Julia Mossbridge critiques academic suppression of precognition research, arguing language atrophies innate psychic abilities while non-speaking children access deeper consciousness. She details retrocausality experiments where future photons influence the present and alleges unethical government surveillance in gifted programs involving amnesiac drugs and radiation exposure. Ultimately, her work on the Akashic Records and time travel therapy suggests a non-linear reality where trauma healing occurs through future selves communicating with the past, challenging linear perceptions of time and consciousness. [Automatically generated summary]
I was trained as a scientist in cognitive neuroscience and computer science, and did some AI stuff, did some stuff with the human brain in terms of trying to understand how time works in the human brain.
And then I got really interested in how funky time works in the human brain, like precognition, which is, of course, predicting future events in ways that we don't normally think about.
So, I mean, my experience has been that sort of regardless of how much time I spend studying it and how much I see it and how much I can test different controls to make sure it's not this, that, or the other thing and that it really is getting information from the future or it really is telepathy.
Still, kind of don't in the science world tend to just ignore it.
Or it actually is actively suppressed.
I mean, there's some papers that I've published that just won't get listed in Google Scholar, even though they're in peer reviewed journals with other articles that do get listed in Google Scholar.
So there's it's frustrating, and who cares because it's just an academic complaining.
But I'm also not an academic, I also want to build things, I'm into making stuff.
So I got my PhD at these tier one research institutions like Northwestern, got my master's at UCA San Francisco.
I did my postdoc at Northwestern.
So, fancy dancy institutions.
So, I learned a lot about how to think and how to write and how to do these kinds of experiments.
And I know what I'm seeing.
And I keep seeing it.
And other people who study the same stuff keep seeing it.
But it is inside of me, or there's something inside of me that wants to create things with this.
Okay, so this is happening.
People have these capacities.
They're actually useful.
What can we do with them?
And it turns out you can do a lot.
With them, if you feel like you are allowed to have them, if it doesn't feel like it's verboten, if it doesn't feel like shameful, which is part of the cultural piece.
So what I notice when you talk with people is you're like, you seem like a tough guy, but you're really sensitive, like you're an incredible, obviously an incredible listener.
And you learn all these things and you're putting together, just this is my impression, you're putting together a kind of a map of the world, like a map of knowledge of the world through all these different people's eyes.
And my question for you is, how do you see culture shifting?
Because I think you're really sensitive to it and I think you're kind of like one of these signal fish that are at the.
You notice what's happening in the environment and you're gonna guide a school of fish accordingly.
So do you think that the culture is shifting towards Sort of better use of these I guess exceptional or these natural capacities that we already have, or do you think that we're shifting away from it and we're gonna run away in fear?
So I think that because of conversations like the ones that you've had and the ones that I've had, the ones that are available online, I think people get a much deeper understanding of so many different topics and so many different things than has ever been available through whatever you want to call the mainstream media.
And when you have these inherent prejudices in higher learning, Whether it's people that don't want to be foolish, so they don't want to entertain certain notions,
or they don't want to accept certain things because it goes against things that they've taught and things they wrote about, we have a problem of ego and ego becoming a wall to gathering more information or getting a better detailed map of the landscape.
I think there's way more people that are pondering these ideas.
And having these conversations and thinking about these things than has ever been before.
And I think that's one of the really beautiful things about the internet.
The internet has made much more information available, and many more people are thinking about these things in ways that, you know, if you were in an environment where your career depended upon you following certain lines and certain narratives, you wouldn't pursue that because that would be detrimental.
To your own personal interest.
Like, if you wanted to get ahead in academia and all of a sudden you're talking about psychics and premonition, and people are like, oh, Julia's a fucking loon.
But you're courageous and you see value in these things.
And because you can come on here and talk about it, instead of just addressing a class or selling a book that's going to reach a few thousand people, we can have a conversation where 10 million people are going to listen.
And so then those 10 million people are going to go to work and they're going to tell their friends at work, like, hey, there's just, you know, you know how that feeling that you get where sometimes you know something's going to happen and it happens?
Like, that might be real.
And there was this lady, she was on the Joe Rogan podcast and she was talking.
And so that opens up people to this idea that you don't have to worry about being a fool because that's what a lot of people are worried about.
It was a big hurdle talking about aliens.
UFOs.
Like all my life, all my life, I've always been fascinated by UFOs and aliens, but I don't mind being a fool.
I'm not a person that needs to be taken seriously.
It's not my job.
I'm literally a comedian.
You can make fun of me, I'll make fun of me.
It's fine.
My future doesn't rely on people taking me seriously.
I think having that ability to have conversations about all kinds of different things has really changed the way the entire world is discussing just reality.
Like everything about reality, from quantum computing to alien life to international politics to the way human beings misrepresent each other purposely for their own gains, like what is all this?
Like, and why has it taken so long to have so many discussions about this?
So I think that's if I have a purpose in this world, it's like I'm an antenna for that.
Yeah, I'm just clapping because it's such a great purpose.
Because, you know, the reason I fell in love with science was it's about discovery, it's about not knowing, it's about being foolish.
I had this, I was just thinking today, I had this amazing high school biology teacher who had us go outside and he gave us these little note cards.
And he said, on one side of the note card, I want you to write a question about your environment.
Look around, you know, the plants or whatever, pick something, the dirt, whatever, and write a question you think Einstein would ask about this.
And then he said, Okay, now flip it over, and I want you to write a question that, like, a two year old would ask if a two year old could, you know, write.
And my favorite slide was the two year old.
And at the end, he said, Now, Einstein was more like the two year old.
He said, Einstein was full of wonder and confusion and uncertainty.
And so then I went to graduate school and I went in the world of academia, and I was like, There's all this pressure to, you know, you write your grant after you've done about three quarters of the work so that as soon as you get the grant, then you can publish the papers that go with the grant.
So you're not really discovering anything.
You're kind of talking about, here's what I already know, but I'm acting like I haven't looked at it yet.
And there's pressure to follow, as you said, follow the line of thinking for both funding and for your career.
And, you know, I was told very nicely by wonderful people who wanted to support me.
That if I took the stuff about psychic stuff off my resume, I would have a perfectly good resume for academia.
And I was like, Are you crazy?
This is the stuff that's actually interesting.
Why would I want to take it off?
But that's what took me away from academia and made me realize I had to put one foot in building things.
I could leave a foot in academia, but I had to build shit because academia is so slow.
They can learn something, and then 10 years later, they're like, Do you think it's true?
And then 20 years later, they're like, Maybe we can make something with it.
And it's like, But at the same time, you have to be careful.
You don't get to just say, well, I just know people are psychic and therefore, you know, screw it.
So, yeah, there's this dance.
There's this dance there.
But when you were saying this thing about people afraid to be foolish, I wonder how much it helps me to come from a family of very foolish, eccentric people.
Well, I think intelligent, kind people don't mind talking to people that say stuff.
Occasionally say foolish things.
Well, or things that could be perceived as foolish because they're willing to take chances and look at these obscure topics and strange phenomena and just and not worry about the stigma that's attached to these subjects that keeps supposedly intelligent or serious people, people that want to be considered as serious people, from discussing.
The problem with either side is you have to accept, if you're going to accept, if you're going to join one of their teams, I had a bit about it in my last comedy special that if you're going to join their team, you have to believe.
And the problem is that even people that have deeply studied subjects, The wanting the reverence and wanting people to defer to you wholly with no questions whatsoever, like as if you have the entire database on whatever this thing is settled.
This is settled science.
We know everything about it.
That doesn't seem to be the case very often.
There's very few things that seem to be completely settled.
It's much more interesting to me when I talk to someone that their perspective is I'm a person that has spent an inordinate amount of time.
Going over this stuff, and this is what I know.
I might not know all of it, but this is what we know, and this is why we think this is what it is.
And this is so instead of like having this ego, and I see it, God, I see it from so many.
It's a very male thing, too.
It's a very male ego thing to be like the dominant force of the narrative, you know, that they're the enforcer of the narrative, and you know, very.
Dismissive and very rude, and saying, you know, just insulting things about anybody that deviates from it instead of just saying, this is why I think this is the case, and this is what we've learned over the years.
But having humility when you're dealing with, especially when you're dealing with something like cognitive, like anything involving consciousness, anything involving the human mind, it's so complex.
There's so much going on, and it's so biologically variable.
There's so many different people that have different ways of thinking and their mind works differently.
One of the more illuminating things about doing this podcast is having so many different people in here and so many different conversations, so many unique and fascinating people, but they're all different.
But what you said about it's a really male thing, I think it's better said to say it's a really insecure male.
Thing or an insecure, it's an insecurity thing that happens more probably to men because there's such a standard of you're supposed to be alpha, everyone's supposed to be alpha, right?
And for women, there's not that standard, or you're not, you know, right?
And so, there's more insecurity because everyone can't be alpha, and what the heck is alpha?
And so, I feel like I have a desire for someone who has a sense of their own, like, is secure in their own masculinity and their own feminity, which I think you have both.
I hope you don't mind me.
Calling you out on that, but I know that you're like have this reputation of being like total guy, but you have this.
I mean, because you're a deep listener, that's already a feminine trait, and so is it really?
I think it's also a learned thing that, you know, people have this desire to show everyone how intelligent they are and how dominant they are in any particular subject.
And it's one of the most fascinating.
Infuriating things about having conversations where people aren't really talking to you, they're just trying to win whatever little verbal game you're playing.
They're trying to one up you and they're trying to.
And for a lot of men, there's just physical insecurity.
And the physical insecurity is a real problem.
But some of my favorite people are martial artists.
And one of the reasons why is because they're the least insecure.
Everyone's insecure in some way.
But martial artists are dealing with that insecurity literally on a daily basis.
So, like, say, Jiu Jitsu, for instance.
If you're training Jiu Jitsu, If you go from white belt to black belt, you have to get humiliated thousands of times.
There's no ifs or buts about it.
If you're a white belt and you train with a black belt, you're going to get humiliated or dominated.
You're going to lose.
You have no chance.
And so by learning over and over and over and over again that you're not really special, and it's really just about the time you put in and then about getting better and having the ability to objectively assess your position, who you are in this.
This room of people that are trying to strangle each other, who you are in the world itself.
I think a lot of people don't ever address that.
They run around trying to posture and pretend they're something they're not, pretend they're smarter than they are, they're more of an expert on a subject, they're the one who should talk, you should listen.
There's a lot of that.
Whenever people say, just shut up and listen, I'm like, that's not, I'm not going to do that.
I don't want to talk to anybody that wants to listen.
I don't ever want anybody to do that if I'm talking.
So, in a better world, If you're going to assert dominance, you would like the martial art.
What I love about martial art is first of all, it's all mental, almost all mental.
And then second, it's very similar to what happens when you go through and get your PhD, right?
You get beaten down and you realize you're not the smartest person in the room and you're hanging out with all these other super smart people.
And then you've got to learn to be like, okay, that's not what matters.
So that's the good part of going nuts with school.
But there's this.
False information.
It reminds me of when I was at UCSF and I went to go see this talk by this famous scientist.
I think he won a Nobel Prize for Yoda's name.
But he was an asshole.
And he gave his brilliant talk, but I couldn't pay attention to it because he was an asshole.
He was being rude to people who asked questions.
He was just dickish.
I mean, I don't know how else to say it, just like arrogant.
And I walked out and someone said to me, one of my mentors said to me, You know, you have to learn to separate.
The personality from the information that they're giving.
And I said, you know, no, I don't.
Like he's giving me all the information in his personality.
Right.
I don't need to learn to listen to that.
I need to learn to say, unlike all of you, I need to learn to say, I'm not going to hang out with people and put myself in the presence of people who are rude like that.
That's more important than their amazing intellect.
And somehow, somehow, we got to a place culturally where we think you can be really.
Mean or dismissive or rude and arrogant, and that's fine because you're winning.
And I feel like a better world would acknowledge that what's more important is love, which is this connection where you actually acknowledge there's someone else there, even if you like think they're an asshole, but still, you know, like I wasn't practicing love, I wasn't accepting him who he was, but I was in a place where the environment wanted me to just ignore sort of the information I was getting about who this guy was and just say, no, all that matters is his intelligence.
You know, I'm not saying I'm better than I'm saying I had that experience that made me see that there was this level of like sort of import placed on the intellect.
And that had always been the case.
My family had always placed all this level of import on the intellect.
Like, I think putting all of the emphasis on the intellect itself and ignoring the personality is kind of like the messenger is important.
Like, the message is important, but the messenger sucks.
That, you know, if someone was yelling out the most amazing information in the world, but they were singing it like a Slayer song, I don't know if it's a bad example, but you know what I mean?
Like, you know those death metal bands where they just scream.
And you're like, oh, geez, I got to get out of here.
It's not my thing, right?
But it could be like the most interesting information, but the messenger sucks.
It's not fun to listen to, it's not exciting.
Or the messenger's arrogant, or the messenger's rude, or it ruins the message.
Exist whenever there's ego, whenever there's the human dynamics of these bizarre creatures that we are, where territorial apes with weapons.
We're weird and we're always establishing some kind of dominance, whether it's intellectual dominance or wealth dominance or social hierarchy dominance.
There's probably something that some sociopaths feel if they show up with a million dollar watch and a million dollar car and they pull up in front of a giant house that's bigger than anybody's.
So, so have I, my own, but also I was a doula for a couple friends who had babies.
And you know, everyone should just see a baby be born because it's very psychedelic, it's psychedelic, and it's also it just puts you in that liminal space where, um, it's like you've seen beyond the veil, you've seen the borderland between life and death.
And it feels to me like that experience, which is much more rare for people to have now, most people.
Can avoid seeing a baby being born.
But that experience is, and also seeing someone die, that experience, I think, helps train us in, it is the instruction book for the human mind.
I don't know why I'm saying that.
I look at you, you know, you're wrinkling your brow, and I'm like, also, why am I saying that?
Yeah, it's a meme online because my friend Brian Cowan was in the podcast studio and he blew this Aztec death whistle like literally, was it like a week before the fucking pandemic?
It was way too close.
It was way too close.
And the meme was Brian Cowan kicking off the pandemic with the Aztec death whistle.
And because it's so difficult, you can't think of anything else other than it while you're doing it.
And I think that cleans your mind out and that it purges you of all this weirdness that's inside of you that is constantly battling with everything around you and allows you to just be.
Because you're better at being a person because you've lived a lot, you've had a lot of experiences, you made a lot of mistakes, and you're constantly practicing and learning, you know?
And I think other things that you can do other than just being a person will enhance your ability to be a person.
When I used to teach remote viewing, we used to call it a mental martial art.
It's anything that's hard on which you have to concentrate that puts you in that space of flow.
And the flow means, you know, that Holly Chicks at Mahali idea.
I don't know if I pronounced his name right, but this idea of.
Timelessness, and you're just sort of having to surf whatever's happening.
And that could happen, it could happen in any field, right?
Whenever you have to apply your whole self to something, then it's so ironic because you apply your whole self to something, and then what that allows to happen is that you become selfless.
So, one of the reasons, so people are so complex with the reasons they go into particular fields.
My experience with physicists, my dad included, is they tend to go into this field of physics because the whole job of physics is to simplify everything into a few equations, right?
Let's like, there's the funny, there's the, I don't know if it's funny, but there's the standard physics joke of like, All right, let's figure out the volume of a cow.
Let's just estimate it.
It's a sphere.
And so it's like you cut off the legs and the head and the tail, and all of a sudden you're just calculating a sphere, which doesn't give you the volume of the cow.
And so I think there's a desire to simplify everything, and I think there's a desire to control things.
And many, many, many physicists have OCD and have control issues.
My dad had severe, severe OCD.
In his mind, um, it couldn't have happened because it would all his circuits would fry because he didn't know how to explain it.
And my mother just stood up for it and said, Well, it did happen, and you saw it, and I saw it.
And it hit the edge of my room and then went out, and there was still like the brown mark where it was burned in the corner of the room.
So, like, we had plenty of evidence.
Um, so there was stuff going on, and there was a there was this push pull with my mom who just.
Believed in the primacy, I guess, of or the importance of experience, like we saw it.
And the pull from my dad, who believed in if you didn't understand, if you didn't have a theory for something, it couldn't exist.
And so I was living in that.
So, what I did was, I kept a dream journal sort of the rest of my life.
I still write every morning my dreams and started to notice that I was really good at precognitive dreaming.
And it would happen again and again and again.
And I would have experiences, we can get into later the weird school stuff, but experiences at school that reminded me that I had this capacity.
And Then I hid it from myself when I realized I wanted to go to graduate school and actually be a scientist.
So, by which I mean, I just sort of said, well, all of that stuff's crap, even though I was still having those experiences.
I had to kind of split off.
This is a thing that you have to do if you think, okay, I have to ride the academic train, right?
And the academic train says, like, I'm going to do hard science.
I'm going to go to the best neuroscience school.
I'm going to, you know.
Right.
And then by the time I was in my late 20s, And I was in my second graduate school getting my PhD at Northwestern.
I started to remember.
And the reason I started, and it's not like I had really forgotten, but it's like it just wasn't allowed to be real.
I started to study timing in the auditory system because I was into understanding how the auditory system managed things in time.
And then I started to ask myself, why am I so interested in time?
Why am I so interested in the nature of time and how it works?
And then, boom, oh, right, because I keep having these precognitive dreams.
Obviously, something we don't understand about how time works because these are so consistent and clear.
And at that point, you know, I knew that was happening because I knew I wasn't making it up.
I could look at my journal and I could see it.
So that's when I started saying, all right, you know, I'm old enough to choose my own path and I'm going to start asking these questions.
Well, I called, I was a I'm kind of fearless when it comes to cold calling people, especially scientists, because very few people call scientists.
So I called up Dean Radin.
I had read some of his work from the Institute of Nautic Sciences.
I called him up and I said, Hi, my name's Julia.
And I was thinking of going into this field and I think precognition is real.
And he's like, Oh, okay.
And I remember where I was sitting when I called him.
And he said, The thing you have to do is get your PhD in a field that is not this.
So, finish your PhD and then, as a postdoc, start to investigate it.
So, I did.
I finished my PhD while I was studying all this other stuff and understanding the field.
And then, as soon as I got into my postdoc years, I found a sympathetic advisor at Northwestern in the cognitive neuroscience program and just said, I want to start studying this stuff.
So, at the same time, I had one foot in more mainstream stuff about timing and the auditory and the visual system.
And then the other foot was in this purely, basically psychic stuff, trying to understand it.
And I Made an experiment.
There's a foundation called the Bial Foundation in Portugal, and I wrote an application to them and they funded my postdoc so I could study the sense of being stared at with closed circuit TV monitors.
I could study how the skin physiology, skin conductance, or sweat changes just before you get a response right on a random psychic task.
Then I just pulled from I got really interested in presentiment because I saw that it was real.
And I also saw there was a big gender difference that was fascinating to me, which is that before men got their first trial correct, and this is just a guessing game, so it's all randomly selected, their skin conductance would go crazy, like they just won the lottery.
And before they didn't get it correct or they were incorrect, it would just kind of like peter along.
So they were anticipating at a very high level what the future was going to bring, whether they were going to win or not.
Whereas women practically, but not totally, showed the opposite.
But regardless of what happened, whether it was correct or incorrect, they were much lower than men.
So men were really excited about the future correct thing.
At least their physiology showed that.
So I got fascinated by that and pulled together a bunch of, worked with a couple other people at different institutions and pulled together 26 studies over the past, or the prior, I guess, 40 years that looked at this kind of physiological change that predicts essentially a random future event.
But, you know, there's other tasks that aren't about winning that are just about, is, you know, are you going to see a picture that's scary versus a picture that's neutral where women and men both show the effect?
But in this particular task, it was just like very clear.
And then I replicated it in heartbeats.
So the first one was in skin conductance.
And then I looked at.
Heart rhythms.
And I replicated that same thing where men are like, oh, yeah, here we go.
And women are like, da da da da.
It doesn't, if something doesn't matter so much to you in the future, I don't think it matters so much to you in anticipating it.
Now, here's the question about this stuff Do you think that this is an emerging phenomenon in human consciousness, or do you think it's something that has atrophied, that was available before language?
And one of the things that I've been thinking is one of the things that we've noticed like, I think phones and the internet and the computers are an amazing thing.
You can acquire so much information, you can learn about things, you can encounter new people.
There's so much stuff that's great about the internet.
The bad thing is a lot of people have a much shorter attention span now because of social media, and then Now they're demonstrating that through use of large language models, a lot of people are actually getting dumber.
Yes, they've noticed it already.
Well, they've studied it, and especially children, they're actually less capable of solving problems themselves because they always turn to a computer and have the computer solve a problem.
The more I think about that and the more I look at that, I go, well, what is language?
Language is a technology, and language is a technology that allows you to say things with your mouth, and I know what you're thinking.
Maybe before that existed, we had an understanding of what we were thinking.
Some sort of a weird psychic connection that we all believe that people have with each other in some way or form.
And some of it's, you could demonstrate some of it, you know, but most of it is just intuition and feeling.
And I always wonder, like, is this atrophied?
Like, before we could talk, when we were just these bipedal hominids with, you know, larger brains and all the other mammals and these weird abilities to be curious and figure out things and develop tools, like, what was consciousness like?
Before language, before written language, you didn't have a word for dog and tree.
And like, what was it that was going on in your head?
There's this poem by this mystic, and I forget her name.
But at the end of it, she says, At the end of the day, I always bring to my mind all the people that I was kind to, and then I can fall asleep.
And so, if you know that's another way to do it, right?
If you know that at the end of the day, you have to look in the face of all the people that you were kind to so you can fall asleep, then that kind of makes your day.
So, there's this cool result from this guy in Baycrest.
His name's Morris Friedman.
And he's a neurologist there up in Canada.
And he noticed in his stroke patients that if they had lesions here, So, their stroke kind of messed up this area here, left frontal orbital area of the brain in the cortex, that they seemed to be more psychic, like he didn't know how to explain it.
So, he did an actual experiment where he tried to get people to move with their minds an arrow on a computer screen.
So, there was no mouse, there was no way to move it.
They just had to look at the arrow and say, move to the left or move to the right and wish it to happen, and using their intention, right?
So, the people who had the strokes there were able to do it statistically significantly.
People who had the strokes over here were not able to do it.
So you have the try period where you say to the person, try to move it to the left, try to move it to the right.
And then you have the control period where you say, you know, read a book like you're not trying.
And you compare the amount, the distance and the amount of time it's spent in the intended direction to the reading a book time.
And if it's, you can, you know, there's statistical tests you can use to determine whether it was spending time in the intended direction more often when it was intended.
Instead of looking at stroke patients, he looked at transcranial magnetic stimulation, which turns down activity.
So he put that over here.
So he's putting that over the left area.
And to turn that down, And again, these are not people who have had strokes, just regular people, you and I.
They were able to do this with their minds.
So it's just sitting there.
His explanation is that the left orbital frontal area is, we know that it inhibits the right frontal area, and we know that the right orbital frontal inhibits the left.
And his explanation is this stuff is going on in the right hemisphere, or at least is dominated by that.
And when you suppress it, it You're not as psychic, and when you release the suppression, you are more psychic, and it's just right under the surface, it's right there.
And so, when I work with non speaking autistic kids, it feels to me like that's a pretty good explanation of what's going on.
They're not activating this part as much.
I'm not that I've proven this, this is a hypothesis, and I'm not the only one with the hypothesis, but they're not activating this part as much.
We know that because this is where speech is over here, right?
These areas in the left.
And so, therefore, this area can be a little bit more free.
Well, and the brain is related to the mind in ways we don't understand.
And then it's sometimes not related to the mind, right?
Like in the psilocybin results, you're having all these experiences.
But the brain is dampened.
What's going on?
And there's the filter theory of consciousness says, well, consciousness is kind of like out there, almost like a radio signal, and your brain's kind of filtering it.
And then, and that's, and when we're working with, I work with a whole team that works with non speaking autistic kids, like in telepathy tapes.
And when we're working with them, like they get distracted by that stuff.
Like they'll say, you know, I'm distracted.
When I say say, I mean, they're, you know, Typing on a letterboard or a keyboard, you know, there's spirits in the room, or, you know, I'm thinking about what you did earlier today that I didn't know about, but I do know about because I'm telepathic.
And so it's like a lot of information that makes it pretty hard to be in the here and now.
So I met my research team partially through people I had already worked with and partially folks who Kai Dickens, creator of the Telepathy Tapes, introduced me to.
And so I wanted to ask that question Can we use rigorous methods to have folks write down non speakers or spellers, whatever we want to call them?
I think non speakers or spellers are preferred.
Nonverbal kind of implies that they don't have language at all.
But the reality is they don't, they may speak, but they don't speak to communicate.
They use letterboards or keyboards.
I wanted to understand like, they're doing all these tests where they're repeating numbers and letters.
And that's interesting, but it doesn't really to me, I mean, the whole world of testing people for psychic abilities, it's not very interesting.
And if we presume that these students are actually pretty smart, It's got to be boring for them.
And so I thought, well, let's give them an opportunity to really show their stuff.
And so I set up this whole rigorous trial set.
And even the non speakers came on board and actually told us what they would like to see the stimuli be.
We want videos, we want music, we want words in the videos that are sung.
I mean, they just told us all these things that they wanted.
And by again, using the letterboards.
And we said, okay, we can do all that.
But the catch is the person who's sending.
The information is going to be in another room, maybe like 30 yards away with a closed door.
And you can work with your communication partner, but she is not going to know what the target is.
And she's going to have no idea what the target could be because she's never going to see any of the target videos that we'll use.
And so we were preparing for this and we were getting our software ready.
We were preparing for the formal trials that would be filmed for the documentary.
And so we were doing that on Zoom.
We weren't yet in person.
But the non speaker that I'm about to tell you about was.
With his communication partner, Maria Welch, who's a speech and language pathologist.
And he was getting ready to do the trial.
We were explaining it to him.
And I was in Virginia.
Maria and the student were in Illinois.
And then Jeff Tarrant, another co investigator, another neuroscientist, was in Oregon.
And so the person who was going to send the video, in other words, just intend to send the video like in a telephone.
Telepathy experiment was going to be Jeff.
The non speaker chose Jeff.
And then we did it.
We turned off our cameras.
We were on Zoom.
We turned off our cameras.
We turned off our microphones.
Jeff sent the video.
Maria and the student started, I don't know, intending to receive it.
And then the student said he was ready.
He spelled that he was ready.
And then Maria asked the question that I thought I had put in the Zoom chat for her because we didn't have our software set up.
So I had to send her a question in the Zoom chat.
And the way we traditionally did it at that time was I asked multiple choice.
Is it a this, this, this, or this?
But the thing is, by mistake, I sent that to Jeff because I had a private chat with him going.
So I didn't realize that she didn't have the questions.
Meanwhile, the student starts to spell on the letterboard.
He says, I'm ready.
He says, it's a beautiful sky.
And she had not seen the questions.
It was a beautiful sky.
Of all the videos in the world that he picked to describe that way, it was a video of the tops of trees and then above them, Like northern lights that had been colored by an artist to look even more cool.
And then there's like a time lapse.
And he said, It's art of a beautiful sky.
And that was a really great description.
And statistically, there's almost no way to calculate how statistically likely that is because it could have been any video in the world.
So actually, that's not the video I'm going to show you.
I just realized that I wanted to answer the question more directly.
The video I want to show you, if he can find it, Is one of what we call a telepathy train where the students, and this happened more than once when we were physically in town in Chicago as a team, where this one student comes in and says something, leaves, and the next student comes in with their mom and they check in.
You know, Maria always asks them, Would you like to check in?
And then they refer to the thing the last student was talking about.
And it happened in a really compelling way in this video because.
There was also a discussion that the first student who comes in, which I believe I'm calling participant four just for anonymity.
So, participant four comes in and asks, says he wants to go on a double date with participant five and his girlfriend.
And then he says, Tell his mom.
And then when participant five comes in, he says, Tell my mom I want to go on a double date with participant four and his girlfriend.
So, they clearly had already discussed this telepathically because I'm They're non speakers.
They're not talking to each other.
Their parents haven't talked to each other about this.
The parents don't know each other.
And so that happened.
And then they also passed on this.
I mean, so this stuff kept happening.
They also passed on this idea of slamming a beach ball on the ground in order to identify each of the videos because they wanted to get the telepathy signals right, but they were missing them on the formal trials.
So they discussed between themselves, apparently, telepathically.
If you slam a beach ball on the ground before we do the trial, then we'll focus on it in time and we'll go to the right timeline to talk about this is what they write down to get to the video in our minds.
And so that's the video that I wanted to show you if it's here, because I don't include the double date stuff in it because it's too private and they say too many names of other.
unidentified
On the page I have, it says here's a link, but there's no link that I can find.
And this is, it is like they are all in the same conversation.
And it is so, it's hard to think about what it would be like, but it's becoming more and more clear to me that it would be very difficult to just be in this conversation where the words are coming out of our mouths if you also are just having all these conversations with other people.
Well, I turn on my scientist hat when I think about that and I think, okay, well, they could have heard it on the telepathy tapes and then they started talking about it.
But that's not how it seemed to have worked.
But I have my own experience of that particular student.
I forget whether I called him participant four or participant five at the end.
He and I became, I had a good understanding of his mind and we had some good conversations.
And I had a dream one night where, He came to me, and all he did was show me this like it was like a sun where you could see the sunspots, and it was just slowly turning, and it was beautiful.
And he just gave it to me.
And then the next day, I was working with him over Zoom.
And so I asked Maria, I said, Can I ask him a question?
And she said, Sure.
And I said, Last night, you gave me something.
You gave me a shape.
What was the shape?
Because I hadn't told Maria about the dream or anyone else.
It was just my dream that I wrote in my journal.
And I was thinking he would say ball or sphere, and that would either be a good guess or it would be telepathy.
But he goes, I still can't get over this.
I sent you a pre revolutionary orb with four stars on it slowly rotating.
So, it was slowly rotating, and there were these sunspots that I was calling sunspots, he was calling stars.
And it was definitely an orb.
What does pre revolutionary mean?
I don't know.
They talk about, and I talk about in my book, The Love Revolution, this idea that we're moving towards a time when we can actually.
Use love in our lives to communicate and to connect people.
But maybe that's what he means.
And then, so that's one instance.
So I sort of go, okay, that was interesting.
And it kind of blew my mind that he used that language.
He's very, he's just gifted at interesting language.
And then this other non speaker who worked with Natalia, who is the young woman you saw on the left, who also works with a lot of spellers, just decided to start reading my mind.
Like we did, he started.
I asked Natalia, I said, can we just do an experiment where I'll be doing something and I'll know what I'm doing at that time?
And you just ask one of your students to read my mind and then no one else will know what I'm doing and she won't know what I'm doing.
And so, what I was doing was doing this remote viewing for a friend.
And so, I knew exactly what I was doing during that time and what I was thinking.
But what I was thinking about was remember that comet, Three Eye Atlas?
So, I was thinking, I was kind of obsessively thinking about Three Eye Atlas, like, what is it?
What's the deal?
You know?
It was during that exact time in December last year.
And he comes back with some stuff I don't understand, like poetic license.
I call it poetic license, or just it's wrong, that I don't understand where it came from.
And then he says, Oh, and three eye atlas.
And he talks about this owl that I saw in a video when I was doing the remote viewing.
And I was like, So Natalia didn't even know what three eye atlas was.
She had to look it up.
And the parent didn't know what three eye atlas was.
One thing I know with this particular participant is that he's so gifted, and his family asks him a lot, like, about to do mediumship stuff, like, What does grandpa think about this or whatever?
And in fact, grandpa's dead.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And to him, there's not a lot of difference.
And so, and so, yeah.
And they also, like the grandmother had a lung transplant and they asked who the donor was.
And he identified a probable donor who lived in the area who had died that day.
And they won't know for a year if it was the actual donor because it takes time to learn who the donor is, but they're pretty sure that it probably is.
But So, boy, if it turns out that he's right and you can't find out for another year, yeah, or they won't release the information, well, you know, yeah, my husband had a double lung transplant.
Now, is he, I don't know if you even asked this, but is he communicating with people in a different timeline or is he communicating with disembodied souls that no longer live in that timeline but still contain consciousness?
It's so hard not to say his name, but that was this student's story about it.
But, as we know from people who study mediumship, like the Windbridge Institute or the Windbridge Research Center and places like that that study mediumship, there's this big argument about their experiences.
They're talking to dead people.
Are they actually just tapping into some kind of informational substrate that underlies everything, or are those the same thing?
You know, there was this cool article recently came out in the New York Times about these singing mice.
So, Cold Spring Harbor researchers are studying these mice that sing at a frequency that we can hear, humans can hear.
All mice vocalize at ultrasonic frequencies when they're close to each other.
But when they're far away from each other, these singing mice will do this.
Singing.
And I guess they call it singing because it sounds like singing to us.
It's really communication, of course.
But they wait, they take turns.
You know, I'll sing and then you sing.
I'll sing and then you sing, just like you would in a conversation.
And they looked at what the difference was between regular laboratory mice who don't do this and these singing mice because they were thinking these ones have speech and these ones just do this other thing.
Yeah, and so the reason I'm bringing that up is because if we can understand what gives mice the capacity to have this kind of communication and other mice the capacity that they don't have it, maybe we can understand non speaking autism versus sort of speaking autism or people who are neurotypical.
But it turns out that the difference just is in degree.
In other words, just a few more fiber tracks.
And so that's why I keep saying I don't think it's about something that's atrophied.
It's just like a slight difference allows us to speak.
Most people have that ability to speak.
People who don't are, I think, very much like that.
You get to be in contact with this information that is generally sorted out if you're using language more actively.
Like, you're like, I almost think that babies are probably telepathic.
I think that I'm wondering if that's how we learn language.
I keep thinking, like, we have so few exposures compared to an LLM.
We have very few exposures of, like, you know, death whistle.
Like, how many times do you hear that before you have to learn it?
If you're a baby, I have to, like, know that when you say apple, you're talking about the thing in your hand and not the 8,000 other things that are going on.
Right, but it would probably be if you could just, I mean, if you could access that memory to a time where you didn't understand language, but could you even do that?
This is like you're still there back experiencing it, making the bad choice or abuse or whatever it is.
But then your wiser self who's survived and who gets that it was a bad choice or who gets that it was abusive, you go back in time mentally and you see yourself.
So you're still there doing it, but it's like a second character is introduced in the timeline.
You see yourself and you go, you know what?
You're going to learn from this.
Things are going to get better.
You are loved.
It's going to be okay.
And that works regardless of whether it's a bad choice or whether it's abuse.
It's like you're doing the best you can no matter what.
Reminds me also of something I've noticed in the non speakers where they're not very good at labeling animals.
Like, Like camels and kangaroos might be the same.
It's like the physical form is not what's important.
It's just not what's important.
It's like the feeling on the inside.
To me, it's like proof of a soul or something.
I really think we ought to start studying souls scientifically because if we can show that, and this is, I didn't think we were going to talk about this, but wow, I'm sure that happens a lot.
But if we could start understanding what a soul is.
But if you understand, I guess I'm always coming back to the informational substrate because that's like my favorite concept.
But if you understand that underneath, if this is true, I sort of think this is true that underneath all of what we call physical reality, so space, time, matter, energy, is this informational substrate that it's almost like has all the information from the beginning of the universe to the end of the universe, like all of it, including like what you're thinking, feeling, et cetera, at this moment or other moments.
And if you could, I guess, insert information into it and read information from it, then I think maybe that means you have a soul.
Maybe that's what a soul is that which inserts information into that informational substrate.
So you change things in the world and read things from it, you perceive things in the world.
Maybe if you can do both of those things, it means that's what a soul is.
I'm not saying I'm wrong either, but I'm not saying I'm right.
It's aesthetically pleasing to me to.
Okay.
It does seem like people, whether they're.
Non speakers or people who are particularly gifted at remote viewing or whatever can go to different times in space time or different places in space, different times in time and get information that seems like in this physical world you shouldn't be able to get, right?
I mean, that's what I've been studying and I've shown that that's the case at a rate greater than chance, especially if people are in a place of self transcendence or feeling love.
And so that.
Suggests that there's this sort of link about what we call God or love or universal love or this ineffable force.
I don't know what to call it.
Universal love, I'll call it.
It suggests that there's a link between sort of what happens in the universe and what we experience and what we do and what we intend and this universal love force.
So I want to, as a scientist, I'm like, how do you make a physics of love?
Think about it as something that I can think of as what I could do physics or math on.
And that would, the way that comes out is like this informational soup or something that has all that information there.
And then it is, we play with it throughout our lives.
Because time doesn't work in this linear way that we're used to experiencing, right?
Like that's what precognition is showing us.
If you can get information about future events at a rate above chance, and I can do that, and other people can do that, and actually, most people can do that according to the statistics, and they're just not conscious of it, if your physiology is changing, then that means that information can leak backwards from the future.
The idea of a cosmic library that stores every event, thought, feeling, and intention that has ever occurred, often said to be accessible through psychic or mystical means.
That has ever occurred, but what about forever in time in the future, the potential future?
Yeah.
So in theosophy and anthroposophy, what is that word?
They're described as a non physical compendium of all universal events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intents spanning past, present, and potential future.
So, potential future meaning forever.
So, the idea that we're somehow or another when these people are able to sense something that's going to happen or know about an image that's going to be displayed, that this small leap in the future of a few seconds or a minute or whatever it is.
If you just think about time as a landscape, imagine time as a landscape.
There's a mountain, there's a waterfall, there's a tree.
And we're used to just walking in single file in one direction in the landscape.
But if you fly a plane above, you could say, oh, I see on the other side of the mountain, there's this waterfall.
And so flying the plane above is like doing any of these mystical practices, like with the Akashic Records or doing remote viewing or.
Accessing that information, accessing the landscape in a different way, not through this linear sort of physical dimension or reality or whatever you want to call it, but through some other, like maybe you go to a different dimension.
I don't know how to think about it mathematically.
It's doing quantum computing without a lot of expense.
So, when we go and we decide that we want to be the first in quantum computing and we're going to invest all this money in like super cooling systems and very difficult to understand error correction methods and all these things, working on trapping single particles at the subatomic level, and that's how we're going to have to do it to force it into these patterns.
Like, come on, we're doing something wrong.
A leaf can do it outside in the sun and does it all the time.
We're doing something wrong.
So, I started thinking that way like 12 years ago and got really passionate about photons and how photons are kind of like this, almost like a link.
This is another thing that I'm going to say.
You're going to be like, why do you think this?
But regardless, it came into my mind that photons are kind of like a link between mind and matter.
Like they're not really.
Like you said, they're made of magic.
They're not really matter.
They don't have any mass.
You know, and they're actually bosonic particles.
So there's two types of particles.
One is a fermionic, named after Enrico Fermi.
And those are things we're used to, like protons, neutrons, electrons.
And then there's bosonic particles, which are things that generally, I think, none of them have any mass.
And they're very different.
Like the Higgs boson is one, photons.
As another example, photons are another example.
I think there's a version of helium that's also bosonic.
But what makes it bosonic is it can be in the same place at the same time as another bosonic particle, and then another one, and another one, and another one.
So, like, they kind of don't exist in physical reality.
It's like we have this idea that two electrons can't be in the same place at the same time, and they can't, but these can.
And so, it's almost like they're interacting in another dimension that's less physical.
And it seems Just interesting to me that we think a lot about what a photon would feel.
And I just keep thinking that there's some connection between what we call mind and what we call brain that has to do with photons.
So, anyway, I got obsessed with photons and I started thinking about the double slit experiment.
Yeah, and this pattern, and so I was talking about photons, but yeah, you can do it with electrons, you can do it with larger particles, but, and that doesn't matter.
But if you hear that one double slit up there is really good.
The first bullet up there that you can't see on the screen, but is going to say that when you send a single particle one at a time, It has to choose between the slits, but it still seems to interfere with itself in space.
It's like it goes through both slits.
One particle goes in two places at once.
It's called non local in space.
It's non local.
In other words, it's not behaving like we're used to, it's not behaving like a billiard ball.
One thing is going through two slits.
So I kept looking at this and saying, well, it might be non local in space, but it could be non local in time.
And by that, I mean that if you put an electron or a photon in there, it could be interfering from the future, like with another electron or another photon that happens in the future.
And there's actually an experiment you can do to test that.
And I wanted to do the experiment.
So, first of all, did you understand what I just said?
And I think this experiment is like almost 100 years old.
So they were able to do that way back then.
So, imagine this photon gets shot out of this flashlight.
It interferes with another photon just like it from the future.
Just imagine that's possible.
If that's true, then in experiments where you have a lot of photons available to interact from the future, like in other words, the light is on for a long time, the interference pattern should show a different sort of pattern than if you don't have very many photons in the future, so the light's not going to be on a long time.
So, the experiment I wanted to do and that I did was look, just randomly determine how long this experiment's going to last.
How long are you going to leave this light on into the future?
And then look at the very first period of time.
Like, look at the first 30 seconds.
And after 30 seconds, you randomly choose are you going to turn this light off or are you going to leave it on for another two minutes?
In the first 30 seconds, can you determine what the choice is going to be based on the pattern?
If you can, that means this thing is interfering in time.
And it turns out you could.
So I ended up replicating that and replicating that and replicating that.
And then a friend at UC Berkeley, who teaches the advanced physics lab there, said, I want to set up my own equipment, do the exact same experiment.
I'm going to run it over a year.
And I'm going to see if I get the same result.
So he sent me his data.
He walked away.
I analyzed the data and I figured out the equation that relates the amount of future time after the decision to the detection pattern before the decision.
And so that's the kind of result that I think is going to actually shift quantum computing because you're working at room temperature with groups of photons rather than trying to trap them.
And you're treating them more like A giant unit, this unit in time, rather than this unit in space.
And so, actually, could I name drop my new company?
Well, if you think of a box, okay, so think of a really deep well.
Let's think of a well with water in the bottom.
You cannot see, you can't look over the edge.
It's so deep, you don't know how deep it is.
So, you might drop something in it.
And then you listen for the ding, and you can have a sense of how deep it is.
It's a little like this.
You can't know in sort of with our eyes how long that experiment's going to last, but you're getting a little reverberation from the future in the photons.
It's like they're telling on themselves like, we've got a lot of future photons to interfere with, so we're going to behave in this way, or we don't have so many future photons to interfere with, we're going to behave in this other way.
One of the things that people are very familiar about, though, know about the double slit experiment is the idea of the observer and how the observer changes reality.
So the thing about changing something is if it was all, if it was, I like to use the word influence because if it was already always going to happen, you didn't change anything.
The result is if you that that indicates this, if you put a little detector by one of the slits, because you say, I'm going to trap one of those, I'm going to trap a photon or an electron, I'm going to figure out which slit it's going through.
So you put a detector at one of the two slits.
If it if you get a bing, it means it went through that.
If you don't get a bing, it went through the other one, right?
What happens is the actual outcome now looks different.
You don't get the same interference pattern, you get a single slit interference pattern as if it didn't, it wasn't non local in space or time.
It didn't interfere with itself and it just kind of like went through like a billiard ball.
It's the problem with it, it's so weird and so weird to think of that.
And observing something changes it, that it makes people start to consider okay, like if that's the case, how much of observing the known universe is a part of it existing?
It's this approach of we're going to trap a single particle slash wave.
We're going to trap a single photon.
We're going to trap a single ion.
We're going to have it.
Behave in ways repeatedly according to these commands, these gates, these gating functions that they do.
We understand that.
The problem is, it seems to me it's forcing something that shouldn't behave that way, that doesn't naturally behave that way, to behave that way.
It's like we're trying to imitate classical computers with quantum computers, and we're not taking into account these group classical level properties that clearly a leaf uses when it's doing photosynthesis.
It has to.
It's not building a super cooling system and trapping ions.
It's functioning in this really wet physiological environment and it's doing just fine with quantum computation.
So it's more like the approach needs to become more naturalistic.
And I think it needs to take into account these temporarily non local phenomena like the one I discovered.
So the retrocausality thing would be that all time is happening in this figure eight loop.
And then somehow or another, this quantum computer is able to tap into that and have this infinite access to all potential future and past information.
So, the idea that this does that include a many worlds interpretation of the universe?
Is that also there?
And is it possible that not only do you get the time of all time available instantaneously, that because it is a part of a loop and somehow another A quantum computer is able to tap into that, but not just this timeline in this loop in this universe, but multiple universes, infinite in fact, that all of their time is also available.
But it is possible that even with our little monkey minds trying to understand retrocausality, we're not taking into account the possibility that retrocausality might exist in infinite timelines.
He's like a little quirky, like uh, alien face, engaging.
It took him five minutes.
I love it.
Um, yeah, so this book is not about aliens, and some people get disappointed.
It has an alien on the cover because people think of disclosure with aliens right now, but it's really about what you know, what we can find out by going into our inner space.
Like what we can find out by tapping into our own wisdom and our own experience and not waiting for some authority figure to say, Hey, this is what's true.
And now we will reveal the great secret.
Because honestly, when that happens, which could be literally tomorrow, it might be today with the release of the files.
And so, I think that disclosure, if you want to have a nice disclosure, it's really about learning what matters to you and disclosing all your own weird shit to yourself.
You know, all the weird thoughts like you're talking about that guy in your head, all those weird thoughts that we have and the weird experiences we've had in our lifetimes that we sort of bury.
We say that, like the thing about the ball lightning, I still forget that, and I've talked about it several times.
We sort of say, well, that's not normal.
That's not usual.
So maybe it didn't happen somehow, but it did, you know?
Or people who have experienced seeing UAP or UFOs, or people who are psionic assets, or people like me who have psychic experiences all the time.
And how I suppressed it so that I could go into get my PhD, and then it came up as a flower later.
I think that the movement has to switch, like we need a Copernican revolution where we're not looking for some authority figure to tell us what's true.
I would agree with that, but I also think it really helps if someone who knows more than you, who's honest, can tell you what's true.
What I was kind of getting into.
Well, I agree with that, but what I was kind of getting into is this idea of retrocausality.
If all timelines exist in the future, these things that people keep experiencing.
Which, if you just extrapolated from what we understand about evolution from ancient hominids to current human beings, to what do you think we're going to look like?
Well, that's what I think we're going to look like.
She's building a fund that's trying to invest in different companies that are using these kind of principles like alternative propulsion or, you know, informational time travel or these kind of principles, space time metric.
And so she's one of many people who recognize that we have to get sort of out of the top five contracting companies who are.
They seem like little, to me, they seem like little acupuncture points, like in the history of humanity, like little, just little acupuncture, like, oh, let's put a needle there.
Maybe they could have an iPhone.
Maybe they could figure out how to cure cancer.
Maybe they could figure out how to do faster than light travel.
So it does feel like, yeah, little acupuncture.
And it can be done with artifacts, like people find.
And I'm reading Diana Puzzleka's book, American Cosmic.
She talks about finding these artifacts.
Artifacts and how she's not even sure she believes in them.
And I totally get it.
I think I would feel the same way.
But then there's this other side to it that's not artifactual.
It's about consciousness, it's about some kind of mystical awareness.
You can also do acupuncture that way, right?
You could put into someone's mind, like, I'm not sure how I had the idea as a cognitive neuroscientist to do this experiment with photons.
I think you could put into someone's mind information that will be helpful to the future.
And I think that happens to people all over, inventors all over.
I mean, most people that I've talked to that are singers, songwriters, authors in particular, they'll tell you that these ideas just sort of come out of nowhere and you just got to be there to receive them.
I, um, when I was this morning, I'm like, oh, God, I just have to take a nap because I'm thinking too much about what I'm going to say on Joe Rogan's show, you know?
And that's just the worst when you're thinking about what you're going to say.
And we were also talking before about ego, and I think that's a part of the problem with the way people can create or not create, is that you've got to learn how to get out of your own way.
And everybody talks about that.
Writers always talk about that.
Like, you have to just get out of your own way.
And that's really what's going on with this wrestling match with the mind.
Well, but then they have another monkey on their back, which is they live in this culture in which people think they're idiots because we read each other's bodies and we say there's something wrong with the way you're moving your body.
You can't talk.
You're making these sounds.
And so you're free in your mind, but you're not free in your body.
Had to do it all just exactly as it was, like I was writing a song, you know?
And then what it kind of did was work on me.
Like, it had its own process that I didn't think it was going to have.
Like, I thought it would work on other people.
I don't know what I thought.
I just had to write the words.
And then I just, I guess in the back of my mind, I'm like, it's going to make people feel their own inner space in a way that's going to be unique to them.
And then it turns out I ended up feeling my own inner space in a way that was unique to me.
And then I had to write about that.
So I ended up talking about this, this gifted and talented program I was in and all the receipts I had from that and what the heck was going on with that.
It's funny to me how sometimes I'll swear and sometimes I'll say, heck.
But what it did was open up for a lot of people who were in these weird, gifted, and talented programs, opened up a lot of memories.
And I ended up starting a support group for people who had these experiences and kind of don't know what to do with them and still feel the surveillance and the sort of feeling of being studied throughout your whole life.
And not knowing if your gifts are your own or if they were taught to you in some kind of way that you've forgotten.
So, anyway, I don't know why I brought that up.
I guess about the getting out of your own way thing, I had to write all that down.
It's the best book I've ever written.
I've written other books, they're good, but this one is everything I wanted to say, nothing I didn't want to say.
And I got it all out there.
And I have a security clearance that I was afraid that it would get taken away from me if I said all these things.
I imagine they were trying to get talent in any way they can, especially if they actually invested time and energy, and we know they have in remote viewing and things along those lines.
At the time that they were doing these programs and giving students these weird drinks and doing some kind of mechanism to remove memory of certain things, they were not asking for parental consent.
So, yes, looking for talent, understood.
Yes, trying to look for psychic, I mean, the intelligence community has always been interested in psychic capacities.
So there's some kind of, and this is not, I mean, this is not different from what many other people will report who are in that program.
So some amnesia, either the drink was the amnesia or the drink is something else and they did hypnosis to make us forget or whatever.
The other time was when I was an adult, I was Adult ish.
I was 20 ish.
And I took some time off of college to go hang out in Palo Alto because I had a boyfriend out there.
I previously had a boyfriend out there and I was kind of into the Stanford world.
I wasn't at Stanford, but I was just into hanging out there and I needed a job.
And so I, it was the time when word processing was like you could get paid to be a word processor.
And I understood computers and I was like, I'll be a word processor.
So, I either got, I either saw an ad in the newspaper at Lockheed Martin or my dad told me, I know someone you should talk to at Lockheed Martin for a job.
I end up at Lockheed Martin for an interview in the morning.
They hire me on the spot.
Then I remember sitting and talking to the guy during the interview.
I could see the parking lot behind him, I see the desk.
Behind me, I'm vaguely sensing in memory some kind of weird equipment, but again, no memory of that.
Then I remember the end of the day.
When I'm typing on a computer, my hands are shaking and I'm crying.
And I don't remember what happened between the morning and the night in that moment.
I don't remember.
And I feel like I'm typing up a resignation letter.
But in my memory, it could have just been the thing I was typing up, like word processing.
But I hand it to the boss and I go, I can't work here.
And he said, Oh, I thought you would have a great future at Lockheed Martin.
I'm like, Why would you say that to a 20 year old who you know is going back to college in like three months?
Um, what a weird thing to say for a word processor who you just hired on that day, and then I left.
So, um, I don't know what to say about those instances.
My memory is usually pretty photographic, and my auditory memory is excellent.
I mean, so he was working for the Department of Energy when I was a kid.
And when I recently had a support group meeting like two days ago with the folks who were in these programs, and someone asked the question who here had parents who worked for either the public school system or federal government?
And everyone raised their hand, and then I said, who here didn't?
And maybe it's like, excuse me, I get burpy when I talk about stuff that's hard.
You know, maybe like I wanted to work for the federal government and I got a job offer and everything and went through the security clearance process and then Doge happened.
But I was recruited four days after I filed a FOIA to try to get information about that program.
And then a couple days later, more burpee, a couple days later, after I passed the first interview, I got a note from the FOIA people saying, Are you sure you want us to continue this FOIA request?
Four days later.
I mean, that's fast for FOIA.
Like, FOIA is not super rapid.
And then I said, No, I guess maybe not, because I was thinking maybe the people who were going to hire me maybe didn't want me to have an outstanding FOIA request.
So I said, Maybe not.
And then three minutes later, I got a call from the recruiter saying, okay, you've passed to the next level.
So the thing that I think was wrong, unethical, was not giving students things to ingest and doing experiments that removed their memory without consent of parents and the students.
It's just taking children and making, doing experiments on them.
It's like you're fucking weirding them out.
They're supposed to be playing with their friends and having fun and living a normal life.
You've all of a sudden changed all of that by introducing them to scientific experiments and making them drink fucking Pepto Bismol or whatever they've given you.
So I look it up, it corresponds to a government agency that monitors radiation exposure.
And the first document I find online is this document about these tests of radiation exposure in humans that started in the 70s.
And they're like, look, we can't do these tests on animals, we have to do them on humans.
It didn't say, like, let's give people radiation.
Or it didn't say, let's give people things that soak up radiation and help heal them.
It didn't say either of those things.
It just said, we have to do this on humans.
It was from the Nuclear Defense Agency.
And so that made me start asking questions about whether this has to do with trying to understand the effect of radioactivity.
And so I looked into a bunch of history and I found out that my mom grew up really poor.
Both her parents worked at a uranium mining facility in Denver.
And of course, her mother was a secretary, but her father was a miner.
And he would come home with uranium dust on his boots.
And so there's intergenerational exposure, right?
So if you're a parent, if your mother, especially because, you know, the eggs are, she was like seven or so, but if the eggs are in you your whole life as a woman, right?
And so if they get mutated, I could see now, oh, I would potentially be studied, and my sister as well.
So then I started looking at all these places where these programs developed.
The very first SOAR program was in the 70s and started in Aiken, South Carolina.
I found a bunch of newspaper articles about it.
SOAR at the time stood for, get this, students on active research.
Like, let's just call it what it is out loud, publicly.
But anyway, Aiken, South Carolina is right next to the Savannah River.
Nuclear facility that processed plutonium.
And so, and then there were a bunch of people who were in the SOAR program in Nevada, which is obviously a nuclear test site.
And then I talked to a friend who knows a bunch of special forces guys, but he grew up in a place where they had these weird radioactivity like actual containers, like in their school, like storage bins in their school, which is just weird.
And he was in one of these programs, and his friend was in one of these programs.
And so I think there might be something related to that.
And I don't know how all this stuff.
Ties in, but the story I'm again, this is just speculation and based on the receipts that I found and putting things together could all be wrong.
And some of my good friends in the intelligence community think it's pretty nuts.
But regardless, I would want to understand the effects of radiation on the human mind.
Maybe it could make positive things happen, like the at low level, at low levels, right?
Right?
Maybe I'm as a cognitive neuroscientist, I get it, but you just have to ask for consent, you have to talk about the risks, you have to be clear about it, and you don't.
It's clear that there's a file that kind of follows you, right, when you're in these programs.
Well, yeah, and people like me whose families were breaking up, and also, you know, you're in the public school and your parents are trying to hold their shit together.
So they don't know what's going on.
So, yeah, it's unethical, probably illegal.
And I understand that it may be for good reasons.
I mean, I think all those things are true.
And I think it's interesting that if you talk to kids who went to the gifted programs in the DC area in that same generation, They say none of this stuff happened to them, which is a red flag.
It's like you wouldn't want to do it to the executives, they are living in the DC area, right?
The executives in the intelligence community and in those contractors.
So you wouldn't want to do it to those kids because those are the kids of the executives.
But that's what made me want to, all this kind of difficulty in my early childhood.
Brought some clarity, and also, I guess, probably my psychic abilities or my precognitive abilities as an adult has brought some clarity around what really matters and what we can do to make the world a better place and how we can heal all that.
Now I understand why what you were talking about, like your youthful experience, that you would want to live it over again so you could forgive people and get over the trauma of it.
So, this is like a journaling, an audio journaling app that essentially prompts you to give messages to yourself.
And it says it's going into your time machine.
And then later it comes out and you hear yourself.
And it has a bizarre impact because what happens is we're not used to hearing, we're used to getting little messages from ourselves, like written, but not your actual self talking to yourself.
And it seems to be a real favorite of veterans and people who've experienced addiction and abuse, and any kind of situation where they could say, like, I'm going to be here tomorrow, and these are the choices I'd like to make, you know, and I'd like to love myself, and I'd like to feel love for other people.
So we've used it at Cook County Jail with a group of people there who really found it powerful, and with a couple of native tribes who would like to change it a little bit and make it fit their culture a little better, but still.
It looks like unconditional love itself, like from the math, if you look at the statistics of the results of this experiment we did, it looks like unconditional love itself caused a huge shift along with someone's time perspective, in which they started to include more, like started to love themselves over time more, like it's like a big bubble that extends over time.