simple, straightforward, logical way. So in my thinking, you couldn't get that much right if you were fundamentally flawed in, you know, your theory. So that tells me not that this theory is perfect and not that it won't be changed, and not that it won't grow and evolve. All theories should be open to that, but that it fundamentally is on the right track. Because if it was fundamentally on the wrong track, you couldn't get all those things right and get nothing wrong. And there's only one assumption to this theory, and that is consciousness exists. That's the only.
- [09:13]
B
Great. Now, if we can, we'll drill down into aspects of this theory for the rest of our conversation. And the first question I would have relates to the nature of consciousness itself, because it's now pretty standard in psychology that humans have a consciousness, but also have what we could think of as the unconscious or the subconscious. A lot of the information that we process, we're not aware of. It's not part of our experience, but it's happening anyway. Our breathing, our heartbeat, all of the autonomic functions of the body work perfectly. And they require a lot of information going back and forth, chemical interactions taking place as we digest our food and so on. And it takes place completely outside of our awareness. So I wonder how your theory addresses what psychologists would call the human unconscious.
- [10:18]
A
Well, there's two things I can say about that one is that these kind of hidden processes are very natural and part of computation. When you sit down at your desktop computer and give it a task, there's thousands if not millions of little processes that are going on that you have no idea what's happening or why it's happening. And these days we have this graphical user interface that makes that even more unknown. What's going on. Before on the old edit line we had at least a little more idea of what was happening and why it was happening. But now we don't. We point, we click and things just magically happen without us having to do anything or think about it. So information systems are just inherently like that. There's a lot of processes going on beneath the level at which you are aware. Now if you think of your awareness as your intellect, it's just what's in your intellect. Well, it wouldn't work for us to have to intellectually make our heartbeat, to intellectually take a breath, to. These are things that are automated in a sense. They just happen all by themselves. Just like much of what you do on a computer is automated and just happens by itself. You'll tell it to do a spell check, but there's a whole lot going on for it to do that spell check and do it quickly that you have no idea. And that's the way it is naturally for us, for information systems, they both work like that. There's a lot going on under the hood that you're intellect is not aware of. Now the other thing I would say about this is that much of what goes into the subconscious is not just heartbeats and respiration. Much of what goes into the subconscious are the things that we don't really want to deal with. We could deal with them, but we don't want to deal with them. They are things that we don't want to see. Things about ourselves, things about our world that we just don't want to deal with them and we kind of stick them down underneath the rug there in the subconscious so that we can pretend that they don't exist. Now that would probably include for most of us, you know, sex drives. Oh, I don't know. Other things. Yeah, Aggression, other things that we don't want to actually admit to or deal with. So we stick it down there in the subconscious and there's a lot of fear that lives down there in the self conscious things that you're afraid of. You make choices all the time that are driven by those fears and you're not really aware of those fears. They may Be something that happened to you when you were 6 years old that gave you that fear, and you've long forgotten it, but it's still lurking down there in that subconscious, and it's still informing your choices. So if you are a piece of consciousness, and if you are low entropy, which means you are an evolved consciousness, then you don't have many, if any, of those things that you stick under the rug that you don't want to deal with. You deal with all of that. So all of those drives, the things that push you, the fears, are all gone. So that part of your subconscious is no longer there. That part disappears as you let go of your fears. You deal with your sexual feelings and attitudes and so on. You know that there are rules and there's things about being appropriate and inappropriate. And you just deal with that. But it's not this hidden pressure that's pushing you into action that you refuse to really look at and deal with. You're aware of all of that. Now. You're not going to be aware of your breath or your heartbeat unless you intend to. You can always focus on that heartbeat and focus on that breathing. And you can control it somewhat. You can slow your heart down or speed your heart up. It wouldn't be very wise to try to make it stop beating. But in any case, you have some control over those functions. But not complete, because those all have to be on automatic. So that the body not only survives but is efficient. If you had to control all that from your intellect, that would be a huge burden on our intellect. So the body doesn't work that way. Our body has evolved to be efficient. That means some functions just go on their own. So that's my sense of that subconscious. For someone who is highly evolved, that subconscious is a very small automated piece of who they are. For somebody who is not highly evolved, that means low entropy in their consciousness. Then that subconscious is just stuffed all full of boogeymen and ancient terrors and insecurities and all sorts of other things that.
- [15:37]
B
So in other words, when you talk about a person as an individuated unit of consciousness, you're including both the conscious aspects, or as you say, the intellect and the unconscious or subconscious aspects of the individual.
- [15:56]
A
Yes, I'm covering both of those and one more, and that is the intuitive aspects of the individual. Individuals being consciousness, they have access to information. There's information within consciousness that has to be there in order for the rendering engine to do its business and do it efficiently. And that information is stored within this larger consciousness system. And it's accessible to consciousness. So that is what is the source of most of our intuitive information. Not all of it, but most of it. So we can reach out to that intuitive side, which is not logical. It's beyond logic. You just know. Suddenly, you suddenly know something that you didn't know before. And you can't describe exactly why you know it, you just know it. That's your intuition. Now, that's where most of our art, that's most. Where our creativity, most of our aha. Moments when we suddenly realize things has a lot to do with that part of us. You see, our mind has, or let's say our consciousness has, two ways of processing. One is intellectual and the other is intuitive. And we use both all the time. We do pay attention to our intuitive side. We just don't know that we do. You know, people who are sensitive to other people, they know when those people are unhappy or sad or full of joy, they don't have to be told, and they don't have to look at body language. They can feel that they can just connect with people. That's intuition telling them that. And it turns out that if you develop that intuition, which means you work on it like you work on your logical part. Now, we work on our logical part all the time. We go to school, then we go to high school, we go to college, we go to graduate school. And life itself is a grand teacher. And we hone that intellectual part and hone it and try to keep growing it. More information, more understanding, and it gets pretty good. But its flaw, or I shouldn't say its flaw, its weak point is it never has enough information to really be deductively logical. Only the very simplest questions. Can it do a deducement of what the answer is. For big questions like should I quit my job and take another one? Should I marry Sally instead of Sue? You know, should I even go to the party tomorrow night? All of those kinds of decisions, you don't know, you can't tell. You don't have a crystal ball that tells you the outcomes of those things, so you guess. So with the intellect, it's got a powerful machine called logic, but it has very little information to feed that logic. Now, over on the intuitive side, it is almost the opposite. It has this wonderful set of information that it can draw on, but the instrument for drawing on it is very flaky. It depends on what you had to eat, how tired you are. It depends on your mood, your attitude, whether you have any aches and pains, all kinds of things. Can interrupt that connection. But with practice, you can learn to not be interrupted with that connection and you can make it solid. And if you do that, I have found that the intuitive side can be just as accurate and just as reliable as the intellectual side. In fact, I find that it's more accurate and more reliable because I've learned to get rid of most of the noise and deal with it over, what, 60 years of practicing and honing that. Whereas I'm still stuck with not enough information over on my intellectual side. So I tend to live my life probably 75% out of the intuitive side and about 25% out of the intellectual side. And if you develop both sides, they work together, they become a team. One of them gathers information for the other one to analyze. If you don't hone both of them and work on them both, you'll find that whichever one's dominant will bully the other one. The intellect will bully the intuition. It will step in front of the intuition and say, that's ridiculous, you just made that up. That's not real, when in fact it was real. You were getting information, but the intellect butts in front, takes charge, and that ruins your ability to say, remote view that target. So it's good to hone both and let them work together. If you're extremely right brained, then that becomes the bully. You just don't like logic. You don't read things that are terribly logical because that logic just takes a long time to get. And you can get there so easily without doing any of that. You just find the answers. You don't have to have a logical process to get there. But the downside is you can't explain to anybody else how you do it. You just do it. So you have credibility problems because it's kind of like magic. And sometimes it works better than others, and sometimes it doesn't work at all. So it's a little problematical, but that's the, you know, that's kind of the two paths and the way we get.
- [21:38]
B
How about emotions, for example? Obviously, humans have emotions. Would you say the larger consciousness system also has emotions?
- [21:48]
A
Yes. Consciousness has feelings. Feelings are part of consciousness. You feel happy or sad or glad or whatever. Those go with consciousness. All of your memory is in consciousness. It's not that your brain remembers anything. Your brain is a virtual brain. It doesn't really exist unless somebody cuts your head open and you can see it. Then it's rendered, but it's only rendered in as much that it's looked at. And that's all all of those functions, the emotions, the memory, cognition, all of that is part of the consciousness.
- [22:28]
B
So the larger consciousness system might be like the God of Hebrew Bible, full of jealousy and anger at times.
- [22:40]
A
Yeah. Well, that's an interesting story. Yes. We have this kind of. I don't know what to call it, kind of a disconnect between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, we have an angry, jealous God. And if you don't do what you're told, you might get turned into a pillar of salt or some other disastrous thing might happen to you. And God tells you what to do, and you need to do it or face the consequences. In the New Testament, it's all about love. God is love doing to others as you have them do unto you, Turn the other cheek. It's about getting along in society and caring and sharing. Okay, so how do you make these two up? You know, it looks like one of them just turned into the other. Well, this larger consciousness system, which is the same thing that religious people call God, this larger consciousness system wasn't born or created or evolved. Let's put it this way. It didn't evolve to be low entropy. It didn't evolve to have a high quality of consciousness. It's just consciousness. It evolved to be whatever it was. And when there were individuated units of consciousness, which are like little subsets of itself, then in the beginning, it tried to bully them. All right, every day, you know, everybody, today we're going to practice being kind to each other. All of you line up. And the individual units of consciousness with free will said, no thanks, boss. I got something else to do. So then came the threats, then came the bullying, Then came the, I'll turn you into this or that. So that's the Old Testament. But the larger consciousness system soon learned that whenever you try to bully, whenever you try to run over somebody else's free will, you end up making everything worse. That's not a good solution. If you want these individuated units of consciousness to grow up and become love, lower their entropy, they have to do it from the inside out. You can't force that on them from the outside in. It doesn't work that way. So with the experience it had with us, it learned that love is the best way to interact with another being, with caring, with compassion. And so it became that because of us. We kind of were its teacher in the sense that we forced it to come to those conclusions, that love is lower entropy, you know, than fear. So it learned that. So that's why I think we've got this disconnect between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Because the larger conscious system had to learn to grow up and we were the instrument of doing that. As long as it was one monolithic thing, well, it had no problem. But it also had only a very small set of the possible ideas because it was just one mind. So I think that's kind of the reason why we have that. That's God evolving. And it started where it started and had to evolve to become love. That's not something just automatically happens and it's still evolving. Evolution is open ended. There's no end to evolution. You just keep going. Whatever you have, you learn to do better or to experience new things.
- [26:06]
B
Well, in all religious traditions, not just the Judeo Christian tradition, you have what in Judaism and Christianity might be called the heavenly host. You have angels, you have potentially demonic entities, you have even saints or spirits of the departed. So there's a range of non physical entities that pretty much every religion describes in one way or another. Is that part of your model? The larger consciousness system would do that?
- [26:45]
A
No, it's not part of my model directly, but indirectly these things do happen. People have these experiences. What I mean by indirectly is that often things happen to people that they do not understand. It's not a rare occurrence. A lot of things happen to people that they do not understand. But humans have a need to understand and they don't like not knowing. Uncertainty is something that is uncomfortable because if you don't know, then something bad might happen and you wouldn't be ready for it. So you want to know what happened and why it happened. Well, if you just don't know, what we have a tendency to do is make up a story. We make up the best story we can think of that explains that. And then after a while we begin to believe the story. The story becomes truth. You know, people talk about beliefs, but people don't have beliefs. Because when you have a belief, you see that belief as a fact. That's what it means to have a belief for you. That's a fact. So it just happens that a lot of those things, those angels and devils and demons and so on, were explanations for people. I can remember in history. I don't remember. I remember reading about it in history that at one time the brightest and best of our intellectuals believed that the heavenly bodies moved through the sky because they were pushed by angels. Well, there you have it, you see, and that was doctrine. And if you disagreed with that, you'd be in some trouble. That was church doctrine and that was scientific doctrine. That's what the best brains thought because they saw these things moving through the sky. They didn't understand how that worked, so they made up a story.
- [28:46]
B
In fact, I think in the early days they saw that planets would move back and forth and do sort of loop de loops.
- [28:54]
A
That was a thing called the epicycles in the planet. And that was what happened when you have a wrong assumption about the way things work. So they had a wrong assumption. You know, one of the things they made up wasn't true. So they end up computing the cycles of these planets and they, yes, had them doing little loop de loops around in a big circle anyhow. So people tend to make things up. Now we can't say that those people were stupid. How could they be so stupid to think angels pushed the heavenly bodies around? They weren't stupid at all. They were just as smart as we are. They just didn't have any other information to go on. They looked at what they knew and what they believed and came up with the best story that they could. And from them it was a very rational story. Then they didn't have any other answer. It was either that or what. They didn't have any other answer. So that became their story. And as usual, years go by and the story becomes a fact in people's minds. So we are all like that. So that's where most of those devils and demons and angels and other things come from. Now you can go out into this larger consciousness system and explore it and you indeed will run. You will run into things there, beings there. But remember, this is a computed reality. Going out of body and exploring the larger consciousness system is really a single player game with the larger consciousness system. Everything you see and do is, you know, everything you're involved with is just your own single player game. You're getting a data stream, as always. And that data stream is full of creatures that live out in the consciousness system. And some of them are evil and some of them are nice and lots of things are going on. And you may take your mighty sword of truth and slay the evil beings or whatever. And that's your experience there. But that's an experience of you interacting with the data that you receive. Your piece of consciousness, your world, your reality is information. Remember, reality is information based. That's what the physicists say. Now you're getting information in a data stream that creates your reality. So do those things exist out there? Well, they exist as information, yes. Do you encounter them? Yes. Do you deal with them, get information from them, tell them things, go to their house and have lunch? Yes, you can do all of those things. You can meet your dead mother out there and take a walk in the park with her and discuss old times, and she may tell you things that you never knew, tell you things about your grandfather that you never knew before. And then you go look it up and find out whether grandfather was really like that. And, oh, you find out he was. You got the facts. How is that possible? Well, that information is available because this system saves all the information of all the things we do and think and are, and it's available in that database. So you are getting a data stream. And that data stream knows a lot about your life and your past and everything else, because it's been collecting data from the beginning.
- [32:27]
B
So if we, as individuated units of consciousness are receiving a data stream, it appears to be coming through our eyes and ears and nose and so on, but I assume you would agree that those are also being computed by the system. So it's coming into. We must each have a center of some sort, a point of awareness receiving the data.
- [32:58]
A
Yeah, we are. We are individuated units of consciousness, and that comes to us. Let's say you're playing a World of Warcraft game. I don't know a whole lot about the current games. I only know that one because my kids played it, but I know of that one. And if you're playing that game, you will get, let's say, a good monitor. You'll get a few million dots of light on your screen. You look at those, say, 2 million dots on your screen, and you see rivers and streams and houses and other barbarians and the whole reality, you see it there. Now, how do you get rivers and streams out of a bunch of dots of light? Well, that's data. The dots of light is your data stream from that server that's serving that game. You look at those dots of light and because of your experience, you know what a river looks like and what something you know and what a doorknob looks like. You know those things. So when you see things that match the patterns that you've learned, then, ah, that's a doorknob. That's a river. Because the data comes in patterns that you're familiar with from your experience. But if you don't have experience, if you were born, kept in a closet, never got out of the closet until you got to playing this World of Warcraft game, you wouldn't know what any of those Things were, they just be dots of lights and you'd look at it and say, what is that mess? You wouldn't see rivers and streams and doorknobs because you'd never seen any of that stuff before. So that's how we learn to interpret the data. And it's the same with consciousness, we learn how to interpret data. Now let's say we're out in the larger consciousness system and we get a data stream and we see something and we don't really relate to it. We've never experienced what's out there before. Well, we have to make up some kind of a story according to what we have seen. Our experience is all we have to go on. So if we've never seen or heard of or know anything about that, then we don't know how to think about it. We don't know how to put it. It's just like the babe in the, in the closet. Can't tell a doorknob from a river. It just doesn't know what those things are. So many times people will come back from these out of bodies and somebody will say, well, tell me what you experienced. Well, it's hard to say, but it was sort of like this. So then they start making up metaphors that are as close as they can get to what their experience was, which may or may not have much to do with what their experience actually was because they don't have the concepts, the words, the vocabulary or the experience for it. And they make up a story and that story eventually becomes facts. And that's why we see these things. But let's say we're just talking to another being. All right, now you're talking to something. You can't imagine that you're talking to a three headed chicken. That just doesn't come up because that's not in your database. So you imagine that you're talking to something that looks sort of like you. It's got a head and shoulders and a body and legs and it's there. So you put that on this thing because you're communicating with it. So you create the body because that's your story of what you're communicating with. So if it's big and bossy, then you may be, you know, make it look one way. If it's kind and gentle and soft, it'll look another way. That's you trying to make a story that suits your experience as best you can. That's just the way we work. So yes, people go out of body and they run into demons and they Run into angels and they run into all kinds of things because that is what they, that's what they can attribute that to. That's their best pattern match. The way we work is mostly by pattern match. That's how we kind of, that's the way our cognition is. We get data and we say, well, what pattern does that match? What does that look like? And if we have no idea, then we don't know what it is we saw and we can't describe it. Or if it looks sort of like this, well, then, you know, we'll make up a story about that. And if it's talking to us and communicating, then we'll give it a body that looks like something to communicate to us. So why do we see all those people out in the non physical wearing robes, often with the hood pulled up? Because that way we don't have to go into detail. It's just easier to just leave it at that. Now, if you are, I guess, more free from the common things that we might understand here, you might not see, you may see a talking orb, you may not put a body on it, because a talking orb is something maybe you saw in a sci fi movie or something else. And that's the way you see it. And that's kind of exotic and neat and maybe you think that's particularly a cool thing. So we see all kinds of things, we hear all kinds of things. And yes, that data informs all of our senses. Now in the World of Warcraft there's only two senses engaged, your hearing and your sight. And if you put those goggles on, then it'll take up all of your sight, including the peripheral vision. And now you really feel like you're there. You're not looking at a screen. And if you got really good stereo so that you can get spatial positioning, now you're really there. All you need now is smell, taste and feel. And those are hard to produce. So you probably won't get that for another couple of decades before, you know, what was it? Ready player One. Ready player one. The guy gets into a suit, he puts a whole suit on, which gives him the smell and the feel and the taste and all that stuff is introduced into the suit. Well, that's kind of a far fetched technology that we don't have yet.
- [39:06]
B
Oh, I think there are suits, haptic suits, at least. Touch.
- [39:10]
A
Touch, yes. Yeah, we have to do touch. Smell and taste are a little trickier than touch. Touch is just pressure. You can put pressure on a body with a suit, but smell and taste are a Little harder to do. But anyway, that's.
- [39:27]
B
But you're suggesting when we smell and taste things, we're having what philosophers would call qualia, conscious experiences that in fact I think they would say cannot be computed. They're not mathematical, they're experiential. But you're saying that's just the data stream that's coming.
- [39:49]
A
That's the data stream we have. In that data we describe what we see. Okay, there's an object, it's a triangle. We have data what we hear, there's a boom. There's also data what we smell, what we taste and what we feel. So we get that data as a piece of consciousness. And depending on our experiences, we turn that touch, smell, whatever, into the best thing that we can to match our experiences. So if you've gone out of body thousands of times over many, many years, then you're much better at describing things than you would be on your first trip. So it's a matter of learning what things are and how you react with them. But most people who are experienced going out of body don't actually try to make everything high definition. They realize that it's much better to just hear the voice. You don't have to put a body on it, and much better just to get the message. You only have to hear the voice, just get the message in your mind. You don't have to actually turn it into sound. And with practice, then it becomes a consciousness to consciousness transmission and you putting in your input to them, their input to you, and you just get it all mind to mind. And you've given up with the sense data because that's really trying to take something, some information, and put it into a form that you're familiar with. And after a while you give that up and you become okay with just the information. It doesn't, you know, that's actually better and easier and more accurate that you're not trying to force fit it into your experience. But that's very difficult at first. That's very abstract. You see, people like things more concrete. This is what I heard, this is what I saw, but just this is the information I got. Sounds kind of squirrely and it doesn't carry a whole lot of weight or credibility. That was just your imagination.
- [41:56]
B
Now, I know you've made many references to out of body experience and I suspect that only a small percentage of our viewers are actively traveling out of the body, or maybe even at all. But it's worth mentioning, at least in passing, that you've had extensive experience yourself in that arena because of your association with Robert Monroe, the author of Journeys out of the Body. And we covered that quite extensively in our very first interview.
- [42:28]
A
Yes, we did. Yes. I have a lot of experience with that and all the other things that are paranormal. We did most everything paranormal that could be done. We practiced at it until we got good at it, until we felt like we were accurately processing the information that we got. But we were mainly looking for evidence. Dennis and I, the person that, with the two of us, went out to, Bob and Rose, we needed evidence. He's an electrical engineer, I'm a physicist. And it was a long time before we got to the point that we didn't ask, is this real? For the first couple of years, it's, is this real or is this just some kind of thing going on in my brain, in my mind? Am I leading myself down this primrose path of thinking that these things are happening or working? But we had so much data, so many experiences that it was intellectually, it was obvious that something paranormal was happening. We were getting our targets and the remote viewing, like 80%, so that's not guessing. There's something else going on there. So if we just look at the data, you'd say, yes, something real is going on here. But getting that as opposed to getting it down at the gut level, you know that this is real. There's a two different things. And it took me much longer to get that knowledge down at a deep level. I call it the being level. And when it did happen, it was like a big, big thing in my life because I stopped asking, is this real? I stopped questioning everything. I just let it be. And once you just let it be, then it gets a lot richer and it gets a lot easier and you can go a lot further a lot quicker. And it's not that you let go of being rational. It's just that you no longer have to justify every step. You can take a hundred steps and then back up and say, all right, I've taken 100 steps, and that's taking me three months to get that far. The question is, is that useful? Did I learn anything? Was it significant? And if the answer is yes, then do it. More of it. If the answer is no, then stop it. The question, is it real? Is the wrong question. That's not relevant. What's real? Information is real. All information is real. Three sources of information, larger consciousness system, some other iuc individuated of consciousness or yourself. And you don't have tags on any of that. So you don't know what you're creating, you know, and what you see, or whether that's coming from the source, the larger consciousness system, or whether it's somebody else, could be any of those or pieces of all of those. So it just takes experience to sort all that out over time. And you can sort it out, but never perfectly. You'll never know for sure. You know, you get something through that intuitive channel. You don't know 100% whether that's real, whether that's part you, whether it's part somebody else. You never really know. But with experience you sort of know. You know, maybe to a 90%, but you'll never know to 100%. There's always uncertainty.
- [45:52]
B
So if I understand correctly, you're suggesting that in effect, paranormal experiences are real, but at the same time, this three dimensional physical reality is something of a. It's a simulation and in a sense, an illusion.
- [46:12]
A
Yes, it's an illusion, absolutely. You know, there's two opposite philosophical corners that you can get into. One of them is materialism. And if you're a materialist, you're a determinist. Determinism. If you're a determinist, then everything has already happened. You know, there's no growth, there's no evolution, nothing changes. And at that point you have to say that consciousness, time and free will are all illusions. They're all imaginary because determinant says it's all done. So they don't exist. Now, on the opposite corner of that, diametrically opposed to that, you have time, consciousness and free will. And those three things are all logically necessary for each other. And from that perspective, physicalism or materialism and determinism are illusions. They don't exist. So you see each one sees the other as an illusion. Now our experience, our everyday experience says consciousness, time and free will exists because we're aware, we're conscious, we think, we have debates, we have free will is that we can make a choice of the things that we know about the choices we come to. We come to a fork in the road, we can decide to take the left fork or the right fork, our choice. Nobody forces us free will. That's all free will is. You get to choose the things that you know are choices. And then of course there's time. We all know that there's a future that hadn't come yet, a now, a present that we make our choices in, and then a past of all the choices we made and what the consequences were of all those choices. So we know this through our experience. We don't have any experience that says everything already happened because you wouldn't be able to think everything already happened because there is no thinking there. There is no mind, there is no consciousness, time or free will. So those are diametrically opposed to each other.
- [48:19]
B
Would you say that the self is real?
- [48:23]
A
Yes, that's consciousness. The self is consciousness. Another name for consciousness is spirit. Another name for consciousness is soul. It's who you are inside. It's not. You know, we can act kind, but we're talking about being kind of. Being kind is at your core. That's what you are. That's who you are. That's the real thing. So indeed that is, you know, that's the way we have choices.
- [48:58]
B
Earlier you suggested that the notion of angels and demons is the best explanation available at the time to some very smart people who are trying to figure things out.
- [49:13]
A
That's the majority of it, not necessarily all of it. That's the majority of it. The larger consciousness system, if it wants to interface with you, it's got something that needs to help you with. You're having a problem with anger management, say. And that's the thing you've been trying to learn for a long time and it wants to help you because as you evolve, it evolves, you're a part of it. So it may say something to you. Now again, what are you going to think about that? Well, you'll probably see some kind of humanoid thing. You're not going to see a three headed chicken. That's out because that's not part of your experience. You may see a burning bush. You may see a, you know, whatever, a sphere that's glowing and speaking to you, but you'll probably see something else. Or maybe you'll just hear the voice in your head. Or you might see an angel fly up to you with these golden wings and sit down on the head of your pin and you may have a conversation with that angel. And the angel may tell you, I'm the angel Gabriel and I've come here to deliver a message. So yes, you may see, you may get data streams that have these things in them. They may have angels and demons and stuff. It's not that you don't see them or that your memory is flawed or that your. You're making it all up. You may indeed get that in your data stream. An angel, a demon can be in your data stream. It could be that you created it yourself. That's a. We make up our own stories. That's one of the sources of data. Your own source and that's what I meant when I said we tell stories. But those things could also be sent by the larger consciousness system. Because it has some value. And usually the value is in growing up, you know, getting. You know, getting to have a lower conscious.
- [51:05]
B
It's not a story that we made up.
- [51:08]
A
No, that's not a story that we make up. And the third choice is it comes from somebody else. Somebody else could be sending you that image, or you may just pick it up from that other person's head. There is such a thing as collective consciousness. And we get lots of information from collective consciousness. Our culture is a collective consciousness.
- [51:27]
B
But they could also be stories.
- [51:29]
A
Yes, and they're stories, and they're things that happen. And you'll get those. And you didn't make those up either. So, like I say, there's three sources of data that can come to you. One of them is yourself. And we make those up, and we make them up to suit us the best we can. And then we believe them. Another one is you get it from somebody else. You pick it up from their mind. All consciousness is netted. Yes, you can even talk to your dog. You don't talk to, like, you know, English. It's not an intellectual creature. But you can get the feelings. You can get the essence. And you can even get short sentences because you are getting the information you get. You're turning them into sentences so that you can process them. It's not that the dog's speaking English or French. It's that, you know, you are taking those feelings and turning them into some kind of simple language. So, yes, those are the three sources. So, no, you don't always make it up. But most of the things, most of the lore out there about the devils and the rest of it is people getting information and making up a good story for it. And a lot of it is that way. Probably the most of it, the second most thing is that it's coming from the larger consciousness system. Because that's always trying to help us out. If we're on a path of learning, if we're not on a path of growing up, then it kind of leaves us alone. And then the least one is that you get it from someplace else. But, you know, some people think very loudly. Some people, if you're around them, you know what they're thinking, particularly if they think it with an explanation point at the end of it, you get that and you can you hear it, you feel it. It's just there. Just like, you know, how people are feeling. These communications Are so we do that all the time and sometimes we make up a story about that.
- [53:20]
B
Well, would you say that stepping back for a moment from yourself as the originator of mbt, would you say it's possible that the idea that we're living in a simulation produced by a computer, which is a part of the larger consciousness system, is also a story? It's maybe the best story we can come up with at this time.
- [53:48]
A
Absolutely. All of those things are metaphors, right? Larger consciousness system is a metaphor for source. There is a source. The individual unit of consciousness is a small piece of that source. So this is just a model. It's a model of reality. And these pieces I put together wherever I saw a fundamental function of consciousness. Well, the most fundamental function is source. You know, where did it all come from? Another function is, let's say, the learning from our various incarnations. There has to be a part that absorbs all of those experiences and looks at what are the trends. Are you improving or you're not improving? What are the problems? What do we have to learn? So you need that function that accumulates. Then you also need a function I call the free will awareness unit, evidently, or the last thing I just said, the one that does the looking across all the lifetimes, that's the individual unit of consciousness. Free will awareness unit is just a subset of that individual of consciousness. And it's what actually logs on to the data stream that makes it think that it's alive and well in a human body.
- [55:08]
B
In other words, Tom Campbell and Jeffrey Mishlove are free will awareness units. But if we had a larger perspective, including past lives, that would be the individuated unit of consciousness.
- [55:26]
A
Well, no, that would just be the bigger picture of who we are. We could look at, you know, that wouldn't be an individual unit of consciousness, that would be the individual unit of consciousness would be this. Now you can see progressively bigger pictures and you can see pictures of how you fit in and what's important and where you came from and how your past choices have led to where you are now. All of that is just getting a bigger, bigger picture of who you are. But I, as I made up this model. Yes, I created the model. Right. It's the best story I could come up with. Just like everybody else, I have the information I had been collecting data for. Well, by then it was probably close to 40 years worth of collection of data, trying to make sense of it. What overarching things could I produce that would explain it all, explain the physics, explain the subjective as well as the objective, explain all these facts. So I worked and worked and worked on it, and I'd get a bunch of facts here, but I couldn't explain these facts over there with that until I got something that explained all the facts. But yes, it's a model that I create as the best model that I can. And what makes a model good or bad in physics is how well does it perform, how much can it predict new things and get them right? How well does it explain the things we already know and how many assumptions go with it? Because if you get enough assumptions, you can explain everything, right? If you're playing cards and every one of your cards is a wild card, you can have any hand you want. It's the same thing. So if you have 20 assumptions, well, you ought to be able to explain everything with those 20 assumptions.
- [57:14]
B
Well, I'm still puzzled, Tom, as to the distinction then, between the free will awareness unit and the individuated unit of consciousness.
- [57:25]
A
Okay, well, we have. Let's start with the hierarchy. You have the larger consciousness system. It takes a subset of itself, a virtual machine inside the big machine, if you like. It takes a fragment, a piece of itself, has all the same qualities as the larger kind of system has, but in a smaller package. Not as much memory, not as much processing. So it takes that. Now that's an individual unit of consciousness. Now, this individuated unit of consciousness is what accumulates all the various experiences that you've had where you go into the virtual reality, you make choices and level up or evolve or de. Evolve based on those choices over many life, over many lifetimes. Yes. And I put that in this reincarnation. I called it experience packets because I don't like to use words that people attach beliefs to. So I call it experience packets. But I did that not because I read that Buddhists believe that I did that because the system breaks down. Otherwise, education has to be a serial process. Learning comes one thing after another. You can't learn B until you've learned A. So it's not like you learn everything all at once. That doesn't work that way. Or you can't learn everything in one small go at learning. So it had to be multiple learning. In other words, the model would break. It wouldn't work. So that's where the reincarnation came into the model. It was logically necessary. So now once that's necessary, you need to have that individual unit of consciousness, just partitions off a piece of itself. It's still part of this individual unit. Of consciousness. You just partition off so much memory, so much processing, so much whatever. And that little partitioned off piece now is the piece that's logged on to that avatar. That's the free will awareness unit. So it's the free will awareness unit that then is signed up for this data stream for what that avatar is experiencing. It gets that, and it gets that with no previous information. It doesn't remember all the experiences it had in other lifetimes because that would be dysfunctional. So it only gets its first experience is as an avatar. So it believes it's an avatar because all of its experience has been as this avatar. So it identifies with the avatar completely. And you need that because you want this free will awareness unit to not be gaming the system, but to have new experiences and to interact with those new experiences from what's inside of them. So if they have higher quality and you keep the quality, that's the one thing you keep going from the free will, Going from the individual unit of consciousness to free will of awareness unit is you keep the quality of your consciousness. The amount of entropy that you have, you get to keep that. So when you're born then, or you log on to this infant, or even before the infant, you log on and you're in the womb and you're punching mommy from inside, and you see lights and you hear voices and you hear music, you're processing all of that, that becomes part of your experience. But you're interacting with it not from your intellect, but from who you are out of your core. Because if you interacted with your intellect, like, oh, I've done this a thousand times. I know how this goes. I'm supposed to be kind and I'm supposed to care about others. So I'll act all that out and I'll have the right answers. Well, no, that doesn't help you grow up. You got to be that, not act it. So you have to not have that memory so that you act as you are, because that's the way you learn. Otherwise, everybody would be gaming the system if they knew that. They'd be trying to get the right answers rather than growing up and becoming the right answer.
- [61:26]
B
Let's talk about source. You said that the larger consciousness system is an information system. We could think of it as the equivalent of God. Although you don't like to use religious terminology, but if we borrow them, and we have a very extensive history of religious terminology we can draw upon, often religions deal with the beginning of times and the end of time. Do you have a sense in Your model of the end of time?
- [62:06]
A
No, I don't. Because everything is evolving in this system. The larger consciousness system. Yes. That's equivalent to what people call God. It's also evolving. It's been evolving. Remember we talked about it, didn't know that love was the answer. It had to figure that out through trial and error. That's how we learn. So it's still evolving. And the thing that's nice about evolution is that the more you evolve, the more states you have to evolve into, the more aware you are, the more you understand, the bigger your picture, the more choices you have. Because when you have that little picture, well, there's just a few choices here that you know about. But when you have a much bigger picture, there's a lot more choices. So the states that you can evolve into keep getting bigger and bigger as you grow. So it's not a thing that gets to a point and dies because it's done everything. It's a thing that evolves. Evolution is open ended. It doesn't have an endpoint. We humans, we think we're the epitome of evolution, right? With this human body, we can do so many marvelous things in this big brain. We can engineer and build things, but this is going to evolve too. Look at us a million years from now and we probably won't be just exactly as we are now. We'll probably be something else. And there are people that speculate. We'll be a little skinny body with a great big brain because we'll have machines, stuff that'll do all our heavy lifting. We won't need a lot of muscle. We just have to be able to have enough muscle to push buttons and turn levers. You know, that's all we need. But I doubt that it's going to be that simple. That's a very simple assessment. But yeah, evolution just goes on. We're still evolving. The large consciousness system is still evolving. And no, there's no end of. There is no end game or end of.
- [63:59]
B
You would disagree with theological systems that posit that God is perfect.
- [64:08]
A
Yes, I would disagree with that. God is not perfect. God has a lot of attributes that makes him very informed. Yes, because all of this is parts of it, parts of him. It's all part of the larger consciousness system. So it's all of his peace parts. And he's not a machine, He's a consciousness. He's aware, it's a being. It's aware of things and he's aware of his parts. But he has to focus that awareness it's not that he is omniscient and sees everything all the time, everywhere. If he wants to know how, you know, Jeffrey Mishlove is doing, he'll have to focus a little attention in Jeffrey's direction to see that. Now, focusing that attention at that scale, he can focus his attention on a whole lot of things. I can focus my attention on maybe three or four or five things, and that's about the limit. But I'm a very small piece of that. So he can focus his attention on a whole lot of things. And he also has things that he can set up, triggers and things that when something happens over here that does this, then it pulls his attention over there to that, but he has to focus his attention, which is much broader and deeper than ours, but he still has to focus it. So, no, he's not perfect. He's still evolving. But long ago he learned that love is the answer. He's evolved to that point. So now it's a matter of optimizing the system, trying to make, you know, that's the evolution that the larger consciousness system is in optimizing the system, how can he help the system lower its entropy? Because the lower the entropy is, the more choices, the bigger the picture. So he would like us to lower our entry, become higher quality of consciousness, to become love rather than fear. And he will help us do that. That's part of his process of evolving himself, is helping us evolve ourselves. So there is a lot of interaction there between us and the larger consciousness system that is, no, not perfect, still evolving, still in a process of becoming. And so it will always remain. There's always one. Like I say, the bigger you get, the more options you have.
- [66:29]
B
So you don't see an endpoint, the Omega point, as it's sometimes referred to?
- [66:34]
A
No, not only that, you take a step back from that. I don't see the endpoint that many of the Eastern religions find. Now, some of those don't have endpoints either, but some do. And they say that you go up to a point where you are enlightened, and that means you are all love and no fear. And after that, you're done. And then you merge back into the Godhead and become one with the larger consciousness system. And I don't agree with that. That is not the way that it would work, because that's going in the wrong direction. We started with a larger consciousness system that was a unitary thing. It broke itself into pieces for a reason. Because all those pieces interacting give you more leverage, more things to do, more ways to grow than if you just have one thing so everybody coming back, you're going to end up with the one thing again which was your problem a long time ago. So it doesn't really make sense. And the other thing that doesn't make sense is as you grow up and become more love, then you become more valuable to the system. You become a teacher, you become someone that can help others and you don't have to be a big deal, you don't have to have thousands of people kissing your feet. You may just be a good example someplace where you just show that the way love is and the rewards that comes from being that way. So the system needs as many of those high quality individuals back into the system to help the system grow and be more effective. So when you get to that point, it's not like games over, you just reach to another level of being able to help. And the other point is that entropy, if you don't continually put energy into a system, the entropy of that system will increase. Second law of thermodynamics. And it holds even in consciousness. So if you get to that point where you are pure love, if you don't practice it, if you don't practice what you preach, if you just got there and now you're done, your entropy will begin to increase. And pretty soon you're going to have ego and you're going to have beliefs and you're going to go backwards. You'll start devolving because you have to constantly put effort into, into your growth in order not to go backwards. So you're not just going to sit on a cloud and play your harp forever. Because if you're not actively engaged in being part of the solution, you're going to become part of the problem whether you want to or not. So no, I don't think you go back to the Godhead. That's not the way it works. You just get a higher level job.
- [69:29]
B
Would you say that the larger consciousness system is one with everything?
- [69:35]
A
It is all there is. It is the one everything is, yes, a piece of it. It's the source. Source of everything. And you can experience that. Everybody can experience that if you want to. You can kind of see reality through the eyes of the larger consciousness system. And you know, the Hindus have a name for that, I don't know, Nirvana or Samadhi. Samadhi, something like that. And it's available to everyone and you don't have to be a yogi and have your whole life dedicated to it. A lot of people who have near death experiences, see a glimmer of that, you know, they get the same thing. And when you get that vision, when you get that experience, you find that your own identity disappears. You're no longer Tom Campbell with a big picture. You're not Tom Campbell at all. You're one with everything. And you kind of look at that expanse and you're a piece of grass. You're just this little piece of grass. You're a tree, you're every leaf, you're every rock, you're everything. And you have this feeling of total. And you're surrounded by that feeling of love. And you are part of that love. It's not that you're a separate thing, you're just a piece of that love field. And you have no identity. And you connect as being everything, everything you are at all. And that is that experience that you get with seeing the world through the larger consciousness demise. It gives you a little bit of what's it like to be the larger consciousness system. It's a system that is love. And it's in that state all the time. But it's also keeping up with its humans and helping the ones that it can and pretty much ignoring the ones that it can't.
- [71:34]
B
Ignoring the ones that it can't help. Why would it do that?
- [71:39]
A
Well, some people you can help by direct intervention. Some people you can say, well, what you need is to read this book. And that book will just somehow mysteriously jump off a library shelf into your hands, or somebody will hand it to you, or you'll just see it and be attracted to it for some reason. And it can help you by doing things like that. But if you are a person that's not interested in growing up, thinks that's all BS and whatever, you're just in getting as much as you can get. How much money can you make? And $100 billion wouldn't be enough. You'd have to make another $100 million. So you're just into not growing up. Well, if you go to that person and slide a book over to them, maybe give them a book of My Big Toe or the Bahava Gita or something else that they might find enlightening, they won't like it. That trash, throw it away. Some people are just not ready to change, to take a step in the right direction. So when I say it ignores people like that, I mean it doesn't take a lot of time working with them. Now if it sees that there's a crack in that, oh, they got a little insight here. They're changing a mind a little bit, it can jump in and work with them because now they're open to learning. But those people who are closed minded, who can't, who won't, I should say, learn, grow. They're not interested in it. They're only interested in how much money they can make or something. Those people it pretty much leaves alone, it ignores them because working with them tends to backfire.
- [73:25]
B
I sometimes feel though, if the larger consciousness system is, as you say, all in everything, then people who appear to be selfish or uninterested in doing good or actively engaged in doing things that we might call evil or at least disruptive, are intended by the larger consciousness.
- [73:54]
A
System intended to be that evil. I don't think so. I don't believe some people say, well, if you have this much good, you have to have this much evil to balance it. I don't think that's true. I think we can end up with a whole lot more good and a whole lot less of the evil or the dysfunctional. I don't think you have to create dysfunction in order to define function. I don't agree with that. Now those people who are disruptive and de. Evolving by day by day, they're continually devolving. There's still parts of the larger kinds of system. There's still parts of the system and one day they will turn around and go the other way. And it's a matter of how do you help them do that? Well, often, let's say they have a very bad incarnation and they were born in a bad neighborhood with bad parents in a bad time and they end up being bad people. Well, the next time that they incarnate, you try to put them in a more benign situation. That may have just been bad luck. They just drew the long, you know, the short straw on that one and they didn't do so well. That's not really a big deal. You know, they got thousands of things and some of them are going to not work out well and some of them are going to be terrific and most of them are somewhere in between. So it will work with those people. And the next time they'll be put someplace where the probability is it won't be so tough so that they can succeed. So the system will work with those. So it's not like, here's an evil person, he's a mass murderer, he killed 6 million people. Oh, we're going to punish him forever. No, no, no, it's not punishment. The next time you're going to put him in a situation where he can't do that much harm and you're going to help him be in a place where evolving positively is easier to do. Some incarnations are tough. You just, you know, there's a lot of randomness about it. It's not that everybody's incarnation has been designed and is planned. It's not the way it is. There's much uncertainty. Everybody, every time you and I make a choice, it changes the array of choices for us and for all the people we interact with. So all of this interaction among people creates a lot of uncertainty and a lot of chance. So if you happen to end up in a very bad situation and then you don't do well, you don't get a lot of demerits for that because that was a tough one. And so you didn't do well. It's not like, oh, you were bad and you did all this. It's, well, that was a tough one. Maybe you even did pretty well given the circumstances. Even if you did slide backwards. So that's not a big decrease the next time, you're not going to be down in a deep hole. That was just the system is smart system. It's not just a machine that, oh, you didn't work out too well, so now you're in trouble. It'll look and see how hard was it, how well did you do it? And if it was extremely hard and you just didn't do, you were still bad, but you weren't so bad that you could have been. You may still get some plus ups for that, you see, because it was very tough. So it depends on the challenges that you had, how you meet those challenges. And it's not a mean spirited system. It's a loving system.
- [77:16]
B
Well, those challenges though, all come through the data stream.
- [77:20]
A
Yes.
- [77:21]
B
So the larger consciousness system is the source of every challenge that develops an individual's character. So you might say, let's take the classic example everyone uses for an evil person. Adolf Hitler was a product of the data stream that came to him.
- [77:42]
A
Right. But the larger consciousness system is playing a multiplayer game. It's not just picking up data streams and giving them everybody. We were interacting with each other. So Adolf Hitler got to where he was going because of his own grandparents and great grandparents and choices and parents and things that he did, things that he believed and so on. He came that way. It was his choices that led him there. He's got choices all right. Yes. The rivers were still in the place that the consciousness put the rivers and the buildings that were there before he was born are still the buildings that are there when he's born. So there's things that continue, obviously, but the choices he makes, he has free will. They're all his choices. So if he's grown up in a time where it's easy to make bad choices, well, maybe he'll make bad choices or in a spot, but again, that'll be taken into consideration. So it's not like everything he experienced was given to him in data stream. He interacts with everybody else. It's a multiplayer game. So when he was six years old, somebody stole his favorite teddy bear. And maybe he never gets over that. So he has this grudge against, against reality because of that happening. Well, that's his choice. It's not that the system made him feel unhappy because somebody stole his teddy bear. He chose to do that. So then he creates. He has to deal with challenges. And the rule is it's not so much important what challenges you get, it's how you deal with them. That's what's important. So that's what's going on here. It's not that the system makes it all up and we're just puppets, and the puppets are all. The larger system has 9 billion hands and each hand has a little puppet and it's playing everybody. Each individual has free will and can make choices. And whether they evolve or devolve depends on the choices they make given the situation that they're in.
- [79:44]
B
Now, you mentioned the larger consciousness. System desires for us individuated units of consciousness that we evolve by lowering our entropy. And therefore it evolves and lowering our entropy is to be more loving. Would you say then that the imperative is for us to feel love toward evil people?
- [80:15]
A
Well, yes, you feel love toward everybody. That's where you go. It's not just the good guys. It doesn't mean that you want to go live with everybody or marry everybody or whatever. It just means that you can see that everybody is who they are dealing with the circumstances, with what they came in with. They were born in with a. With a piece of consciousness that had a certain level of entropy. Given that that's what they come in with, that may be higher, that may be low, but they're doing the best they can with what they've got. They've had choices. They made the choices that they thought were best. Those choices were probably mostly made out of fear. That's the way it is with most people, and they probably not so good. And they're bouncing here and bouncing there. They're making all those choices. But you have to have this attitude that everybody is trying best they can with what they've got. And that's the way it is. You have to accept that. To say, oh, that person's evil. We need to get rid of them. Well, that's not really helpful. That's now just overrunning that other person's free will. Do they need to be helped? Yes. Do they need to be encouraged, or yes. Do they need to be stopped from doing the things that they're doing? Yes. But it doesn't mean that you want to destroy them or that you hate them or anything like that. You just see them as kind of living out who they are with whatever the circumstances that are there at the time that they, you know, that they get their data stream.
- [81:57]
B
So you would be in agreement, I presume, with my favorite quote from Jesus, although I'm not a Christian, is love your enemies.
- [82:08]
A
Yes. And I think that's what was meant by that. It doesn't mean send your enemies all your money and take them out to dinner. It means if you go to hating your enemies, vilifying your enemies, being angry at your enemies, wanting to kill your enemies, you are part of the problem, you're not part of the solution. So we see in our culture there's a whole lot of things people are upset with right now. We live in very tumultuous times. A lot of upsetting things out there. And if you approach that, those upsetting things with anger, how could those people be so stupid? How can anybody do that? How can anybody believe that? And if you are like that and you go out and holler and throw rotten tomatoes and do whatever, you're part of the problem. Even if you're just angry and don't do anything, you're part of the problem. So the point is that you need to get to the space that you are not angry. Angry is negativity. Angry is high entropy. You can just let things be. Yes. Okay, that person is very dysfunctional and they're causing a whole lot of trouble. But that's the way it is. That person will have to grow up. Just like I have to grow up. There's things I have to learn, there's things they have to learn. And meanwhile, they're causing a lot of trouble for a whole lot of people. But that's just the way it is. That's the way all of our interactions for that person, from where they were born to where they are now, all those interactions, all the things they got fed, all the rest of it all culminates in what we are today as a culture. Everybody is the sum of all the choices they've ever made. So we just realize that and don't hate, don't want to, you know, grab those people and choke them. Even if you're never going to do that. Just the fact that you're feeling, you know, violent, that's not helpful. That just keeps adding more angst into the growing angst of the whole. So if you now, it doesn't mean that you just sit back and don't do anything. Yes, educate. Go stand out on a street corner and hold your sign. Write to the newspaper and tell them what you think. Share your thoughts the way it should be, engage. You should always engage with your low entropy consciousness. So if you do that and it doesn't work, well, you tried, it sounds.
- [84:37]
B
Like you're perhaps implicitly endorsing a kind of righteous anger that's channeled in a positive way.
- [84:47]
A
No, I'm endorsing no anger at all.
- [84:49]
B
No anger. But anger is a natural human emotion.
- [84:53]
A
It is, it's a choice. Nobody makes you angry. You choose to be angry. You have to take responsibility for your choices. You can say, oh, George makes me angry, but George just triggered a fear that you have and that's why you're angry. George insulted you and you have a feeling of being diminished and in that fear you react. So I say no fear and no anger at all. Let the anger go. It is the way it is. Anger won't help it. Now be active. Yes, you can be active and you can oppose it, but you don't oppose it with violence. You don't oppose it with anger. Because if you go to somebody and you can say, you're a bunch of jerks, you need to stop doing this stuff, you know what that does? It makes them want to do that stuff even more. It pushes them into the dysfunction that they're already doing. But if you engage them in conversation perhaps and try to talk to them into another opinion, you might help some or may not help, but you're doing the best you can with the situations that you have. So the important thing is always stay positive. And anger is not positive.
- [86:10]
B
I do recall in an earlier conversation using the analogy of the multiplayer simulation the computer game World of Warcraft, there are non player characters that are, I think they're called NPCs that are, in other words, they're not autonomous individuated units of consciousness or avatars inhabited by other conscious entities. They're programmed. You suggested that the larger consciousness system can do that. And we talked about recall angelic types of interventions where a mysterious stranger will show up and help a person whose car landed in a ditch, for example. There are many stories of this sort. I've talked to people who have had such experiences. So that suggests the possibility of what we might think of as angels, for example.
- [87:21]
A
Yeah, well, you could. That may be one of those experiences somebody has in the story they tell is an angel came and helped me get out of that ditch. And that would be the story, and that's what they would say. But it's an NPC that again, the system wants you to succeed. And if you've kind of gotten yourself in a bind to where you need some help, you can't do it yourself. Like you're maybe stranded on the side of the road or you've fallen into a deep hole and you can't climb out. If those things happen and you're still, you are on a path to evolving, you have a promising future. Then rather than just let you die in that hole, an NPC may show up with a rope, pull you up out of the hole, and then disappear. So it's a way that it can help, but it has to do it kind of secretively. It has to do it where there aren't a lot of witnesses. It has to do it in a way where nobody really suspects anything unusual going on. Yes, Some stranger just happened to be passing by, just noticed you in the well, just happened to have a rope nearby, or a long stick was there they could put down for you. So you can discount it all as not being paranormal, but just one of those things that happens. So as long as there's plausible deniability, then the system can do those things. But it's not going to do it in a big flashy way in front of lots of people, because then that would cause a lot of ruckus and probably create more fear than doing good.
- [89:05]
B
Well, would you say that's why the paranormal is so much on the fringes of our culture? Even though there's good data that you know of and that I know of in the field of parapsychology, we're still on the fringes and it seems like impossible to get into the mainstream and it needs to stay that way?
- [89:29]
A
Yes, I think that is exactly what's happening. There's a thing called the science certainty principle, and it's not a part of the rule set, it's company policy. Because if the people are not ready for that information yet, if people realize that they can modify Future probability with their intent that they could remote view things in their competitor's office or meetings, it would be abused and it would be abused in a really big way. So there's a science certainty principle says that if you're going to do psi publicly, you have to do it in such a way that leaves uncertainty as to whether it actually happened or not. And yes, it's a shame, but that's true. We have now, what, 30 years or so of parapsychology departments people are doing studying this.
- [90:26]
B
140 years since the founding of the Society for Psychical Research in England in 1882. Specific, actually, 143, 144 years.
- [90:39]
A
Yeah. So we've been doing that. And what's going on in many of these places? They're still trying to prove that the paranormal exists. And of course there's tons of data with thousands of people in all sorts of places, all over the globe. Lots of stories and lots of good research with good protocols in this country. JB Rhines started at Duke University and he had some really amazing results. He showed that, yes, some people could guess like 80% of the time whether it was a plus sign or a circle or. And that showed that they were able to do this consistently and it was way beyond chance. And the statistics of, you know, you look at the statistics of it being good data and it was good data. And here we are 30, 40 years.
- [91:33]
B
Later, 95 years since the publication of his first monograph on extrasensory perception.
- [91:41]
A
Okay, then let me change here. Here we are almost 100 years later and people are still busy trying to prove that psi exists. So yes, there is a psi uncertainty principle that says if our culture isn't ready for it, you're going to have to, you know, you're going to have to be a person that's exceptional before you get there and do it. You have to be exceptionally open minded. You have to be exceptionally not driven by your culture. You have to be able to step outside of your culture. So there's a couple of requirements that make you a more exceptional person and then you can experience these things. But if we made it public, there was a big demonstration and it was public, it would generate more fear and more dysfunction than it would do good. If you got a whole bunch of people and they went out and they levitated the building in Congress, all the congressmen, they levitated it 300ft in the air and held it there for a day and then put it back down. You can imagine the problem with that.
- [92:48]
B
I remember back in the 1960s, a group of hippies gathered to circle the Pentagon and levitate it during the Vietnam War. Well, of course it didn't, but.
- [93:02]
A
No, of course not. But anyway, the thing is that we're not quite ready for that. And as we're ready for it, it will grow and coming to this understanding that we are consciousness and that this is a virtual reality and that the reason we're here is to become love. Once that gets to be widely known and once people realize that if you do that, your life gets so much better, you find happiness, you find peace, and you find, you know, you feel like you're living a substantial, meaningful life. So that's all good. So it's all good things that happen. So as that catches on, and it will catch on sometime, and then this will be a much kinder, gentler world, and then PSI will be let loose a whole lot more.
- [93:56]
B
Well, in a way, your theory that we're living in a projection from a computer, in effect also requires the acceptance of the paranormal. In a way, it's at least a quasi paranormal hypothesis itself.
- [94:21]
A
Well, it provides an understanding of all the paranormal things. How can a person use their mind to heal somebody? Why does this placebo effect actually work? Can people get better? You know, those are questions. And this theory then answers those questions. It explains how people can heal, how mind to mind can communicate, how you can leave this reality and explore other realities. And you know, it's not that big a deal. People make that out to be a really big deal, like going out of body. Well, that's just an amazing thing. Only a few people can do it, and it's really hard. And most people work for years and years and years and can't master it. But everybody who sits down reads a good book. They're doing the same thing. They're leaving their body, but they're staying in the story. They're trapped in the story, but they're no longer processing their sense data. They're not aware of of the chair pushing up on their bottom. They're not aware of the person that walks behind them. They're not aware of even conversations going on around them if they aren't too loud. Now, they could tune in any of those things if they want, but they have let go of their sense data. And that's all that out of body is. You let go of your sense data. When you let go of your sense data, you're not here anymore. It's your sense data that makes you hear. You see, hear, smell, taste, touch. And that Puts you here. When you're not processing that you're out of body. So going out of body. A lot of people who meditate are like that. They let go of their body, but they don't say, oh, I went out of body today. Because that's this big cool, mysterious thing that you go out and fly around. But that's all it is. And while you're there and you've let go of this data stream, you can get another data stream, some data stream, and you can go have an adventure, go places, do things, whatever, and then they call that an out of body. But all that is is just having an intention to attach another data stream. And the larger conscious system will always toss you a data stream.
- [96:25]
B
Well, I know you've been trying to establish scientific criteria to validate your theory, but it would seem to me that if the psi uncertainty principle that you've just enunciated is correct, the same thing would apply to the validation of your own theory.
- [96:47]
A
No, it's not. The system would like everybody to grow up. That's the point. We're trying to evolve. The system wants everyone to have a bigger picture, to grow up to think that their whole life is about becoming love. You know, that would be really nice if everybody did that. So as there are things that you can show or do, experiments you can run, other things that you can do that help forward that idea, then the system's all in favor of that. What it's not in favor of is some spectacular breaking of the rules, you know, levitating something with all the news people are there and you know, hundreds of thousands of people see it and so on. If you do that, you're going to cause dysfunction. So if it's causing function, if it's causing something to get better, opening people's minds, making people less fearful, then that's good, keep doing that. So an experiment isn't going to upset the world. Experiments aren't. 1/10 of 1% of the population gives damn about any particular experiment. It's not even that much, probably one thousandth of 1%. So it's not that big a deal. But it might change the mind of some physicists. And eventually if the physicists say, hey, this is a virtual reality, that makes sense, and here's why. That then will cause a big change in a lot of things. That'll be a sea state change because that will say that this is not a material reality. And then there'll be all kinds of turmoil and problems and stuff. I mean, it's not going to be peaceful. But it'll work out, and at the end of it all, we'll be better off. So that's a step in the right direction. So, yes, it does encourage things. I've published my books, and I was kind of driven to publish those books. You know, that was my job. The system didn't want those books published that explained things, and I wouldn't have been able to do that. It would have been discouraging me, but it encouraged me. So it wants the truth to come out, but it doesn't want it in some flashy way that creates more entropy rather than reducing it. So it's a process that has to be gradual. People have to grow up gradually. It's not going to be a thing that one day it all changes. That won't happen.
- [99:16]
B
Would you put a timeline on how soon you imagine that your system will become mainstream?
- [99:25]
A
I would say that it would be at least another three, four, five years. But that's not far away. It could be much longer than that. It could be another three, four, five decades, but I don't think it'll be much longer than that. I think many of the people who are alive today here will see us get to that kinder, gentler place. I think there's a lot of things pushing us in that direction. So I don't think it's like another eon, you know, another millennia, not even another century. I think probably before we get to the end of this century, we have found that. So I think it's at hand. It's close, but it'll take its own time. Now, it's possible, if we make really poor decisions, that we may back up, we may back up even further down that hole toward high entropy, and then we'll have to climb ourselves back out. But the good news is that evolution is relentless. It just keeps chugging, even if it goes backward for a while, even if a big volcano goes off and a lot of the stuff dies and a lot of animals die and evolution seems to be losing ground there. It'll pass and new things will come out. New things that were suppressed before, and new things will happen and it'll all turn out to be okay. So evolution is relentless, and we will get there. And I don't think it'll be more than, say, three decades. I think it'll happen. Could happen in less than by the end of this decade, but that would be pushing. It could. It's possible.
- [101:06]
B
Well, wouldn't it be the case that the acceptance of your theory is, implies or even necessitates the acceptance of paranormal phenomena?
- [101:17]
A
Yes, absolutely. If you embrace my theory, then paranormal phenomena are just attributes of consciousness. It's just the way, you know, consciousness is fundamental and consciousness just has these abilities, there are databases you can get data from. You know, it's just part of being conscious. Mind to mind, consciousness has communications. So yes, it would explain a whole lot of things. And it's not just that, you know, this idea that this is probably a good example, that's something different and that is there was an experiment done where, and you'll recognize this, I'm sure, because it's fairly famous. There's an experiment done where they took us some old hospital data, like 20 year old hospital data and they broke that hospital data. You know, I don't know whether there's probably thousands of patients and they took those thousands of patients data, divided them into two piles and then one pile that they prayed over, they used their intent that the people there, you know, that were in those records, 20 year old records, that they would be healthier, that they would be more fit and their health was good. And the other ones they didn't do anything to. So then they actually went into the database because they sorted these randomly. So the two piles were just randomly sorted and they found out that the pile that people had prayed for good health actually had significantly better health when you went and looked at the records than they did in the group that was kind of the control group. And it's like, what's going on here? Are we healing people in arrears, you know, after it's all been done? No, that's not the case. See, this explains how that works. So it's a lot of things like that. It's not just the paranormal and stuff, but that works because the data has a lot of uncertainty in it because it's 20 years old. A lot of those people in that data have died, moved away, nobody knows where they are. It's just there's a lot of uncertainty in that data. Well, where there's uncertainty in that data, you can modify that data because it doesn't exist as a particular thing. It's just potential. Nobody's looked at it, it's just a bunch of records, nobody knows what the averages are of anything. It's just uncertain. So within that uncertainty, you can use your intent to modify future probability. So now, 20 years later, this pile that you've used your intent to modify the probability of what's in that data. Well, that data has now represents healthier people because you've Changed that information. That was that. You see, we think that information was given. It's just there. It's not. It's potential. Nobody knows what that information says. And as long as it has that uncertainty, you can change it. And then when the measurement's made, they're a lot healthier.
- [104:21]
B
So had the researchers chosen the other pile, the control pile, to be preyed upon.
- [104:29]
A
Yeah. It would have had more health and the other ones would have less. Yes, of course. So you see, it's just. So when you talk about it, it explains things, you know, it explains all that sort of thing, how that works and why it works that way. So once you have this understanding that it's information that's the key, and information that's uncertain can come out all sorts of different ways because it's uncertain.
- [104:56]
B
And why is it uncertain?
- [104:58]
A
It's uncertain because it's 20 years old. A lot of the people, you couldn't reach them, you couldn't find them. They're dead. They didn't leave any forwarding addresses. But to go interview them and say, well, what happened? You know, and so on, it's impossible. So you have records with a lot of uncertainty to them because the people involved in them are long gone, don't remember anymore. So that's where the uncertainty is. So this is all just potential information that's uncertain, and you can change that with intent.
- [105:29]
B
The final measurement are the actual records. In other words, at the time the records were made, this pile, which was created through some random process, is a healthier group than that pile.
- [105:47]
A
No, it's just that you have those two piles. What happened is whatever happened, nobody knows what happened because these people all scattered to the winds.
- [105:55]
B
Right. But you have the record.
- [105:57]
A
But you have the records. It's a mistake to think that those records are physical records. That cannot be, you know, that cannot change. Those records don't really exist until somebody looks at them and sees what they are. Once you go through those records and sort them, okay, now we've looked at all those records, we've got as much information as we come. Now, we've pulled a lot of uncertainty out of it, at least as much as we can. Now, if you go back and look at those records later, they're going to be the same. But if you don't know what's in those records, then those records are just potential.
- [106:31]
B
But somebody knew when they were created.
- [106:33]
A
Yes, right. But that's been lost. It's been lost, you see, they knew. And if you'd done the test right, then where Everybody was just, you know, a few days out of the hospital. Well, hell, everything would be the same, you see. But you didn't take the measurement until after a lot of uncertainty gathered in the data. But we think this is a physical world. That data is the data. It's there. It can't change. It's written down in ink on paper. But the fact is, it's not going to change the individual pieces necessarily so much as it changes the averages. How many people did this and how many people did that? It's not what happened to Joe Smith, it's how many people who had this, you know, got better. So we're just looking at the summaries of data, not have that data. And that can change because you can modify future probability with your intent. It's not fixed because nobody knows what it is when the measurements made, which is when they sorted all that data out. Well, it could be biased with intent. Now, see, that's very counterintuitive because we think once those records are made, those records are done and they're going to show what they show. But that's not the case. Information can be modified if you make a measurement much later when there's a lot of uncertainty. And they can now, if there was no uncertainty with it, everybody left that hospital. Somebody followed them up and has been following them ever since. And we know exactly what happened to them and what they did and what they did and how long they lived. We know all that well now there's no uncertainty in the data.
- [108:10]
B
Do you have a citation for this study? I am not familiar with it.
- [108:14]
A
No, I read about it. It was fairly famous. I read about it. I think it was done in Israel. I think it was a hospital in Israel. And they prayed for these people. They say prayed. They don't say they used their intent or meditated or anything. They prayed for these people. And they found a significant difference because.
- [108:34]
B
It'S quite similar to a whole line of evidence in parapsychology, which is of great interest to me known as retrocognitive psychokinesis.
- [108:45]
A
Yeah, yeah. So all it is is that you can modify those probabilities because they haven't been measured yet. They're uncertain. So you can change them within the limits of that uncertainty. So the uncertainty says, well, it could be this, but, you know, it could be this way or that way or that way. That's the uncertainty. But nobody knows what the answer is. With an intention, you can modify the future probability of what they're going to say. And that's how that works. So it's a simple, straightforward explanation that falls right out of this theory. So my point was that it's not just learning how to remote view or something. It explains a lot of things that happen that don't really seem so much paranormal, but they're just weird, they're strange things. And it explains all that.
- [109:30]
B
Well, a big part of your theory is that through conscious intention we are able to modify the underlying probabilities of events.
- [109:42]
A
Yes, as long as there's uncertainty. The more uncertainty there is in those events, the easier it is to modify them. So if, let's say we do something with the health, somebody has a little lump here in their neck and they're worried about it all right now, it's uncertain what that is. And as long as it's uncertain, if a bunch of people get together and try to make that benign, then the higher than the probability when the measurements made, which is the biopsy, the higher the probability that it's going to be benign. If a bunch of people are so worried about it, they know they're going to die and they put a lot of energy into the negative result, then the probability will be higher that they're going to die. So there's uncertainty, but people think that, oh, it is what it is. It's either cancerous or it's benign and nothing can change. That is wrong. You don't get the reality until you do the measurement. And if there's uncertainty, then that can be changed. If there's no uncertainty. So you get five doctors all to do a biopsy and every one of them says, deadly cancer. You're only going to live a week. Now, trying to change that is real hard because now you have all this evidence and you have to overcome all of that. So it's a much more difficult thing to do. But when it was very uncertain, the measurements hadn't been made yet, it's a much easier thing to do.
- [111:08]
B
Well, it sounds as if one could also use the same principle at a casino, at the roulette table. There's a lot of uncertainty where the dice are going to land. But if I come in with the intention that it's always going to land on, whatever color I decide to bet on, I can influence.
- [111:28]
A
Yes. And people do that. They can. People do that. And there are some people who are disallowed to play at those places. They walk in the door and they're escorted back out because they can do that. So, yes, you can do it because there's a lot of uncertainty there.
- [111:43]
B
What is the process by which human intention influences probabilities.
- [111:49]
A
That is that it's part of the way consciousness works to give us feedback and some control over our reality. And that is that your intent modifies the probabilities of what can happen next. So it just modify. You have all these probabilities, okay, so right now, at this instant, there's certain probabilities of things that will happen. Now I make a choice and I do something. I marry Sally instead of marrying Sue. Now all these probabilities shift. They shift for sue, they shift for Sally, they shift for me, they shift for all our friends. They shift so they're constant as people making choices and people are doing things. These probabilities are going up and down and sideways and they're all changing as we make choices, as we do things. And we can modify those probabilities, we can bias them up, bias them down with our intention so that probability can be changed with intent. Now, we're given that because that allows us to express who we are and what we are to help create the environment that represents us. So I can say, if you look at this world now, you look at the news, you see what's going on. That's a perfect representation of the quality of consciousness of humanity. That's who we are. Because in very significant ways, we create that with the intentions we create. Now, we don't create everything. We're not the masters. There's a lot of things that happen. There's a rule set that you have to abide by. You know, there's other things that are constraints on that we don't create at all, but we create can bias it. We can move it this way, we can move it that way. So that's how healing works. That's how you heal somebody. You just modify the probabilities that the next day they're going to be better. And you can do that if there's a lot of uncertainty. It could get better, it could get worse. Nobody really knows what they have. Sometimes people who have 4 stage 4 cancer don't have cancer the next week that happens. They just occurred. So anything can happen. But it's a matter that's a very high improbable thing to happen, but it does. So there is uncertainty to work with in almost everything I gather from your.
- [114:13]
B
Answer since I asked you what is the process? That it's not mechanistic, that it's something that I assume built into the rule set?
- [114:23]
A
Yes. You see, the way the system, remember we talked this in the very beginning, the way the system determines what happens next is a random draw from the probability distribution of the possibilities. So when it comes out, okay, what's going to happen next? I go back to the doctor. The doctor's going to really look at this. What's going to happen? Okay, the doctor goes in with his little thing. He takes a sample. Now, as soon as that sample gets studied, it'll become a fact. But right now, there's a lot of probability. So with intention, you can modify that probability of whether that's going to be.
- [114:59]
B
But why would probability be amenable to intention? I can understand that the choices we make will affect probabilities, but intention is not a choice. It's just a state of mind.
- [115:13]
A
Intention is a state of mind. That state of mind modifies probabilities. In this database, there's a big database, and that's part of the system.
- [115:22]
B
How does that happen?
- [115:24]
A
Well, it's just the nature of the system. That's the way the system is constructed. Because that puts us partly in charge of, you know, what do they say? You make your bed, you have to lie in it. You know, this sort of thing that puts us where there's a direct link between who we are, the quality of our consciousness and what we have to live in. That's that link. Any good schoolhouse has to have a link of. If you do things well, you get rewarded. If you do things poorly, you know, you have problems. That's the nature of learning. So because it creates that situation that's just built into the way the system works, our intentions modify future probabilities. And what happens is that random draw. And when it takes that random draw, if there, if the probabilities have changed, then it's more likely that this or that will happen, depending on the thinking and people, you know, what, 1956 or something. Norman Vincent Peale, the power of positive thinking. That's what that's all about. The secret. That's what that's all about. It's using intent to modify future probability. It's been around for a long, long time. People know that, you know, you want the sun to shine next week. If you put a lot of. A lot of energy into it, you'll raise the probability of that happening.
- [116:43]
B
But it could have been the case that the probabilities are only going to be influenced by our actions and our choices, not by our intentions.
- [116:54]
A
No, intentions are the actual measure of your quality, not your actions, not even your choices. But it's your intention. All morality and ethics flows from the intent, not from the action. So it's what you intend. And a very good example of that. I think we may have said that before. Somebody's walking ahead of you, a $20 bill falls out of their pocket and lands on the ground. All right? Now, the first person that sees that says, oh, that guy lost $20. I'd better not tell him. And, hey, sir, you dropped this $20 bill. Here it is. Okay? Now, that was a good intention. Somebody else puts in the same position. They see that $20 bill, and they look around and say, who's watching? I don't want anybody to see me grabing that $20 bill, but I'm going to get that because they're going to walk away, and they don't know anything about it. But they look and they say, oh, there's some people I know over there, and they see me and they see that $20 bill. So they walk up, they grab the $20 bill, they say, sir, you dropped this. And they give it back because they know that they would look, that people would catch them stealing that $20 bill. So both people did exactly the same thing. Their actions are identical. One was very moral, the other one wasn't. So it's not. Morality doesn't flow with action, and doing it flows with the intent behind the action. So the person that had the intention immediately to give it back, that is a moral choice. The person that only gave it back because he was caught, he'd be caught by people that knew him stealing money. That was not an ethical choice. So it's intention that drives things, not the actual choice. Both made the same choices. They gave the money back.
- [118:48]
B
I do recall an earlier conversation in which we talked about the evolution of this physical world. And you explained that in beginning of. Let's call it the beginning of time, the individuated units of consciousness interacted with each other in what you described as being like a chat room. At some point, it was determined that that was nice, but it wasn't enough. That there was a need for people to learn from their choices. And that's what led to the evolution of this simulation in which we're now embedded.
- [119:28]
A
That's right. But that's just language. Their choices represent their intentions. The choice is just one step further down the chain. They have an intention. That intention leads to a choice. Okay. And in general, you know, the. If you have. If you're making good choices, that generally means that you have good intentions. Because if you make good choices with bad intentions, that's just luck.
- [119:52]
B
Sooner or later, it'll catch up.
- [119:54]
A
Yeah. So it's just on an average. It's not a precise thing necessarily. But yes, the choices matter because the choice is representative of the intention. So that's the thing. So in general, you know, that's not. It's kind of the way you describe things. It's easier to describe it in terms of just choice. But if you break it down, it's really not the choice. The choice is just the downstream thing that happens because of the intent. It's really the intent, but it's just, I guess, easier to describe by saying the choices help you evolve or de. Evolve. It's not strictly the choices. It's really the intent behind the choices that makes the difference. But that's a little more abstract. So it's a little easier just to blame it on the choices.
- [120:42]
B
Let me jump back for a moment to our earlier conversation about theory implying the existence of the paranormal. And I said, well, maybe more than just imply it necessitates the existence. Can somebody, let's say a person who's afraid of the paranormal, is it likely that such a person would be able to accept your theory and maintain a disbelief in the paranormal?
- [121:13]
A
A person can do anything. People are not very consistent, but no, they could not do that and be logically consistent. If they were logically consistent, which hardly anybody is. But if they were logically consistent, they would not be able to do that. And you know, another good example of that is look at all the scientists of all types that do think that there is a spiritual content, that there is source, that there is, you know, such a thing as spiritual growth, that you can have, you know, mental health, spiritual health, as well as physical health and emotional health, that all those things are there. But these are people who are totally logically inconsistent because if they are materialists, which most of them will say, I'm a materialist, then they'd have to say that conscious doesn't exist, choice doesn't exist, and you know, the time doesn't exist. And that, you know, that totally conflicts with what they are saying. Oh no. Consciousness exists and soul exists and spirituality exists. But I'm a materialist. That's just being logically inconsistent.
- [122:29]
B
Well, inconsistent with 19th century materialism today. I think materialism has evolved a little bit. We have chaos theory, complexity theory, catastrophe theory, quantum theory. So you can be a materialist and it leaves a lot of openings for the mysteries of consciousness to evolve within a materialistic framework.
- [122:57]
A
Well, I don't know about that last statement, but yes, we have a much bigger viewpoint than we had before. Obviously Our universe has opened up a lot and we've understood things better. But a materialist, by definition, or I guess the real word is a physicalist basically is defined as somebody who thinks the physical world is all there is. The physical world is it.
- [123:22]
B
I have a nephew who is such a person. He has a doctoral degree in physical chemistry. He calls himself a materialist or a physicalist. And his attitude is consciousness, which is, you know, the hard problem suggests you can't explain consciousness at all from a materialistic framework. He says, well, you have to take into account complexity. As things get more complex, new things unanticipated evolve out of that. And so as far as. As he's concerned, there's no inconsistency.
- [123:57]
A
Yeah, as far as he's concerned, that makes him feel better. Yeah, I would say there is an inconsistency. How does complexity make consciousness?
- [124:07]
B
He figures, I don't have to explain it, it just happens.
- [124:11]
A
So that's his way out. I don't have to explain it, it just happens. So, yes, a lot of people come to their own, you know, their own story about how that works to cover up the fact that it's logically inconsistent. You know, if you're a materialist, you're a determinist. If you're a determinist, none of that stuff exists. But most people know it exists. We have time, we have choices. You know, we're conscious. And that's such an everyday experience that it obviously is not just a figment of our imagination. So most people say, yeah, well, it could be like this or it could be like that, but I'm still a materialist. They're not really. They're mostly a materialist. They're 95% of materialists, and they're 5%. Well, other things could happen, and I don't know why or how, but I just think they could. Well, that means they're 5% belief, 95% materials, and I don't think that is logically consistent, but it is certainly the majority of people. Yes, and I think there's a logical inconsistency there. But people feel better if they can bridge that gap between their work, their materialism and their life, because they have all these things in their life. It is a rich subjective experience. It's not just that all of us is dreaming and having hallucinations. You have a very rich subjective experience. And to throw that all away as being nonsense, most people can't do that because it just doesn't make any sense. Of course they know that's a rich, valuable thing. It's not just nonsense. People having goofy thoughts. So people know that it's there, but they still cling to the physical world as the physical world and that's it. And other people will do both. They'll say, yeah, there's a physical world, but then there's a non physical world. And that's where soul and spirit and stuff is in a non physical world. So they see both of those. But it's still logically inconsistent. You can't be a determinist and do that logically. But practically it's the right solution.
- [126:24]
B
I think the average person is a dualist. They know that there's an interior world and an exterior world.
- [126:32]
A
They do, they do. And when you have that person, they should know that if there's an interior world of mind, of subjective experience, then that allows for things beyond the physical. It's mind. Mind isn't a physical thing. How much does your mind weigh? How much volume does your mind take up? What's the weight of a thought? Well, people talk about weighty thoughts, but they don't really measure them on a scale. So there are things that are meaningful that are non physical. And if you logically kind of come to that conclusion, then things that don't make physical sense, like healing or remote viewing or those sorts of things, I don't see the physical path that allows that to happen. Well then you could say, well, there's probably a mental path that allows that to happen. And that'd be perfectly make perfectly good sense. But they wouldn't be good materialists. They would be materialists with a broader view.
- [127:34]
B
Well, I don't know that there's a membership card to be a materialist.
- [127:38]
A
I don't think so.
- [127:39]
B
Or a qualification test or an exam. But I wonder if you're not doing something similar when you say that our intentions can modify the underlying probabilities. And I just came up with a thought experiment. Suppose I have a bucket over here and I have two big sacks of marbles. Some are red and some are blue. And with my eyes closed I take each sack and I dump them so that I partially empty the red and the blue marbles into this bucket. Now I have no idea how many red and how many blue have ended in the bucket. And now I say to you, use your intention to make the bucket have more marbles that are blue than red.
- [128:30]
A
Right. And you can do that.
- [128:32]
B
And you're saying you can do that?
- [128:33]
A
Yes, of course you can do that. So that when you count them that there's more blue or more red. Now, if you did that equally, like you took equal scoops from each bag equally and so on. So there was pretty well. Or make it a machine. Do it so it's precisely some whatever. But yes, you can do that. You can make. When you finally count them, you can make them red or you can make them more likely to be blue because you don't really know what the difference is. That's true.
- [129:07]
B
Okay.
- [129:09]
A
Yeah. That's not inconsistent. Sure you can, because it's unknown and the uncertainty is malleable to change until the measurement's made.
- [129:23]
B
Well, let's suppose hypothetically that there were more red marbles in the bucket. But I ask you to concentrate because I don't know that there are more red marbles. And I say make them more blue, you could still do.
- [129:39]
A
Well, there's no way of knowing that there are more red marbles in there unless somebody's made a measurement.
- [129:43]
B
No, that's true. There's no way of knowing. But let's assume that that's actually the case.
- [129:49]
A
You see, but that's the point. That isn't ever actually the case. That case is undefined until the measurement is made.
- [129:57]
B
Right.
- [129:57]
A
So there never is a situation where that is the case until the measurement's made, nobody knows. And as nobody knows is the uncertainty that allows you to change it. So you can't assume that that's the case. That case doesn't exist. It's not real. It's not part of this reality until the measurement's made. Then it becomes a fact. Other than that, it's just possibility.
- [130:22]
B
Isn't that very much akin to what some people are saying when they suggest that consciousness collapses the quantum wave function?
- [130:33]
A
Well, again, quantum wave function is just a mathematical process. It's just an equation. That's all. It's an equation. It follows the rules of mathematics.
- [130:44]
B
But it involves the uncertainty distribution.
- [130:47]
A
Yeah, it says that there's uncertainty. There's all these uncertainties over here. And if you want to know whether there's a marble, how many marbles there are, then you make a measurement, and the measurement will. Will collapse to something. Now, it could be it'll collapse to more reds. It could be it'll collapse to more blues. You won't know until you make the measurement. And as soon as you make the measurement, they're either the same or one of them has more than the other, period. Those are the outcomes, but nobody knows that outcome to the measurements made. So, yes, that is how that works.
- [131:27]
B
Well, let's Suppose that I have a mechanical device that is capable of discriminating between red and blue. And I have the device go into the bucket and determine how many are red and how many are blue. So the device now has it embedded in its memory, but nobody knows then doesn't matter.
- [131:52]
A
That information is available is the key. It's not really that a human has to know. But if the information is available, then it's not up for grabs. It's available. You can always go look at that memory, you see? But let's do this. Okay, we'll do one more step of that. So you have this machine and it has a memory and it goes in and counts them. Well, now that's what you're going to find, because if the machine's a good counter, then it'll have the right answer. So the measurement's already been made. It's been made with a machine. That machine makes the information available to the person. So that's the key. It's whether or not the information is available, not whether the person actually knows it. Now, let's say that the machine goes in, it counts them, it has the information, and after it does that, you go over and punch an erase button and the information is erased. Okay, now it's unknown again. So now they could be either one.
- [132:53]
B
Like the medical records we described earlier.
- [132:56]
A
Then it's erased now and it could be either one. And now if you intend that there's going to be more red and you have some, you have a powerful intent, or maybe there's a hundred of you intending that there's more red, then when that random draws, there'd be a higher probability of getting a red than a blue. So, yes, it's whether the information is available. It's the same with the double slit experiment. If somewhere there's information in a device or something that will tell you that that's what it takes, is the information is available in this virtual reality, you.
- [133:28]
B
See, but it's available just by being in the bucket.
- [133:31]
A
No, it's not. You just believe it is. Because this is a, you know, we learn about materialism out of the, out of the cloud, out of the culture. That material is just kind of embedded in us. Throw them in there. We think there's a certain number in there that are red, a certain number of blue, period. We don't know what it is, but it's absolutely certain. And it isn't. It's not certain until you make the measurement.
- [133:56]
B
This is a key point.
- [133:57]
A
It's only when the measurement is made, when the measure is made. That fact, whether it's red, more red or blue, will come into the reality. Now it's part of this virtual reality. I go to virtual reality and there's a machine counted them and there's more red than blue. Well, now that's a fact. It's in the machine. And it doesn't matter what I do. I can have a hundred people working on it for years and it won't make any difference because measurements already been made. We know what it is. But if nobody has looked at that and nobody knows what it is, and the memory is deleted now nobody knows. And when nobody knows, you can modify it, you see? So there isn't any. It doesn't actually exist, the number of red and blue. That fact doesn't exist anywhere until a measurement is made. And that means it's in. You can say it's in a superposition of states of probability. Yes. Okay. And then when the measurement's made, you only get one result. But that result can change based on the intent that's given up to that point. So yes, you can change it because everybody thinks that. It's a fact already. They were dumped in there. It's a fact. It's going to have to be some way. That's not true. Our reality doesn't work like that. It's only a set of possibilities.
- [135:24]
B
Well, what counts as a measurement?
- [135:27]
A
Counting the marbles is the measurement. So you can count, you know, you count all the reds and you count all the blues. That's the measurement of how many reds and blues that are in there.
- [135:37]
B
Existence of the marbles in the bucket is not a measurement. But once they've been counted, that's a measurement.
- [135:45]
A
Yes, you just dump them in there. Nothing's been measured about the quantity. No measurement's been made yet. So the result is unknown. There's uncertainty as to the result. As long as there's uncertainty, it can change. You can change the probabilities of what's going on. And you know, even if you had that bunch of marbles and let's say you had a device that went in and only counted the red ones, and it came out and said there were 50 red ones. Well, now that's fixed. But you still could change maybe which one had more by either lowering the number of blue ones or raising the number of blue ones, you could still end up with. You could still produce the result because the number of blue ones are unknown. That's still changeable. But the red ones aren't. The red ones will always be that because the measurements been made and that fixes it in this reality, becomes a fact in the reality. But it's not a fact in the reality until the measurements.
- [136:43]
B
Even if the measurement is made by a machine which is not at all conscious.
- [136:47]
A
No, it doesn't have anything to do with that. It's just, is it available to a consciousness? That information is available, then that's just this, you know, whether the person knows it or not isn't the trick. It's whether that information is here or not. That's what the trick is. So that's the, you know, the double slit works the same way. What's the probability that this particle is going to hit at this spot? Well, you go into that distribution and you'll come out and you'll put a particle at a spot and it'll be wherever that random draw is, that's the spot. And then a thousand times you got a thousand spots and look at them. They're all in a interference pattern.
- [137:32]
B
So I'm very interested in this problem because I've been exploring the question, as we discussed earlier, about the hypothesis, first enunciated, as I recall, by John von Neumann, a great physicist, mathematical physicist, who suggested consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function. I understand that today in physics that's rejected. And you reject it. I know. And physicists today, and I think you're in agreement with them, would say it doesn't require human consciousness. If a machine records the data, that's enough to collapse the wave function. And I know you don't even accept the idea of collapse of the wave function. But for people who do accept that idea, a machine is adequate.
- [138:25]
A
Sure, machine is adequate because that information now is here. The fact that I have to walk over there and read the display to get it irrelevant, it's the same as, you know, it's been counted. It's a fact.
- [138:41]
B
For viewers who are aware of my previous interview with Richard Lucido, the fellow I was talking to you about earlier, I am actually in the process of endeavoring to replicate his data. So far I've been unsuccessful. And your theory would predict that his experiment will not be replicable?
- [139:04]
A
Yes. I didn't. You explained to me that theory. I didn't see any causality in there that would cause it to be that way. So I would say that if it's done by independent people, they will find that it doesn't work like that. Now, why it has worked like that for him multiple times could be any number of reasons why that happens that way. It could be that there's some bias in his methodology that creates it. You know, that often is the case. It also could be that there's some reason that some lesson he has to learn by having that experience, seeing those things like that, maybe that's going to help him open up to a bigger picture somehow. Or maybe he needs a little comeuppance in the field of ego, you know, where he says something and it turns out it's not right. I don't know. There could be some reason why he gets that data consistently. So it's not that, you know, that's necessarily a random event or something. It's just, you know, like, you know, you can flip a coin, you can flip three coins and get heads all three times. That happens sometimes. And you can sometimes even do that three times in a row or 10 times in a row that happens. Well, the probability of it is, you know, 10 to the minus six or something that that happens. But it can happen. So that's the thing. That's why good science requires, you know, hundreds of. I shouldn't say hundreds, but many, many replications.
- [140:47]
B
And Richard Lucido acknowledges, yeah, many replications.
- [140:51]
A
So, yes, you can do that. So, yes, that data, if the data isn't measured and if there's uncertainty in the data, what it says, then that data is up for being changed with intent until a measurement is made which fixes it. So that's the way it is. And data can come. I mean, information can come and go. The machine measured, had it there. And then if you went and counted it, of course you'd find what the machine found. But if you erase it, that machine isn't going to tell you. Yeah, but I counted it and it was something else. It's gone. That information has been erased. And once it's been erased, now it's right back where it was. That's because this is a virtual reality. You see, that doesn't make sense in a physical reality. It's just hard to, you know, it doesn't make sense. But in a virtual reality where the reality is generated and you see, it's a probabilistic reality, and what that means is that you don't have any logic telling you what has to happen next. If you go from the bottom up, you say, well, here's everything that happened last delta T, and I know how the state of all these things are moving or changing, so the next delta T is going to be this. And you know that you can predict what happens next from knowing what's happened before. In a probabilistic reality, you don't have that. So how do you determine what's going to happen next? That's the random draw from the probability distribution of the possibilities. So that's how the system determines what happens next. So whenever you do something where you're getting an unknown, what that unknown turns out to be is a random draw. Because you don't. There's no information in the system to say, well, it has to be this. There's only probability. And that's what it is.
- [142:53]
B
Many people I know, including people into remote viewing, talk about the Matrix, or sometimes they refer to it as the Akashic field, which supposedly contains all information about everything that ever happened and even everything that ever will happen. Which is how they would explain precognition, which would imply if such an Akashic field exists, you could never erase permanently what the machine detected.
- [143:23]
A
Yes. See the way that works though there is such a field, there is that database. That data is the data that's necessary for the rendering engine to render the virtual reality. And it's a probability database. Everything that could possibly happen, all the possibilities and the probability that it will, that's the database. As time goes on, that now becomes a historic database. Everything that could have happened and the probability that it would have. So you have all that information there. So yes, that machine got that and it was some number, right? But that number had not been entered into the virtual reality yet. That number wasn't a part of this virtual reality. It was just on that dial or on that readout on that machine. Okay, now the machine gets it erased. So you can look at the, if you look at the records, it tells you what's likely to happen in the future. You know, the probable future part. And there's a past part, what did happen. So all right, you can maybe go back to that part. And that information is non physical. And is there what did happen at that time? And then it did get erased. But that doesn't affect the reality here. That's in a non physical space. That's in the space of consciousness, has nothing to do with this virtual reality. Shouldn't say it has nothing to do. But it's different than this virtual reality. So it doesn't change things here, but.
- [145:01]
B
It'S accessible to us. Well, that's what remote viewers.
- [145:07]
A
But it's not accessible to us with certainty, right? It's only accessible to us with uncertainty. It's not a certain thing. If you go over and look at it and take a picture of it and read it, it's certain. You know, it said 325, period. You remote view it. I think it's maybe 325, but I don't really know for sure. You see, there's uncertainty, so that kind of blows it. It's not a fact. It's just a probability or just an assessment or a guess. So you don't know it. You can't remote view. You don't bring back things with certainty when you remote view. So that would be the thing that makes that not work. Remote viewing, because it's somewhere else and not here, is not part of our objective things. And only our objective things can be facts.
- [145:57]
B
Well, Tom, this has been a fascinating discussion as always. I wonder if you have any final thoughts before we conclude our conversation today.
- [146:09]
A
You know, there's a lot of strange things out there that happen to people. If you are in your business of parapsychology, you run into a lot of them. I have, and there's a lot of things that are really hard to explain, very difficult to explain, and you just have to shake your head and say, don't know why that works that way. Don't know how it works that way. And I also run into those same things. I talk to lots and lots of people who have very, very strange experiences because I'm somebody that they can talk to. They can't tell their family, they don't tell their friends, but they tell me because they figure I will understand and won't be judgmental. So I hear a lot of strange things, and so far all of them can be explained with the model of this is a virtual reality. Consciousness is this computer. I can come to rational understandings of all of those things I've looked and looked for. There was almost 20 years between when I said this is a model of reality and this is the model of reality. I changed that after close to 20 years of looking for exceptions, looking for things that didn't explain, looking for things that it failed to explain. And, you know, I don't mind it failing because that's just tells you where you need to understand something better. So I'm as anxious to find a failure as I am to find something that works. Matter of fact, the failures are even more important if you find those. So I've been very open to looking at things to find those failures. The theory, it means that I don't understand it all yet. I've missed something. There's something else going on that I haven't thought of. And after those 20 years, I haven't really found anything. Now, I did find a few things that I said, oh, gee, I don't know how my theory would explain that. And I had to go back and think a while. And I usually could say, oh, yes, that's right, because I have the same habits you do. There's a certain number of reds and blues in that bucket, and that's it. It's fixed. When they pour that in, it doesn't change. It's just the way we think because we've grown up with materialism and we just take that for granted. There is an answer to the number of blues, but there actually isn't. Until the measurement is made, it's an unknown thing. It's only a potential. It's not real. It only becomes real when you make the measurement and determine it. And until it's real, you can modify the probabilities. So it's hard to think that way, though. We just intuitively know that there's some number of each one of those. And that's fixed, that's done. They're in there, the lids have been put on. Nothing else is going in or out. So there's a fixed number of those. So we just believe that because that seems to be the way the world works, but it doesn't. That world doesn't actually work that way. And once you kind of understand that and get your head around it, which is not an easy thing to do because your whole life, your whole culture has taught you differently. So it's not an easy thing to do. But once you do, you'll find that a whole lot of things then start to make sense. All of these very weird stories. And I've heard lots and lots of weird stories. I had a weird story of a lady driving down the street with a direct head on into the. Into the driver's side of the door. It was going to be a T bound and her car and a flash of light went right through the other car. And she stopped on the other side of the road shaking, and she saw the other car drive on. I've heard similar stories and you know, yeah, that's just some of the weird stories I've heard. And there's lots of these. And you can explain that in a virtual reality, but you can't explain it any other way. So all of these things have a rational explanation. Now, there's one possibility that I keep my mind on and that is, well, what if a virtual reality is just so adjustable? So what flexible that you can construe it to answer everything and it's not Necessarily the real thing. But it's a very flexible thing that you can answer everything with it. And that may mean that it's just. You've picked a solution that is very adjustable and you can adjust it. I thought about that. But then there's a lot of very difficult things to explain, like the speed of light changing in the ninth decimal place four or five times, you know, and it's not a theory that's just adjustable that can do that. It's a theory that has to. You have to have a good solid answer for that, and I do. So the more I've looked into it, the more I've been convinced. And yes, 20 years later, I said, I think this is the way that reality works. Because I've had enough experience, I've heard enough stories, I've explained enough really weird things. And you meet these people who have driven right through another car. And they're sober people, they're intelligent people. They're not trying to trick you. They're not trying to do anything. Matter of fact, they're a little reticent to tell you about it because it sounds so impossible and you'll think they're crazy.
- [151:43]
B
There are several interviews on this channel that talk about precisely that by very credible people.
- [151:50]
A
Yes. So you can't just say all these people are wacky and they all had a hallucination. That is not a satisfactory solution. That doesn't answer what you know. You talk to the people and you can assess what's going on in their minds pretty well. If you talk with somebody for a while and you know they're straight up and they're telling you the truth. And no, it wasn't at midnight. No, they weren't very tired. And no, they didn't just get done. They didn't just leave a bar. And you go through all of those possibilities and you just have these strange things that have happened to people and very indelibly mark them. It's something they will never forget. But they keep it to themselves until they find somebody that won't judge them. And then they're anxious to spill it out because they've carried around a long time. So this model answers those. It gives a reason and how that can happen. There's a logical reason. And yes, you know, this metaphor of computers, you know, this is a data metaphor that I have in my model. It's a model. I threw it together. I made up the names. I did all that because I realized, here's a function that consciousness has to perform in order for my experience to make sense. So I make it. That's a I UOC we had to have that. And then I'd have to have a logical story of why that had to happen, not how that could have happened, or that it's possible that it happened, but that it had to happen. There was no other choice that has to be included. So that's how I made the model up. Yes, it's me coming up with the best thing I could think of to answer all the questions. But I've been pretty careful about not tricking myself or not trying, you know, just making things up. And I've done a lot of research and trying talking with people, and I give people credibility when they're. When there are serious people telling you things, and it's hard for them to tell it. It's a true thing. It's what they experienced. And yes, people do have momentary delusions, perhaps, but not like this. These are very specific things that happened. It's not like, well, I lost consciousness and I came to, you know, life was like this. No, these are things they've lived through second by second. And I judge most of those to be solid, solid descriptions of what somebody experienced. So, yeah, I'm like everybody else, doing my best to find answers. And I came across this idea of it being a virtual reality in kind of a backwards way. I was trying to understand the paranormal. I did a lot of paranormal stuff with Bob and Rowan. I was trying to come up with a model for it. And eventually I had this piece and this piece and this piece. It's like a puzzle. And I've got a bunch of pieces, but I can't fit them together. I don't know how. How they interrelate with each other. And I eventually came up to the idea, oh, it's just information. Bong, you know, and then suddenly that made a whole lot of things clear. A lot the paranormal is about information. It's getting information. Remote viewing is getting information. Right. Reading tea leaves, it's about getting information. Whatever it is that's going on, it's all information based. And as I got that, things started to clear up. And I just took one step at a time until I kind of built this thing up. But it took me 40 years to do. Wasn't an easy thing. And I didn't go out to Bob and Rosen and figure out how the world worked. It was a long, long path over many, many years to come to these conclusions. But the thing that's important about them, more important than understanding the paranormal, more important than a More general, more accurate physics is that materialism comes with an ethic of control, power and force. That's the ethic that goes with materialism. Materialism says the only thing that really exists is this stuff out here in the world and it belongs to everybody. But not this part. This is mine. I'll just take it, and I won't let you take it away from me because I have force. And it's a control, power, force ethic. Just goes with the idea that you have limited resources and it's a fight to see who controls them. So the opposite in my model, the model is not control, power, force. It's love, caring, sharing, cooperation, helping. Not what's in it for me, but how can I help? And that, to me, is the big thing about this model. Physics is nice. You know, understanding the paranormal is nice. But the ethic of love, opposed to the ethic of fear, is a huge thing, more important than all the rest of it put together. And if this idea goes mainstream, then we will start our march toward living in a kinder, gentler society that isn't trying to. Everybody's not trying to rip off everybody else or trying to, you know, make sure that they got their stuff and to keep everybody else from taking it away from them. That is not a place that's functional. That's a dysfunctional ethic. And the one that comes with this model is a very functional ethic of people optimizing life for everybody according to the available resources. Everybody cares that everybody else is doing all right. So it's just about, am I doing all right? But is everybody doing all right? And if there's some little being over there in a corner someplace that's not doing all right, then I want to fix it for them because I care about them really more than I care about myself. And everybody feels that way. Then it just self optimizes your system. Self optimizes. So that is what's really important here, is the change from control, power, force, the cooperation, caring, sharing, and compassion. That's what the bottom line is. That makes it important. So I'd want to point that out to everybody that's listening. Yes, we talk about the paranormal and how many blue and red things are in the box. And all of that's interesting and there's explanations for all of it, but that's not the main thing. The main thing is changing who you are. To become love, to become caring, to be cooperative and not be judgmental, not have a lot of ego, not have fear, not have beliefs, be skeptical of everything. It's not your truth if it isn't your experience. So that's the big thing, if there's any takeaway that I'd like to leave with people is that's the real reason that this is significant and important. Not because the physics is better and not because the paranormal is explained. Those are nice effects, but the big thing is become love.
- [159:10]
B
I totally endorse the Big Thing and I'm sure, as our viewers know, I'm largely supportive of all the rest as well. Tom, I'm very grateful that you're here with me in Albuquerque today for our eighth interview and I would be very happy if we do eight more.
- [159:30]
A
Yes, I have fun with these conversations. They're very nice. Thank you for inviting me and sitting and listening to me talk with my long, long answers.
- [159:40]
B
It's a pleasure. Thank you so much for being with me, Tom, and for those of you watching or listening, thank you for being with us because you are the reason that we are here. For early access to our videos and livestream events, sign up for our free weekly newsletter@newthinkingallowed.org.
- [160:31]
A
Book 4 in the New Thinking Allowed Dialogue series is Charles T. Tart 70 years of exploring Consciousness and Parapsychology, now available on Amazon.
- [160:45]
B
New Thinking Allowed is presented by the California Institute for Human Science, a fully accredited university offering distant learning graduate degrees that focus on mind, body and spirit, the topics that we cover here. We are particularly excited to announce new degrees emphasizing parapsychology and the paranormal. Visit their website@cihs.edu. you can now download all eight copies of the New Thinking Allowed magazine for free or order beautiful printed copies. Go to newthinkingallowed.org.