There are many mysteries in biology. The
shaping of animals and plants as they
grow and the shaping of self-organizing
systems depends on a new kind of field
of physics which I call morphic fields.
These morphic fields have a kind of
memory given by morphic resonance.
Fields that enable telepathy from the
past to the present. A handshake across
space and time.
Fields are structures in space, but it's
not made of matter.
>> Rupert Chelre, if you're doing
experiments that show learned behaviors
moving between totally unrelated animals
within the same species, that shows that
there's something more at play than even
epigenetics and fields influencing us
and larger minds operating smaller
minds. I think our minds extend beyond
our brains through fields. And the idea
that consciousness has to be in brains,
that's much more counterintuitive. It's
a conscious world out there that we tap
into.
>> Can we say how morphic fields actually
interact with the everyday fields we
work with in science?
>> The idea of morphic resonance is that
there's a memory in each species, each
kind of thing. When a baby spider starts
spinning a web, it doesn't have to go to
spider school. It's tuning into the
experience of spiders in the past. So,
you can test this. Starting at Harvard,
they trained rats to escape from a water
maze. One exit was lit up and the other
one wasn't. And they had to learn to go
out of the dim exit or they got an
electric shock. And the first generation
of rats took about 250 trials until
after 20 or 30 generations, they got
down to about 25 trials. People tried
replicating it at Melbourne University
in Australia. In every generation, they
had rats that had descended from a
control whose parents had never been
trained. They compared them with rats
whose parents had been trained. They all
got better and I think that was morphic
resonance.
>> You wrote a book about the physics of
angels. What do you think their physics
are?
>> When they move from one place to another
from the point of view of the angel, no
time elapses, but from an external
observer, there would be a finite time
between it leaving one place where it
was acting and reaching the next place
like photons of light.
>> You famously wrote a great paper about
how the sun might be conscious. Not
every random bit of plasma is going to
be alive, but organized plasma
structures like the sun and the stars, I
think, could well be conscious. All
lightning, of course, is a form of
plasma and behaves in very anomalous
ways. It's on the fringe between UFOs
and regular physics cuz regular
physicists agree that it happens.
There's even a video actually of
somebody walking up to a plasmoid and
the plasmoids seems to cohhere to the
heartbeat.
You have people often receiving sort of
telepathic messages. And Robert Temple
talks about Moses's burning bush as just
being this plasmmoid ball.
>> We've got it basically completely wrong.
Thinking the whole universe is primarily
organized by gravity.
>> Ignition sequence.
>> How is this possible?
>> Nothing too unusual about that. Their
existence cannot longer be denied.
Rupert Cheldendrick, you are a rare,
very heterodox thinker. I think you are
a a polymath uh in in today's age of
hypers specialization and uh you've been
somewhat shunned or kicked out by
academia but I think you are far ahead
of them when it comes to the true nature
of reality and so it's an honor to be
back with you. I feel like I visit you
every every few years in your beautiful
uh Hamstead heath abode. Uh and it's an
honor to be with you. Thank you.
>> Good to see you again Jesse.
>> Absolutely. I want to start with um what
a human being is. It feels like our
sovereignty is being sort of flanked by
I'd say two things. One is AI passing
the sort of Turing test. It seems like
even if it's not necessarily thinking,
it's like as if thinking. And then
simultaneously, you have all this stuff
that you're studying around
self-organizing systems and fields
influencing us and larger minds
operating smaller, you know, influencing
smaller minds. And so what's left for a
single human being and and is there
something sacred about the individual?
>> Well, it's a big question, isn't it? Uh
I think AI, you see, is based on the
idea that the brain's a computer and it
it I think can do very well the kinds of
things that computers can do very well.
But there's lots of things computers
can't do very well. I mean, if I fell
and broke my leg, I don't think AI would
help me very much. I'd want somebody who
could pick me up and an ambulance that
could take me to the hospital. And um AI
might be able to coordinate dispatch
times for ambulances, but it's not going
to help my leg get treated.
>> We should note to the audience that's
not a full hypothetical, right? You were
stabbed in the leg while you were giving
a speech by a man who said that he
thought you were telepathically
controlling him or something.
>> Yes. So he was a paranoid schizophrenic
and unfortunately, you know, delusional.
Um, but there there was a case where I
actually did need people to carry me on
the stretcher to an ambulance and I'm
very grateful they did. And I had a
surgeon who knew what to do. I was
incredibly grateful for all that. And so
AI can help with kind of leftbrain
things, but it can't help with
activities of of, you know, doing
things. if if my plumbing system fails,
AI might tell me what's wrong, but it
it's not going to fix it. Um, so
obviously it's got those limitations.
But it has the another limitation
really, which is that because it's based
on the model of the brain as a computer,
it leaves out all aspects of minds which
are not just inside brains. Um for
example um well embodied existence the
fact we're embodied existent we have
sensory systems
um I think our minds extend beyond our
brains you know this is one of the it's
not just me a lot of people think the
mind is extended beyond the brain uh
through fields um one manifestation
would be in telepathy well AI is not
telepathic because it doesn't work that
way electromagnetic systems don't work
that way. And it's not spiritual either.
I mean, you and I can have mystical
experiences.
I've had them. Probably you have. Many
people have. Um, and that's not
something that's in AI. It's it's to do
with the spiritual dimension of minds
which are not captured by a computing
system modeled on leftbrain type
computation. So I think there's many
limitations of AI and I think if one
wanted to have a new Turing test um it
would probably be best to use telepathy
um Turing himself was very interested in
ESP and in the question of survival of
bodily death um and when he uh put
forward what's usually called the
cheering test you know if you talked to
a computer and it gave answers that were
just like a person you could hardly tell
them apart.
then that's clearly has been passed by
AI. AI certainly can do that. Um but he
then had this idea of telepathy as a
kind of test. ESP a computer can't do
that. Uh because that's not the way
they're built. It's not the way they
function. H I think the ESP conversation
is one that's very hard to have in the
sort of scientific model or framework
because if you show up to an experiment
and you're a priorized skeptical as the
scientific method teaches you that
you're supposed to be all the way back
to Francis Bacon, then you're sort of
negatively influencing the experiment in
this sort of ESP model. If you have this
sort of belief underlies reality, you
know, kind of ultimate idealism, then
you end up with all sorts of fractured
realities. It's sort of hard to have a
conversation at all, you know. So, like
how do we even sort of talk about these
things and do we do we have a paradigm
shift around them or do they remain
these sort of weak effects in these sort
of random event generators or sense of
being stared at experiments or that and
and that sort of thing? Well, when
they're tested experimentally, they're
usually fairly weak effects, but that's
I think because um telepathic phenomena
happen most or naturally under real life
conditions when there's a big emotional
charge involved.
I'm currently doing research, for
example, on telepathy between nursing
mothers and their babies.
Many nursing mothers have found that
when they're breastfeeding, when they
leave the baby to go back to work or
something like that, they find their
milk lets down, which means their breast
starts squeezing out milk and their
breasts often tingle. Uh that normally
happens when they hear the baby cry. But
um when they go back to work and they're
miles away from the baby and that
happens, most mothers assume their baby
needs them. And I've done experiments uh
which show they're actually they're
right. This coincides with the baby
showing signs of distress. And this is
not a normal feeding time. Um it
wouldn't be very interesting if they
always feed at 2:00 and this happens at
2:00. It's when it's not expected. Um
anyway, this is something you can do
research on. You can film babies, you
can film mothers, you can see whether
the coincidence is there. But in the
nature of this particular case, you
can't usually wake the baby at random
times to do a randomized experiment
because most mothers quite rightly don't
want that to happen. So in real life
situations like that, it's a bit hard to
do randomized tests. But where you can
do randomized tests that do work very is
with dogs and cats, which are much more
telepathic than humans on the whole. And
as you know, I've done a lot of research
on dogs that know when their owners are
coming home. Many people have dogs that
go and wait by a door or window when
they're on the way home. And this
happens at non-rine times. And in our
experiments where we film the dog, we
have people come home at randomized
times in unfamiliar vehicles.
>> 11 seconds after our distant departure,
JT walks to the window. When the taxi
arrives, he sits at the window full of
expectation.
So, we rule out routine. We rule out
vehicle sounds and smells. Uh, we rule
out people at home knowing when it's
happening cuz we don't when there's no
one at home or when the people at home
don't know. Um, and there over and over
again these dogs go and start waiting at
the door in a highly significantly
statistical way. So, I mean, I think
there's very good evidence for
telepathy.
The reason it's not accepted by many
people in the scientific world is not
because they've looked at the evidence
and think it's lacking. It's usually
because they haven't looked at the
evidence at all. Um, and they usually
say there's no point looking at the
evidence because these things are simply
impossible. Therefore, we know in
advance the evidence is flawed or
fraudulent. Um, so that's the biggest
difficulty I encounter. uh when I
encounter skeptics like Michael Shurmer
for example who as you know is head of
the skeptic society writes skeptic
columns he's a professional skeptic I
had a public debate with him and I
suggested you know here's this evidence
and he hadn't read the evidence he
wasn't interested in it at all when it
came to dogs that know you know I've
done I've published three or four papers
in peer-reviewed journals based on two
years of research hundreds of
experiments and he said, "Well, my dog
doesn't do it." You know, as if that's a
reputation of the whole thing, you know,
it's um it's the kind of innane level of
argument that I've got used to from
skeptics, not very sophisticated guys
who've carefully evaluated all the
evidence. It's childish. So, I I fully
agree with you. I think there is no
arguing with your uh method and with the
results that you're getting and with the
real effects that are happening. And yet
and and I think in other cases too I
have a friend you know um who who who
you've met as well who who helped run
the Princeton you know engineering and
anomalous research center under Bob John
and he's really high conviction in these
random event generator experiments where
the human mind seems to be able to
affect something that is conventionally
thought of as random in quantum
mechanics. So radioactive isotope decay
or double slit experiment with a 50/50
you know distribution between the right
slit and the left slit and then
somebody's intention seems to be able to
you know do more right slits or more
left slits and that is fascinating and I
think it is very real and yet when it
comes to humans ability to harness these
sorts of effects that feels somewhat
limited you know the CIA obviously had
this remote psychic remote viewing
program that it you know ran for for 23
three years, some version of it is
probably still going today. And yet, uh,
you know, when it comes to creating a,
you know, billion dollar hedge fund or
something, if we were able to
instrumentalize and harness this with
what human beings care about now, which
is, you know, often status, money,
materialism,
why wouldn't they employ telepathy for
those aims, you know, at a higher hit
rate?
Well, first of all, telepathy only works
between people who are closely bonded
emotionally. Um, if you look at the
natural history of telepathy, um, it
typically happens between parents and
children, lovers, husbands and wives,
brothers and sisters, identical twins,
um, therapists and clients where there's
been transference and counter
transference, best friends. It doesn't
happen with random people. And the same
with dogs. I mean, they know when their
own is coming home, but they don't know
when random people are coming. Uh, it's
usually confined to one or possibly two
people, this phenomenon. So, that would
mean if you were going to try and spy on
some someone telepathically, you'd have
to know them so well that you'd hardly
need to spy. So, telepathy by its nature
is not um very well adapted to sort of
commercial applications.
I think that people do use it all the
time. I mean, mothers,
there are millions of mothers who are
breastfeeding right now who know when
their baby needs them when they're away
from the baby. Until the invention of
the telephone, that's the only way they
could have known. Now, they they've got
smartphones. they perhaps don't need it
so much. But nevertheless, there's
countless stories of people who've come,
mothers who've gone to their baby when
it needs them, parents who know when
their child's had an accident and are
sometimes able to go there and help them
without having to be told by normal
means. So, it is actually in use and I
think in animal societies, it's the main
way they communicate with each other at
a distance. Wolfpacks, for example, I
think are able to communicate
telepathically over miles when they
can't hear each other or see each other.
>> Why do you think animals might be
better? Is it because when one sense
goes, another gets stronger and so we've
developed these sort of prefrontal
cortex reasoning abilities and we can we
can override or short shortcircuit this
sort of primordial telepathic sense and
so we sort of rely on it or or use it
less. Well, I think some humans
are really good at it. I mean, when you
hear stories from people who lived in
Africa or in India, I mean, I lived in
India myself. In some cultures, these
things are simply taken for granted and
people actually cultivate these
abilities. In our culture, the
educational system, the academic world
pretends they don't exist. It treats
them with scorn and derision. And so
when people do have these abilities,
they either don't talk about them
because they they're afraid they'll be
thought of as stupid or if it happens to
them, they think of someone who then
rings on the phone. Instead of saying
that's interesting, let's see if I can
improve this ability to intuit it when
someone's ringing, they say, "Oh, it's
just a coincidence." So there's um any
educated person in a western country has
been educated to dismiss these phenomena
rather than cultivate them. Whereas in
shamanic societies um the cultivation of
these kinds of abilities is very
important and very important for
survival as well. So I don't think it's
all humans who've lost these abilities
so much. I think it's educated western
secularized humans. And moreover, even
though uh we've been educated to believe
they don't exist, still about 85% of
people say they've had these experiences
with telephone calls, they've thought of
someone who then rings or they know who
it is when they hear the phone ring
before they look at caller ID. Um even
so, the majority of people even in
modern secular societies have these
experiences quite regularly. And when it
comes to the sense of being stared at,
knowing when you're being looked from at
from behind, you turn around, someone's
looking at you, about 95% of people
claim to have had these experiences. So
these are not just minority niche
experiences of a tiny handful of of
professional psychics or something like
that. These are part of our nature.
Everybody has that feeling they get when
they, you know, sort of cross the street
and they almost like look off a car
that, you know, might be coming towards
them. And you talk very eloquently about
this idea of, you know, we we believe
that uh perception occurs through
intrammission when in fact it might be
extra mission. We might be actually sort
of emitting the images that we see and
and you exist out there and I exist out
here. It's not you exist as a little
figment, you know, in my mind.
>> Exactly. Do you want to sort of lay that
out for us?
>> Yes. I mean, this is an ancient debate
about the nature of vision. It goes back
to ancient Greece and probably further.
Um, and astonishingly, uh, you know, in
the 21st century with AI and all our
amazing technological capacities, we
still don't know how vision works, even
though we use it every day and take it
for granted. And the official theory as
everyone knows is that light comes into
the eyes, inverted images on the
retiners, impulses up the optic nerves,
changes inside the brain, particularly
the visual cortex. And then all that's
well documented certainly happens. Then
the assumption is and it's only an
assumption that you generate inside your
head uh an artificial a kind of virtual
reality display of the external world um
uh which is in 3D in full color but it's
all supposed to be inside your head as a
kind of controlled hallucination. Um but
no one's ever seen these images inside
heads. Um but it's assumed that that's
just an assumption, not a shred of
evidence. Whereas I think that the
traditional view found all over the
world in all cultures and believed in by
almost all children under the age of 10
till they've been educated. um is the
traditional view is that when I look at
you u all that happens changes happen in
my brain and then the image of you that
I form you can call it a controlled
hallucination if you like as some
neuroscientists do uh but where is the
hallucination I think my image of you is
right where you are it's in my mind but
it's not inside my head therefore I
think in vision I'm projecting out the
images is called extrammission sending
out um uh sending out the images of
everything I look at. And now I look at
a tree behind you through a window. I
think my image of the tree coincides
with that tree. And because I think
we're emitting these images uh emitting
an influence from our minds, that's I
think why when I look at somebody from
behind, if they feel this sort of touch
of my mind, they may respond by
detecting it unconsciously. and uh
turning around. Interestingly, when they
turn around, we've done studies on this.
It's directional. They don't just feel
uneasy and gaze vaguely in all
directions. They swivel around and look
exactly at where the look's coming from.
This happens with animals, too. It's a
basic animal sense. What's actually
coming out of the eyes? Is it some sort
of, you know, unobtanium particle that
we're going to figure out in the future?
>> Well, that's the big question, isn't it?
That's why you see there's nothing in
existing physics that would deal with
this. Therefore, from the point of view
of most scientists, it doesn't exist if
it's not in physics textbooks. And um
and it doesn't exist because they
believe the materialist theory, the
mind's all inside the head.
>> Well, you being at the frontier of the
phenomenon, what would be your top
candidate for the causal mechanism?
>> Well, I don't know. I mean, that's it. I
I just don't know. If I had an answer,
it would be a massive breakthrough
because this would expand the frontiers
of science enormously to understand what
it the nature of the extended mind.
What I think might be uh underlying it
is um it depends on an interpretation of
quantum theory that you may be familiar
with the Kramer's transactional
interpretation.
um and it's been um further developed
since John Kramer put it forward. But
basically what he's saying is that when
light comes into the eye, a photon or
photon stream of photons comes into the
eye. When they're absorbed by the eye,
um the normal view is that this is a
one-way process. Photons come in and
they're absorbed and that's it. His view
is that there's what he calls a
handshake across space and time. that
when it's absorbed by the eye, there's
as it were the reverse of a photon goes
in the opposite direction backwards in
time and resonates with the atoms that
have emitted the light. So the light
instead of it being one way like that,
it's a two-way process when it's
absorbed there, it goes the other way
back to the um source of the light. And
this is called the transactional
interpretation of quantum mechanics.
It's been developed further by a
physicist called Ruth Castner who
published a book on this by published by
Cambridge University Press. We're not
talking some totally fringe thing that's
just in alternative media. We're talking
books on this published by leading
university presses. So if there's um a
reverse effect when I look at you, if
there are there are things that coming
out of my eyes that that there's the
transactional interpretation, if my
mind's coupled to those, then that would
provide a means already established
within physics as an interpretation of
how light works.
That would enable an influence to reach
you if I'm looking at your back. But
that leaves a further question
unanswered which I'm I think about this
a lot. How would you detect it? Why?
Because we've got two mysteries. First,
what's the influence that comes and
affects your back? And secondly, the
question of how you detect that
influence. Now, it's not detected by the
skin because people who are fully
clothed on a winter's day, you know,
with with long hair and gloves on and
you can't and you're looking from
behind, all you can see is their
clothing and their gloves and their
hair. Um, you not inch of skin is
visible yet. People respond to this and
furry animals that are completely
covered with fur uh respond to this. So
whatever the detection system, it's
something that goes through fur and goes
through clothing. And I think it has to
be some kind of field around the body.
And there's already lots of we evidence
for fields around the body. We know the
body has an electromagnetic field. The
brain has one. You can detect it with
EEG. It's pretty weak field. The heart
has much stronger electromagnetic field.
You can detect it from feet away. Um,
and this is not again this is not
dowsing with dowsing rods. It's using
standard electrical apparatus. So we do
have a bioelectric field and I think it
may be something to do with that. That's
just a guess, a hypothesis.
>> Well, Michael Leven at TUS has done all
sorts of amazing work about, you know,
yeah, the bioelectric field of the body
and how it dictates our limbs and
morphology in a, you know, a more
fundamental way than DNA in some ways.
is the DNA is sort of the hardware and
this is sort of the software, you know,
sort of writing the hardware.
>> The genetics sets the hardware. It tells
you what are the protein that, you know,
the channels and everything else that's
going to be there. I'm I'm saying
something something much more um
disruptive than that.
>> I believe in your experiments of
scopesthesia, you know, the sense of
being stared at, it also applies to
people looking through security cameras,
right?
>> Well, that's a question that I'm not
sure about that. that there's evidence
from uh I've interviewed security
guards, you know, surveillance personnel
and so on. People in the drug squad at
Heathrow airport, stall detectives at
Harrods, um people like that. And they
do say that some people can detect when
they're being looked at by hidden
cameras. They turn and look at the
camera. One store detective, for
example, told me that he saw some people
shoplifting shoes in the shoe department
at Harrods. He told some colleagues and
they came and watched some shoplifting
shoes and while they were doing it
suddenly one of the shoplifters suddenly
turned looked up at the camera they put
the shoes back and walked out of the
store. Um so there's some anecdotal
evidence that's the case. Now most
people don't detect it and I've done an
actual experiment where I have people do
randomized trials using FaceTime or Zoom
type cameras. Can you tell when
someone's looking at you on camera on
your computer? So, in these experiments,
if you were the subject, uh you'd have a
camera that pointed at you, and I'd be
on my computer miles away, and there'd
be a series of 10-second trials where
either I would see you or I wouldn't.
I'd see a picture of somebody else or a
distracting picture of some kind. And at
each trial, you have to guess whether
you're being looked at or not. And it's
a randomized sequence. In these
experiments with thousands of trials, it
comes out exactly at chance level that
certainly most people can't detect when
they're being looked at on a screen.
>> They cannot
>> cannot.
>> Interesting.
>> But some people may have an unusually
well-developed ability cuz most store
detectives and surveillance officers say
most people just don't know. But they
also there's a few people who do. And I
once had a visit from someone from the
Ministry of Defense here in Britain with
someone from MI5, our anti-spy agency,
and they wanted to know whether
they said, "Could terrorists train
themselves to know when they were being
watched on CCTV?"
To which I answered, "Well, probably
they could. You know, there's there's
some evidence, anecdotal evidence, that
people can tell. My own experimental
evidence shows that most people can't
tell. uh but that doesn't mean you
couldn't train it and some people may be
much better at this than others.
>> So yeah, this brings up a really
fundamental question with all of this
stuff which is if you're looking at the
bioelectric field as a possible
candidate for receiving somebody else's
staring at you. Um is is traditional
electromagnetism the right candidate?
Even when we talk about morphic fields.
So you know if a dog knows when their
owner is near or a child knows when
their their mother is near or as you got
into this sort of topic you know a a
bean plant grows around you know a pole
that isn't even there.
Can that possibly be traditional
electromagnetism which decays at one
over distance squared and we'd probably
be detecting those signals left and
right with you know radio antennas that
we have or does it have to be some new
sort of exotic electromagnetic signal
that we haven't yet detected.
I don't think traditional
electromagnetism can explain all these
things. Even Leven's results there's
definitely he's right. There's a
bioelectric field. You can see where a
eye is going to develop in a developing
new embryo and so on from a change in
the bioelectric field. There's
bioelectric fields around all cells and
all organisms. But I don't think that
they alone can shape the organism. I
think the bioelectric field is a
response to other formative influences.
uh they may be the interface between
what I call morphic fields and the
organism.
You see I think don't think the
bioelectric field has the ability to
carry all the form of every organism
within itself um and shape it because
it's more passive. It's responding. It's
produced by what's already there. Um,
and the shaping of of animals and plants
as they grow and the shaping of
self-organizing systems, I think depends
on a new kind of field that physics
doesn't have in its standard uh
vocabulary um, which I call morphic
fields. Fields that shape form. Morphe
means form. Uh, morphic fields are
fields of form. And I think that the
morphic fields that shape a developing
plant and the field of a leaf that
shapes the leaf and the field of the
flower leaf shapes the flower a flower
field or in the quantum level the
quantum matter fields that shape the
electronic orbitals around a nucleus. I
think these are a kind of morphic field
too. And I think these morphic fields
have a kind of memory within them given
by what I call morphic resonance an
influence of similar patterns on s other
similar patterns across space and time
from the past to the present. Now
electromagnetic fields can't do all
that. Um, but I think the
electromagnetic fields may be the
interface between morphic fields and
regular physics and biological objects
and so forth. Um,
so I think the basic point where I
differ from most of my scientific
colleagues is that I think there's
something that science has left out
that's really important. Um, it's to do
with the fields that shape things. It's
to do with the extended fields involved
in perception and in vision. is to do
with the kinds of fields that enable
telepathy to happen at a distance. I
think similar fields are involved in
bird migration, pigeon homing and I
think there are many mysteries in
biology which we can't solve at the
moment uh without taking into account a
new kind of field that's not part of the
scientific map at present.
That's why I'm drawn in my research to
phenomena that we don't understand
because I think it's precisely through
those phenomena we don't understand that
we're likely to expand our
understanding. If we take the view that
if we don't understand them, they're
impossible. They don't exist, which is
sadly what many of my colleagues assume,
um then we're never going to advance to
understand these things. So anyway,
that's my basic point of view. There's a
lot we don't know.
>> I think for a lot of people it's very
intuitive to see how light could come
from the sun, bounce off of you, and
then go into my eyes and then, you know,
some sort of retinal display of you
could exist in my in my head. And then I
think it's way more counterintuitive
for somebody to conceptualize the idea
that you are for me some sort of you
know handshake between the past and the
future in the present you're like this
constricted present and you're a
marriage between a maybe a photon and
some yet undiscovered anti-photon. So
what are you to me the perceiver and
what are all the objects around me in
this kind of onlogical model? Well,
first of all, I don't agree it's more
intuitive to think of it as being inside
the head. It's only more intuitive if
you've done a science degree at a
university. And um if if you actually do
surveys of what people think um vast
majority of people do think the images
are out there where they seem to be.
It's your direct experience. My image of
you is right there. So if somebody comes
along and says actually Jesse is not
sitting right your image isn't right
there. It's inside your head and you
just falsely imagine it's out there.
That's much more counterintuitive than
thinking my image is right where it
seems to be. And when you actually ask
people how they experience it, um I do
this in some of my lectures. I, you
know, sometimes say, "How many people
think that the images they're seeing are
out there where they seem to be?" Most
people just say, "Yeah, of course. If
they're unsophisticated, if they're
university graduates, they know they're
meant to say no." But um there was a
survey done at Ohio State University um
some years ago by a professor of
psychology who was appalled to discover
that most of his psychology students
believed that the images were out there.
Um you know he did them tests. He showed
little diagrams of you know does
something go out where is the image and
and most of them believed in the
extrammission theory. He regarded this
as a failure of scientific education. So
they had to go undergo compulsory
re-education.
So they had to repeat many many times
you know it's all inside the head and he
tested them immediately afterwards. Then
they got the right answer from his point
of view. 6 months later they'd reverted
to uh their direct experience. So I
think actually
when I try and explain this to people
who are not very sophisticated um
scientifically
most of them find it hard to believe
that anyone does think it's all inside
the head. I have to explain to them
there are people who actually believe
this. Say really you know they they find
it really hard to believe that what you
call the intuitive view is true. As I
say, I think it's only something that
sophisticated, scientifically educated
people know they're meant to believe.
>> Well, yeah. You I mean, you talk about
how the Greeks believed in extra mission
going back to Uklid. Um,
>> and yet again, and maybe this is too
biased towards the Western materialist
reductionist paradigm, but like
>> it's easy for me to conceive of, okay, I
am this like objective material person.
Light bounces off me. It goes into your
eyes. You sort of conceive of what I am.
this sort of handshake between, you
know, the future and the past feels a
little more hard to conceptualize. And
so I want to press on like what that
means ontologically. There's a cognitive
psychologist named Don Hoffman who talks
about, you know, you're probably
familiar with him, he talks about how
fitness beats perception and how the
probability that we are seeing base
reality is is zero. Essentially, the
probability is zero that any sensory
system has ever been shaped to see any
true feature of objective reality. And
so what are you looking at when you look
at the outside world? Are you do you
believe the mind collapses the wave
function like you know a Roger Penrose
you know this constriction between uh
past and and and and future that you're
seeing this sort of transactional
theory. What what does that mean as far
as onlogical truth? I think the mind
constructs um based on habit and um
based on expectation
an image or you could call it even a
hypothesis about what's likely to be
there and that we project out our
projection is our mental projection. And
of course the mind can get it wrong.
That's the basis of optical illusions
and hallucinations. We project out
things that aren't there if we're
hallucinating. Um, and in our dreams,
uh, we're projecting out an entire
three-dimensional full color world, um,
even when we're asleep. So, our minds
can do this without any visual input at
all. Our eyes are shut. So, our minds
have the capacity to create
three-dimensional projectional worlds.
In the dreams, it's not anchored to
perception and can float free in a kind
of realm of possibility. During waking
life, it is anchored to perception. And
normally what we see is that's why Annel
Seth the neuroscientist calls it a
controlled hallucination our normal
perception. So I think that's perfectly
valid way of I mean I he's a
neuroscientist and a materialist and I
think he's right about that and it's not
I don't think it's very contentious that
it's a kind of projection of our own
mental construct.
Um, so the qu the only question is where
Seth and I would differ is that he would
say this projection and controls
hallucination is all inside the head.
And I'm saying well if it's a
hallucination and it's non-physical why
should it be restrained by the bone of
the skull? I mean uh you can't have it
both ways. If it's an all illusion why
can't illusions be extended and our
dreams are extended and they don't seem
to be con constrained by the bone of the
skull. So what about what you're seeing
is something that's sort of objective
and outside of yourself and what about
what you're seeing is, you know, being
extritted or superimposed by your own
mind and preconceptions.
Well, I think that when you're looking
at a tree, the tree is really there and
it's has its own organizing field and
its own relationship to the environment.
It's not just a construction of my mind,
but my interpretation of it and my
projection of my image onto the tree is
a construction of my mind. And and the
way that I see it will depend on well,
partly depend on how much I know about
trees, my previous experience of trees,
my memory, etc. will depend on my own
personal history and and and my own
prejudices and biases and all that. Um,
but I'm not. So, so what we're seeing is
definitely in my view a projection, but
it's not a projection into nothing into
a vacuum. We're not making it all up.
I'm not a solopsist. Everything that
exists has its own organizing fields,
its own position in relation to
everything else. So, I think it's really
there.
Last time we spoke uh you were doing
research into Michael Faraday who was
really the father of electromagnetism at
least in its kind of theoretical
conception in the early 19th century. He
was a poor bookbinder in South London
and uh an apprentice to a famous chemist
at the time and then came up with these
sort of lines of force model which then
later got developed by James Clerk
Maxwell. Um you were saying that you
were looking into these sort of lines of
force as and fields as uh you know a way
to possibly explain morphic fields. Is
that is that right? Do do you feel like
you've made any progress since then?
>> Well I think about fields a lot. You
know what are fields? I what is the
electromagnetic field? What is the
gravitational field? And so I think
morphic fields are fields. But so when
people say well you know what kind of
what what are they then it makes me
wonder you know well what is the kinds
that everyone accepts exists
gravitational electromagnetic fields
what are they and this is a very deep
question you see that
>> differential calculus maybe I don't know
>> that's a ma calculus is not the field
it's a model a mathematical model of the
field
>> sure
>> and so the field itself has a reality if
I drop something it falls to the ground
the gravitational I'm not seeing
equations. I'm seeing a pull uh that the
earth exerts that it's holding us in our
seats right now otherwise be floating
around. So um
the to understand the nature of fields
really brings us to a question about the
nature of causation
and I mean this involves history of
science. I don't know whether it's
whether you think we should go into this
but I can do if you'd like to. Well, are
you talking about causation in like, you
know, the the kind of Chsky mind body
problem of
>> No, no, I'm talking something that that
about the very nature of causes. This is
something Michael Leven's very
interested in too and and he and I have
discussed this recently. Um you see with
17th century science the mechanistic
revolution in science it said
everything's mechanical and basically
depends on forces and forces push and
pull things. You know a billyard ball
hits another billyard ball and moves it
along. Um so it's based on contact and
pushing and pulling um mechanical
causes. But when Faraday introduced the
idea of fields, he had the idea of
something that's physical. The field is
physical, but it's not material. The
field around a magnet is a physical
reality that has physical effects at a
distance from the magnet. Um, not by
pushing and pulling, by direct physical
contact. Um, so the field's something
else. It's extended in space. It's a
region of influence, but it's not made
of matter. Uh well in the 19th century
people tried to say well it must be made
of matter cuz everything is material. So
they said it's made of subtle matter
called the ether. And so they tried to
invent a new kind of matter called the
ether. Then Einstein came along in 1905
with the special theory of relativity
and said well actually fields aren't
made of matter. There's no such thing as
the ether. They're just made of fields.
Fields are structures in space that have
causal effects through their structure,
but they're not made of matter. So
people then said, well, what are they
made of? And he said, they're just made
of fields. So then in super string
theory, grand unified field theories,
and physicists ever since then have been
trying to explain the fields. And
basically what they do is say it's
fields all the way down. Um, in super
string theory, they say there's 10
dimensions of space and time. um they
were all there at the big bang. There
was a unified field. Then it split up
into the gravitational and the
electromagnetic and the strong and the
weak nuclear force fields. Um um they
all came from an original field with
many dimensions and it's fields all the
way down. So then you say, well, what's
that made of? It's not matter. It's not
is it made of space or is it made of
time or you say, well, yes, they're made
of space time. But then what are they
made of? you always reach an end, you
see. Um, and I think morphic fields are
fields like other fields that are
basically patterns in space that have
formative influences. Isn't that just a
replacement for ether? The critique of
the ether would be well actually it's
funny. you know, Einstein did sort of
semi, you know, pour cold water on it in
1905 and then in 1917 he said uh that uh
the ether actually isn't totally
incompatible with relativity. Um but
when I hear that it just sounds like
okay well maybe there's some more higher
abstract field that is operating on
these like low-level fields that we can
detect and have control over. What do
you say to that? Well, I think there
might be. I think it's it's fields all
the way down and all the way up really.
>> What's the difference then between
morphic fields and the ether?
>> Well, the ether is just the the ether
was not a field in itself. The ether was
something fields were supposed to be
made out of. The lines of force were
made were supposed to be in Faraday in
Maxwell's first model of lines of force
of Faraday. They were lines in which the
ether was a fluid that flowed in spirals
along these lines. They were like tubes
containing spiraly flowing ether. It was
the the this flowing nature of flowing
matter. But the thing is the ether
didn't in itself have a form. The ether
only had a form when it was shaped by
the fields. So the you could say that
the fields came first even in the most
developed ether theory of Farad
Maxwell's electromagnetic ether model of
lines of force. Um the ether was shaped
by the field. The ether didn't explain
the field. You still needed the field.
Uh the ether was what was inside the
field or shaped by it.
>> Can you say anything specific about the
relationship between a morphic field and
say the electromagnetic field? Cuz it
seems like we cut straight to morphic
fields and then, you know, the behavior
of rats in river banks where, you know,
they know how to make it to to shore
safely because, you know, their their
ancestors did or a crystal structure,
you know, growing faster because it's
already been grown, that sort of thing.
But can we say how morphic fields
actually um interact with the everyday
fields we work with in science? Well, I
think the question and we can ask the
same question in a much more
conventional framework. What's the
relationship between the quantum matter
field of an electron and the electric
charge of the electron? Cuz we've got
two fields associated with the electron.
There's the electric field everyone
knows about. Um and and according to
quantum theory, there's the quantum
matter field which binds the energy in
an electron field to take on the nature
of an electron and to move in orbitals
around the atom. Now, it's not the
electromagnetic field that's shaping
those orbitals. It's the quantum matter
field. And so an electron has two
fields. It has a double nature. One its
electron nature, the electron field, the
other its electric nature. And a neutron
which is in the nucleus, one of the
nuclear particles has a quantum matter
field of the neutron but it doesn't have
an electric field. So we have fields.
We've already got two kinds of fields
which are interacting or coexisting even
in quantum theory. So I think the
relationship between morphic fields and
electric fields is a bit like that at
all levels of organization.
But if you say then what exactly is the
relation between them? I'd say well then
what exactly is the relation between the
electron uh quantum matter field of the
electron and the electric field of that
electron? And I'm not sure that anyone
has a very clear answer to that.
>> No, probably not. Um do you have you
ever looked into the subquantum field?
So this idea of vector and scalar
potentials for example you have the
aronoff bone bone effect where you could
have you know um uh vector and scalar
potentials present without you know
traditional electromagnetic wave present
and um some people think that that
points towards an extended view of
electromagnetism and actually if you go
back to James clerk Maxwell's original
uh 20 equations and not the condensed
heavy side you know four vector calculus
equations that were simplified and later
used in most textbooks. Um that there
are things that that allows for and and
in fact um they say that you know maybe
the Loren gauge shouldn't be necessarily
set to zero because of the presence of
these vector and scalar potentials. Um
and there's even a guy named Hal Putoff
who's kind of at the forefront of the
UFO conversation in the United States. I
don't know if you've ever met him.
>> Yes, I have. Yes.
>> Well, there you go. um and he is working
on sort of communications using vector
and scalar potentials. And so I don't I
don't know if you've ever looked at that
as sort of a candidate because these are
supposed to decay at 1 / r not 1 / r
squared necessarily. And so and he by
the way ran the CIA's psychic spy
program and he thinks that maybe you
know his sort of extended electronamics
model might explain these sort of
telepathic you know abilities.
One of the main reasons I'm able to go
multiple hours on these podcasts while
staying mentally sharp is because of
this little drink. It's a product I
started using years ago and it's called
Ketone IQ. I know the founders Jeff and
Michael personally and I was thrilled
when they agreed to sponsor the show
because it's one of the few products I
trust to give me clean, sustainable
energy. I've been taking a little shot
of this thing during every long
recording and it lights my brain on
fire. Here's the science behind why it
actually works. When you're running on
glucose or sugar, as your brain is most
of the time, it's essentially burning
dirty fuel. Your brain could be like a
Ferrari, but you're feeding it 87 octane
fuel all the time. Ketones are what your
brain actually prefers when it's
operating at its best. Normally, you'd
have to fast for days in order for your
body to switch from glucose to ketones.
This little shot of Ketone IQ gives you
the ketones directly, so your brain runs
the way it's supposed to without any
spikes or crashes. So, visit
ketone.com/alchemy
for 30% off your subscription order,
plus receive a free gift with your
second shipment. That's
ketone.com/alchemy
for a whole 30% off or find ketone IQ at
Target stores nationwide and get your
first shot free. And he, by the way, ran
the CIA psychic spy program and he
thinks that maybe, you know, his sort of
extended electronamics model might
explain these sort of telepathic, you
know, abilities.
Well, I'm not a physicist or a
mathematician, so I can't really
understand what they're saying. I mean,
I know they're saying it, and I've met
Putin and I knew Bow quite well. We had
quite a few dialogues.
>> What was he like?
>> Well, he was a very thoughtful man and a
very open-minded thinker. Um, and
fun to talk to. I mean, because he had
an original free he was a free thinker.
He just wasn't hemmed in by the normal
dogmas and prejudices that many
scientists are.
>> Can you explain where he sort of broke
with the curb Copenhagen interpretation
of quantum mechanics and you know some
of his basic beliefs for the audience?
>> Oh well again I'm not an expert on
physics but basically
they were saying that um it's pure
chance where electrons would move in
double slit experiments. I mean, I can't
go into all of this, but they were
saying that the electron is guided by um
a probability distribution. It's random
which way it goes and and so on from any
individual electron. He thought the
individual or the electrons were guided
by what he called a potential wave
and that this this wave he thought there
was a new kind of field which guided
quantum processes, an invisible field um
that shaped what was happening and that
these fields were embedded in yet more
implicit fields. he called the implicate
order that there was a whole set of
shape structuring or shaping fields in
nature which underlay quantum processes
and uh it wasn't just random and it
wasn't just a matter of what you can
observe and you can't ask any questions
except for the results of the
experiments the Copenhagen thing which
says basically don't think about it um
>> I believe he also resuscitated de
brogley who had like a pilot wave model
and wasn't
>> it was a pilot wave wave model, his
potential, it was a pilot wave. So they
there was these invisible pilot waves
that shaped what happens
>> and he liked the idea of morphic fields
and we discussed it together at some
length and um because he came to the
conclusion that his fields um would
depend on what's happened in the past.
There'd be a kind of memory built into
them. So if rats learned a new trick in
one place, it would make it easier for
the same kind of rats to learn it
somewhere else, which is what I say from
the point of view of morphic resonance.
So it turned out that his theory
predicted just the same kinds of things
as morphic resonance, but it came to it
through a physics lens, through a
quantum physics approach.
>> So we got on really well and he was
actually very interested in morphic
resonance. He was also very open to
psychic phenomena like telepathy.
um because he thought his interpretation
of quantum mechanics uh would uh enable
these other hitherto unrecognized
altering principles in nature to be
fitted into the rest of science.
>> He's a fellow heretic among academics.
He was known as really Einstein's
smartest student and then sort of got
banished.
>> Well, yes. I mean, there was this famous
thing. There was recently a documentary
about Bow. You've probably seen it where
Robert Offenheimimer who was one of the
leading physicists at the time when Bow
put forward his pilot wave theory he
said uh we must find a way to refute Bow
and if we can't refute him we must
ignore him and that's what they did they
couldn't refute him so they ignored him
and they kind tried to airbrush him out
of quantum physics as it was taught in
universities.
Well, he's come back a bit, but he's
still treated as a fringe figure, even
though he was one of the most brilliant
physicists of his generation.
>> Yeah, it's unfortunate. There's a great
book um by a science journalist named
Adam Becker and it's called what is real
and it goes back to all the kind of
early uh quantum interpretation debates
at the Copenhagen school where Einstein
would go over there and he would debate
Neil's boore and it was basically this
question of like what is wave function
collapse and there there's a reason
Einstein called you know entanglement
spooky action at a distance it was very
spooky and ontologically very trippy to
him and so he wanted to kind of explore
the trippiness of you know what the
implications were for these measurements
uh on reality itself whereas Bora was
more of this you know sort of you know
hey this is just a mathematical
formalism if you think you understand it
you don't understand it and that turned
into this sort of shut up and calculate
model but I I do think going back to
those early debates is important because
even the the idea of the the the
Copenhagen interpretation itself that
you know if we do have free will, for
example, if you're choosing to make a
measurement, then you're sort of
changing reality fundamentally because
that collapses the the wave function.
So, we're all just going around wave
function collapsing constantly. Yes. And
we're sort of choosing at what rate to
do that and how to do that and then but
it's just supposed to be this role of
the dice and and and and random as as
you know to what kind of state gets
picked in the in the wave function. It's
very confusing and I think we should go
back to those debates. Well, that's why
I'm interested in Faraday and the nature
of fields. And you see, one of the
interesting things about the nature of
fields is that they can act without
energy. You see, when the Earth's
gravitational field stretches out into
space, if a meteor comes near the Earth,
the Earth, it's pulled by the Earth and
it crashes into the Earth and makes a
big bang when it hits the Earth and
throws up lots of soil and stuff and
rock. Um, now that's an energetic event,
the crash of the meteor. But the Earth's
gravitational field expends no energy at
all in making that happen. And in fact,
the meteor adds to the mass of the Earth
and marginally increases its
gravitational pull. And the same with a
magnet. When a magnet on your fridge
door holds a piece of paper on the door,
that's not expending any energy. And yet
it's doing something. And you see, we're
used to the idea that causation is
energetic. This is going back to the
17th century idea of causes are
energetic with pushing and pulling
involves measurable amounts of energy.
And thermodynamics is all about work and
energy and and so on. Um, but actually
fields don't work energetically. They're
not a for a kind of energy. They're a
kind of form. Their role is formative,
not energetic. And so there's a kind of
causation in nature which I call
formative causation. Uh which in the
ancient world Aristotle in ancient
Greece called formal causation. Uh that
which causes form is not the same as
energy or matter. And you probably know
his famous four causes. I maybe I should
I think they're very important for this
discussion. Aristotle said to understand
anything you have to understand four
reasons or causes. So he gave the
example of a sculptor making a sculpture
to put in the marketplace.
There's the material cause. That's the
block of marble. You can't have the
sculpture without that. There's the
moving cause or what he called the
efficient cause. That's the chisel. The
sculptor's chisel chipping off bits of
marble. And you can't have a sculpture
without that. Then there's the formal
cause and that's the idea in the mind of
the sculpture of the person he's making
the statue of. Now that is not the same
as the matter of the marble and not the
same as the energy of the chips chipping
chisel. And there's the final cause or
the goal or the purpose. Why is he
making it at all? He's had a commission.
He's being paid a fee by the town
council to make the statue. And what
happened in the mechanistic revolution
of the 17th century was that scientists
said, "Oh, this is all old stuff. We
don't need Aristotle. All the stuff
taught in the universities. It's a
revolution. We're going to reject all
that. There's only two kinds of cause.
Material causes, matter, and efficient
causes, energy or force. And these
explain everything. And they omitted
formal causes and final causes. no
purpose in nature, no purpose in
anything. Things don't fall to earth
because of a purpose. It's just
mechanical causes. Um, and there's no
formal causes. And so, ever since then,
science has been incapable of explaining
forms, which is why the problem of
morphogenesis, the development of form
in biology is so intractable within
mechanistic terms. That's why Michael
Levan and I and others think you have to
have formal causes which are given by
fields which are formal causes. Now I
can actually illustrate this but I have
the my favorite demonstration here if if
I could show it to you please. Well I
have to explain this a little bit. This
is called a Golton board. This you see
is a normal distribution curve. Can you
see these small metal balls? I can. Is
that after Sir Francis Golton?
>> Yes, after Sir Francis Golton, the
statistician, the founder of statistics.
And what this does is you tip it over
like this and all the balls roll down to
this reservoir here of balls. Now, when
I tip it over, they're going to roll
down each one of the pegs. The ball can
go left or right. And so, it's chance
which way it goes.
And so what as a result of that is you
get the normal distribution curve and
you can do it over and over again and
it's slightly different each time
because it's a chance exactly which way
each one goes. So
you see each of these pegs here it can
go that way or that way. Very few of
them go right every time.
>> Very few go left every time. Most of
them go sometimes right, sometimes left.
And on average they go about the same
number of right and left. That's the
middle of the curve. Now this is
straightforward. It's demonstrating
using gravity as the motive force how
the balls fall. And that's randomness
and it illustrates randomness. Now what
I'm going to do now is I've got a pair
of magnets here,
>> regular magnets which attract each other
of course
>> and I'm going to put them on this golden
board.
So that there um
between the magnets there's now an
invisible magnetic field right between
the magnets they're steel balls. So um
obviously the magnets's going to affect
the steel balls. Now I now run the
>> Makes sense. Yeah. So you have a
distribution.
>> So you have a bias distribution that's
no longer the normal distribution. I've
biased the randomness
>> by means of an invisible field.
Now, you know, some people say, well, so
what? You know, obviously it's a
magnetic field going to attract steel
balls. You know, what's the big deal? I
mean, that will is that's a simple
response. But if you think about it a
little bit more, it's it's really very
interesting because this magnet has lost
no energy in bringing about this
distribution change in in otherwise
random distribution. It's not expended
any energy. You do it over and over and
over and over again and it won't lose
any energy. it won't get weaker as a
result. And
>> I think the implications of this are are
are massive because you take something
like Schroinger's equation which
predicts all sort of subatomic particles
and their you know position and you know
you know where they're supposed to be at
any given time. There could be some sort
of you know implicate order above them
sort of biasing you know what
probability gets picked. It's not you
know ultimately random. there's
something ordered uh beyond the
perceived randomness.
>> Well, that's exactly how I think morphic
fields work. You see, I think they bias
the intrinsic randomness of quantum
processes or of higher level process. I
mean, the weather's basically random.
You know, lots of chaotic dynamics
systems are basically random. It's not
just at the quantum level. And I think
that these fields work by biasing
randomness. And in order to bias it,
they don't have to be a form of energy.
This magnet is not a form of energy.
It's the magnetic field has energetic
consequences, but it's not doing it by
expending energy. And so the magnet the
morphic field can actually have causal
effects, but without working by, you
know, brute force pushing or pulling
something by contact. It's shaping
otherwise random processes. And that's
that's I think how I mean this is a very
simple illustration of that principle.
We have a random process. It's sh it's
influenced by an invisible field and it
hasn't expended any energy. If I put the
magnets here where they're not going to
immediately in influence where the balls
are falling
then
you'll get back to your normal
distribution curve. I mean there might
be a tiny influence from this but the
the the the
position of the field affects what
happens and the field isn't itself doing
it through energy. I mean it's the same
amount of energy for me to put the
magnets here or to put them there. And
it's my choice where I put them. And
again my free will I think is working by
biasing otherwise random processes in my
brain and in the world around me um in
because it's working through fields.
>> Do you think there's a central
repository of learned knowledge that
when you do something new so we should
probably go back to classic you know
morphic field experiment. Uh do you want
to explain like the rats on the
riverbank and then I'll get in my
followup question?
>> Um well the idea of morphic resonance is
that similar patterns repeat. Basically,
it's the theory that the so-called
regularities of nature, the laws of
nature are habits, not governed by
eternal laws, all fixed at the moment of
the Big Bang. That there's a kind of
memory in nature. And there's a memory
in each species, each kind of thing,
each kind of crystal, each kind of
animal, uh each kind of plant, each kind
of planet, or each kind of star. And so
when an oak tree is growing, it's tuning
in because it's similar. It got similar
DNA and similar cell structure and so on
to past oak trees. And it's shaped by
the forms of past oak trees. There's a
kind of um formative field, the morphic
field, uh with a memory of past form.
And the same is true of behavior. When a
baby spider starts spinning a web, it
doesn't have to go to spider school or
web spinning workshop or anything. It
just does it instinctively. And I think
it's tuning into the experience of
countless spiders in the past. It's a
habit of the species. So you can test
this. And so the most famous experiment
was one done not to test morphic
resonance. It was done anyway to test a
different theory. But it was the biggest
and longest series of experiments done
with rats. Starting at Harvard, uh they
trained rats to escape from a water
maze. They had to swim and get out of
one exit or the other. And one exit was
lit up and the other one wasn't. And
they had to learn to go out of the dim
exit uh or they get got an electric
shock. And it alternated at random. And
the first generation of rats took about
250 trials before they got it right
every time, before they learned. The
next generation took about 200 trials.
Next from one about 150 until after 20
or 30 generations they got down to about
25 trials. And this was um an
improvement in learning which now might
be explained by epigenetics because the
rats were descended from trained
parents. Um and the experiment was
actually set up to find out whether
there was an inheritance of acquired
characters, whether parents could pass
on what they'd learned to their
offspring. Um well um this was um very
controversial at the time and so people
tried replicating it at Edinburgh
University and at Melbourne University
in Australia and their rats with the
same breed of rats, the same water maze
uh same kind of water maze started off
making about 25 errors. They took up
where the Harvard rats had left off. But
the Melbourne experiment involved a
control group. In every generation they
had rats that had descended from a
control whose parents had never been
trained. They compared them with rats
whose parents had been trained and they
all got better more or less the same
extent. So it was not passing on through
the genes or epigenetically something
else was happening that was making them
get better and I think that was morphic
resonance. So, learned behaviors that
transcend genetics. And uh we've talked
about this in the past, but you know,
this seems like it flies in the face of
Darwin, but you you actually talk about
how Darwin wasn't as much of a modern
Darwinist as people sort of think he
was. And I believe in the descent of
man, not you know, on the origins of
species, he sort of entertains ideas
like this.
>> Well, Darwin's very far from being a
neodyarwinian, which put all their eggs
in the genans basket. I mean, they all
think the the whole point of Dawkins
type neodyarwinian evolution is it's all
in the genes. But Darwin didn't think
that. He didn't know about genes for a
start because they weren't discovered
till or rediscovered till around 1900
after his death. Um, but Darwin was a
strong believer in the inheritance of
acquired characters. Um he even gave he
wrote a letter to nature, the
International Scientific Journal, um
about a dog that he'd heard about. It
was an anecdotal story he thought it was
worth repeating in nature. This dog was
very afraid of butcher shops and every
time it went past them, it was
terrified. And it turned out his father
had been terrified of butcher shops. Um,
so Darwin speculated that maybe the
grandfather had been mistreated by a
butcher and this aversion to butchers
had been inherited. Well, I mean that's
very like a morphic resonance type
effect. Um, so Darwin was would have
been perfectly happy with morphic
resonance I think. And some recent
experiments on that were done with mice
um which were when they were discussed
in nature the headline was inheriting
the fears of fathers u where where they
trained mice um male mice to be averse
to a chemical called acettophenone.
It's a synthetic chemical smells a bit
like cherries. So they smelt this. They
gave them electric shock in their paws.
this classic rather cruel Pavlovian type
experiment, condition diversion. They um
after this had happened a few times,
they were petrified when they smelled
acetto phenone. They then bred from
these male mice with mothers who hadn't
met them before um and they tested their
offspring, their children and their
grandchildren. And whenever they smelled
acetto known, they froze with fear. So
um this is a very recent experiment um
and they try and explain it in terms of
an epigenetic change in the sperm cells.
Some chemical modification of the
methylation of the DNA or small bits of
RNA or something that have been included
in the sperm. Um but I think it could
well be a morphic resonance effect.
Well, if you do it halfway across the
world with, you know, unrelated uh, you
know, animals, you know, rats, you know,
>> unfortunately, that's not what they did.
And, um, it's I haven't been able to
persuade anyone to do that experiment,
but um, it should have worked around the
world. Yes. Um so anyway the thing is
that in in modern epigenetic research
which as you know is research that shows
that organisms can inherit
characteristics acquired by their
parents adaptations or for example in
plants in tomato plants or in other
plants if the plants are attacked by
insects they make a chemical that um
protects against insect detect. they
make chemicals within them that are
toxic to insects or repellents. Um, and
if you do this and then grow seeds from
those, their offspring uh automatically
produce more of these repellent
chemicals and they're more insect
resistant as a result of their parents
adapting to insects. This is called
epigenetic inheritance. And under
neodyarwinism, which was all about
genetic inheritance, it was impossible.
In fact, they had a big taboo against
the inheritance of acquired characters.
But this is now mainstream biology. It's
now widely accepted this really happens.
And this is getting very close to
morphic resonance. You see, they assume
that there's a molecular mechanism that
can explain this. But I think they
should include in these experiments a
morphic resonance control uh where
they're not descended from the parents.
You're just seeing whether this would
happen anyway. Um because I think there
could be a morphic resonance component
to these epigenetic effects.
>> Just to explain to the audience, you
know, I think genes were seen as static
for a long time. Now they're seen as
turning on and off and that dictating
which proteins get assembled and you
can, you know, acetilation historically
often, you know, turn turns the genes on
and then methylation turns them off. I
think there are exceptions to that, but
that's the very high level crude version
of it. Um but if you're doing
experiments that show learned behaviors
uh moving between totally unrelated, you
know, animals within the same species,
that is uh really exciting. That shows
that there's something more at play than
even epigenetics, which is a new kind of
burgeoning field. And and you do show
that you show that with you know
crossword puzzles where if you know a
certain amount of people do a cross word
puzzle today and tomorrow they do that
you know new a new set of people do that
cross word puzzle versus a control
crossword puzzle that one is likely to
get done a little bit quicker or crystal
structures you know you grow a crystal
structure and for the first time it
takes longer and then subsequently it
sort of takes shorter and a question I
wanted to ask you is is it sort of like
uh we are uploading
knowledge to a central server or
something. So I think of like a client
server relationship in you know computer
terms and upload times are always longer
than download times. So if you have
somebody like a Charles Lindberg flying
across the Atlantic for the first time
or you know uh somebody achieving some
great feat of athleticism you know Roger
Banister great example breaking the
4-minute mile in 1952
and then it's called the banister effect
because immediately you know I think 11
people break it within the next two
years. Is it really hard to upload that
new feat or accomplishment and then the
rest of us get to benefit from that
thing that is now stored in some sort of
central monad and we can do it that much
quicker? And is that how is that could
that roughly be like a a model for how
this works? Well, I mean you explain it
well and and I think that these
examples, you know, suggest something's
going on actually better than B with the
4-minute mile. You could argue that
there's a psychological barrier. People
will come up with alternative
explanations. But there are lots of
things, skateboarding, for example,
where when f people first did
skateboarding, some tricks were really
difficult. And now thousands, millions
of kids can do them really easily.
There's lots of examples like that.
Yeah. It feels like athletic
accomplishment feats are moving faster
than just updates in nutrition and
training and definitely a biological
evolution which moves over, you know,
thousands of years time scales.
>> But you see, I don't think I wouldn't
take the idea of a centralized storage
center. I mean, even if you take the
computer analogy, there's not just one
data center sort of storing things.
There's thousands of them. It's a
distributed system.
um you know it's not as if there's one
everything that I can get on my computer
from Google or something it's not in
just in one place whole point of the
internet it's a network and so I think
that actually how morphic resonance
works is by resonance on the basis of
similarity across space and time so I
think that as an oak seedling grows it's
tuning in direct to past oak trees
wherever they are all over the world at
a distance in space in time. It's not
that they're going all of them are going
up to some central storage thing and
then coming down again. I'm suggesting
they just do it direct. I mean, that's a
hypothesis. You could argue, well, why
not postulate some third or fourth or
fifth or 10th dimension where they're
stored in some offplanet storage system
or aashic record in another dimension
and then they come down from that
central store. I think that's an
unnecessary theoretical complication. I
think it's much simpler just to think of
a direct resonance across space and time
on the basis of similarity. But it may
be that there's another dimension where
there's a store. Who knows? Right now, I
don't worry too much about how it might
work. I'm just interested in trying to
find out whether it does happen. You
know, whether morphic resonance really
happens. And if it does, there could be
many theoretical explanations.
Now, thanks to Claude and other forms of
AI, I get about 10 theories of morphic
resonance a week coming into my inbox.
Uh that some people have
hyperdimensions, some people have
resonance space structures, some people
have other prime number matrices. I
mean, I had just this week, I've had
three or four different theories of
morphic resonance, how it works. I mean
it's it clogs my inbox and so basically
that makes me even more
determined that what really matters is
empirical evidence because um you can
have any number of theoretical
structures and if there was convincing
experimental evidence for morphic
resonance it's not yet there's not yet
enough to be convince most people
because there hasn't been that much
research it's a taboo subject it's hard
to do the research um but Um, say it was
established that it was really
happening. Say there was a paper in
nature saying conclusive proof for
morphic resonance. All sorts of people
would go into overdrive on coming up
with theories to explain it. Um, but
then that would be a matter of taste
really. You know, Faraday put forward
magnetic fields and electric fields
without knowing any theory except that
just measured what happened, how they
interacted. Maxwell came up with a
theory involving the ether. Einstein
comes up with a theory not involving the
ether. Quantum electronamics comes up
with quantum theories of electromagnetic
interactions with matter that are very
accurate in their predictions, but
they're quite different from Maxwell's
theory. But nevertheless, electric
motors go on working just fine. Uh
whatever the theory,
>> do you have a sense of what the new sort
of physics of the future might look
like? I see you as sort of
experimentally compiling a lot of
anomalies and in the model of somebody
like uh Thomas that would basically
you'd have to create a new framework or
theory around these anomalies in the
next you know scientific model. Uh it
seems like there are a couple of things
in physics. I would say time is is one
of them that just seems fairly kind of
anomalous. It's um uh you know on a a
macroscopic level you know uh it's tied
to gravity and gravity itself is much
weaker than you know the other three
forces. It's irreconcilable with those
forces on a you know um uh in quantum
mechanics and then time itself is
treated as this sort of classical axiom
in Schrodener's equation. Um and then
yeah we need even macroscopically like
with dark matter we have to you know
that's how we justify gravity's
weakness. You know it seems like the the
universe would fling apart you know if
we didn't have this sort of you know
placeholder in the form of of dark
matter. So it seems like time and time
again you have these anomalies with
gravity and time and uh you know we
we're stuck in this sort of quantum
gravity you know uh bridge to nowhere
you know sisophian framework with string
theory it seems so yeah do do you have
some sort of you know uh hunch as to
what a new updated model of physics will
be and do you think it'll involve a new
model of time
>> yes I mean the the idea of morphic
fields is an attempt to have an updated
having extra fields that physics misses
out and therefore can't explain
formative processes and then the biggest
thing of all that it misses out of
consciousness and all these theories of
consciousness all these so-called
theories of everything completely emit
consciousness. So then when you come to
the question of when you come to the
question of how are we conscious um how
is the hard problem of consciousness
then um you can't explain it in terms of
theories which have no consciousness in
them in the first place.
>> Yes. So I think that the the extra
fields and consciousness are the two
missing ingredients which and it may be
they're related because consciousness I
think depends on fields and works
through fields and or works within
fields even. So I think what I'm trying
to do you see is find on the basis of
these anomalies exploring the anomalies
that don't fit in they give us clues
about what this theory would need. If
you don't have clues and if you don't
take these into account, you end up with
sort of AI slop. I mean, the stuff that
pours into my own inbox every day,
theories of everything generated by AI,
um, uh, which are pretty useless.
There's nothing whatever I can do with
these theories because we need more
data. And in relation to time for
example,
I'm currently doing research on this in
my own kind of way because what I do is
start from not from equations or not
from theoretical assumptions but from
natural history which is where science
has to start from when you're exploring
a new field. And what I'm interested at
the moment in relation to time is the
phenomenon that about 95% of people
according to surveys I've carried out
have the experience of waking up shortly
before an alarm clock goes off.
Terribly common. Um and I I have that
experience myself. So now most people
will just assume oh well we've just got
a time sense it's a circadian rhythm or
clock or something biological clock.
easy armchair explanation. Um, but I
don't think that I think that it's very
unlikely for evolutionary reasons we'd
have the ability to wake at 4:30 in the
morning to catch an early flight. Our
ancestors didn't have clocks and they
woke up with a cockcrow at the dawn. You
know, they didn't have to catch early
flights. There were no flights or trains
or buses or anything. Um, I don't think
there's any evolutionary basis for a
precise time sense when we're asleep.
Instead, I think what's happening is a
form of presentiment, feeling the
future, feeling when the alarm's going
to go off and responding by a kind of
time working backwards as it were,
retrocausal effect in presentiment.
There's now a lot of evidence from
parasychological experiments that
presentiment over a short term you know
seconds or minutes uh exists and um I
think it's a presentiment effect. So
then the crucial experiment becomes what
would happen if it's an unexpected alarm
say a fire alarm would do people wake up
you know a minute or two before a fire
alarm goes off after all with an alarm
clock or a phone they know when they set
the alarm they don't know when a fire
alarm is going to go off and the answer
is a lot of people say they do and right
now I'm doing a survey of paramedics and
firefighters uh and u emergency mergency
responders who are woken up as part of
their job at unpredictable times in the
night. And many of them say, "Oh yes, it
happens all the time. Wake up just
before an alarm." One Australian
firefighter said, "I wake up, you know,
30 seconds or so before the alarm goes
off in the fire station. By the time it
goes off, I'm already getting my boots
on and I'm the first to slide down the
pole." Um, so there's a lot of people
say that. um
you can actually do experiments. So I'm
having trouble recruiting subjects who
are willing to be woken at random times
in the night uh for this research. As
you can imagine, it's not a terribly
popular thing to want to participate in.
Um but I mean this is a testable
hypothesis. Um and what it suggests like
other forms of precognitional
premonition is that our minds are open
to the future. And this happens through
precognitive dreaming as well. And so
what I'm interested in, you see, is
doing empirical studies on precognitive
effects, um, which have been
investigated for years by other people
as well. I mean, it's not just me. The
alarm clock at the moment is just me.
But um
so I'm thinking if we know more about
over what time span does this happen,
what kind of phenomena trigger it? It's
already known it's emotionally arousing
phenomena that trigger it, not kind of
neutral phenomena. An alarm is alarming.
It's if especially if it's a loud one.
Um, so anyway, I think that there's a
lot we don't understand about the nature
of time and about the nature of minds
and about the nature of formative fields
in nature. Um, and those are the things
I think about and and those are the
things I think a theory in the future
will have within it. Um, because these
are the anomalies in sense that
just don't fit into the mechanistic
materialist model of reality that's
still dominant. M well Roger Penrose
thought that the mind was sort of a room
temperature you know quantum mechanical
system and so in that model you can
actually uh reverse cubit positions in
certain quantum computations and so is
it possible that you know and a lot of
you know quantum theorists entertain
ideas like this that when we engage in
precognition when we wake up you know
before an alarm or when we have
pre-sentiment around a loved one calling
us or you know any of these things we
accessing a future knowledge state that
knows the event is about to happen and
then that information is sort of
trickling its way back in time.
It's less a future knowledge state than
um an an emotional arousal and the you
know the but you could say um you could
say that's a kind of knowledge. Um, it's
emotionally arousing events that do this
most. Uh, people have pre-cognitive
dreams,
sometimes about trivial events, but the
most spectacular ones are about
disasters like the World Trade Center,
you know, 9/11. I did a study on dreams
of 9/11. I collected dreams from people
in New York City within a few days of
9/11. And um a lot of people dreamed of
things that are very closely related to
what happened in 9/11.
>> You know about this resident artist. He
was in 9/11 and he depicted himself as
the St. Sebastian who was you know had
all these you know arrows in in him in
the forest and he's dying. But in this
case, it was like Tuskegee airmen going
into his body and he sadly passed away
in the actual catastrophe of 911 and you
know when the planes hit the towers sort
of this wild precognitive event and
there's this great book by a friend of
mine named Eric Wargo who discusses a
lot of these sort of events and I agree
with you. It's uh often don't get on
that plane or you know um you know avoid
xyz thing because it is a matter of life
and death. So I think it's not
inconsistent with this model of the
brain as a quantum system because it if
there is some sort of adaptive you know
there are resource constraints around
what trickles back to the present you
would only trickle back you know the the
stuff that's super essential for your
survival and the the hinge points around
timelines in your life. No, I agree. And
and and with animals again, it's animals
predicting earthquakes is something I've
been studying too. That's sometimes
several days in advance before major
earthquakes. Animals start behaving
abnormally in a way that could actually
be used to predict earthquakes. The
Chinese did it successfully in the
1970s. Um, Western seismologists simply
won't consider it. I mean, I've
presented evidence to people in tsunami
warning programs and earthquake warning
programs and they say, "Oh, that's just
folklore. It's just make believe. It's
just fantasy. It's just, you know,
people thinking about it after the
event." And so, they don't want to know.
Um, but actually, you don't even need to
ask them if anyone set up an app. Um,
where it would be so easy to do. I mean,
I can't do it myself, but imagine an app
that could be around in the whole world
linked to Google Maps or something. If
you see unusual animal behavior, dogs
looking frightened for no apparent
reason, snakes waking up from
hibernation, rats coming out of their
burrows, birds moving agitatedly in
different directions to usual and so
forth. You just press a button, unusual
animal behavior button. And if there was
a surge of reports from any particular
region, it sort of glow red on a Google
map. And for research purposes, you'd
then check out is there an earthquake
following this? And there probably would
be. You couldn't issue warnings straight
away cuz you could cause panic
unnecessarily. But it wouldn't be
difficult to set up an animal-based
earthquake warning system given modern
technology. In fact, it' be really easy.
I've been trying to get people to do
this for years. And um why don't they do
it? Because not because it's expensive,
not because it's proven not to work.
It's never been tested and I'm sure it
would work. Um but because they're
afraid they'll be ridiculed for being
pseudoscientific or credulous or
something. It's pure dogmatism that
prevents this. And I think that would be
a really good way to get into this whole
time thing and and precognition and
premonition through a functioning
earthquake warning system based on
animals and other anomalous behavior.
>> That would be wonderful. Yeah. If we
actually relied on it for something that
was sort of life and death for us. Well,
we could I think it could easily work
and I think that would be I mean you
know more people than me in the tech
world and um you there might be you
might find someone who's open-minded and
if you do suggest they set it up because
it could be really valuable and it would
work everywhere you know Greece, Turkey,
India, Pakistan, California, Washington
State all the earthquake prone areas. uh
the you could have governments or
non-governmental organizations promoting
this a simple app that people have on
their phones. Most people would be
fascinated by it and would willingly
participate.
>> I love it. I will say I'm sort of I I
feel like I'm dragging Silicon Valley
along. They're historically actually
very myopic when it comes to some of
these things. And I think it's a fair
felt sense or instinct that um it's hard
to sort of scale this stuff into sort of
very useful technology, but I do think I
think you're just very ahead of the
curve and I think we will have
technology around all of these things.
Um can you explain synchronicities with
this model? So, so many people watching,
I'm sure, have the experience of, you
know, you're talking about, you know, a
certain book, you know, say the the
picture of Dorian Gray or something, and
you you you see that the book come up,
you know, you know, on a library shelf
or something, or you you you know, you
walk by a sign of, you know, somebody
you were you you know, it's the name of
the the thing that you were just
thinking of or whatever, and it feels
deeply meaningful. And Carl Young has
written a book about this. Um, can you
explain synchronicities through morphic
fields?
>> Well, I think there's several kinds of
synchronicity and some can be explained
and others perhaps not. Um, some
synchronicities are telepathic. You
know, you think of someone then they
ring on the phone. I think that's
telepathy. Um, I think there's and I
think telepathy is now fairly well
documented and I've done a lot of
experimental studies on telephone
telepathy myself. Um, and it's telepathy
rather than precognition because you can
do tests where you can ask people to
guess who's about to ring and they no
better than chance. But if it's somebody
who is actually thinking about them,
then you get a positive significant
quite a strong effect. Um, some
synchronicities may be precognitive or
pre-entiment. I've just written a paper
on this uh um by where people think of
somebody who they then meet um for
example a couple were in Paris walking
down the street husband says to the wife
I've just thought about old so and so
someone they knew 20 years ago they
hadn't seen since hadn't talked about
since they walk around the corner and
they bump into that person now I think
that's a form of precognition and I've
just written a paper on hundreds of case
studies of this kind and I I call that
pro-appesia,
anticipating unexpected meetings. So
some kinds of synchronicity may be
precognition, some may be telepathy, but
some which are meaningful coincidences
uh can't be explained either of those
ways and they suggest there's some sort
of higher pattern involved which Jung
was fascinated by and it could be a
morphic field connecting things together
invisibly and providing meanings but
that's way beyond anything we can do
research on at the moment. So um
so in relation to synchronicities just
to summarize it I think some are
telepathic some are precognitive and
some are much more mysterious especially
the meaningful coincidences
is there something around uh our future
selves having a pull on us and you know
we think of you think of post big bang
you just have the second law of
thermodynamics where it's just you know
entropy all the way down things get more
and more sort of chaotic um but I think
everybody's felt sense of their life is
they often have these sort of anchor
point moments which are they're often
very in touch with their intuition. They
make this big decision and the
synchronicities sort of speed up and
they end up, you know, maybe where
they're where they're supposed to be.
And it almost feels like, you know,
Maxwell had this idea of Maxwell's demon
where you could reverse the second law
of thermodynamics. It almost feels like
these sort of consciousness-based
synchronistic events are a reversal of
you know normal universe entropy.
Well, I think the idea of universe
entropies as a way of explaining things
is pretty limited in the first place.
It's thermodynamics is about the
movements of heat. That's what it's
primarily about as the name is that it's
it was developed in relation to steam
engines in the 1850s. Um, and somehow
it's been elevated into this cosmic
principle of everything far beyond his
it's grown far too big for his boots.
It's not I don't think it's terribly
important cosmic principle. I mean it is
an important cosmic principle in that it
says that in energetic processes there's
uh uh you you you have differences in
heat or pressure tend to equalize and um
so it's I mean it's important in in
practice in designing and making
machines but it doesn't explain any of
the order in the universe. It doesn't
explain why in the course of cosmic
evolution there's been a succession of
more complex forms, atoms, molecules,
stars, galaxies, and then evolution of
life on Earth, bacteria, fungi, plants,
animals, people, and then all the
creations of human ingenuity, art, and
technology. Um, all of those involve
more form than was there before. None of
them can be explained in terms of
reduction of order, reduction of form.
There's a formative principle at work in
nature which is I think depends on
morphic fields and on a kind of creative
process in nature which gives rise to
more complex forms. And so
thermodynamics has nothing whatever to
say about any of that except to say that
you know if you've got a biological
organism like you or me then there's
going to have to be a flow of energy to
maintain it. So you're going to have to
take in food and um you it can't
function without energy. I mean that's
pretty obvious. I mean you don't need
thermodynamics to tell people who've in
tribal cultures for example who've never
encountered science. They will know that
you need food and that animals need food
and plants need light and
it codifies that very common sense thing
but it doesn't explain the form in the
first place.
>> Do you think that we're going to
experience a re-enchantment of reality?
So if we've lived in the age of you know
to quote Max Weber uh disenchantment for
you know maybe post enlightenment and we
all think of ourselves as sort of happy
accidents of rand you know random atomic
interactions congealing together into uh
sort of consciousness with the advent of
things like like AI which help us make
sense of the world. I could see us, you
know, right now, for example, we have
the anthropic principle, which is like,
you know, why are all of the physics
constants just perfect to house life on
Earth? And why does, you know, the sun
emit just amount of UV, you know, the
perfect amount of UV radiation that
makes it, you know, just enough through
the magneettosphere of the earth to
create random mutations for differential
selection. It just all feels so perfect.
And then the human resonance of the
earth is actually important for you know
again animal morphology and human
morphology growing normally. So it all
feels just very sort of you know set up.
Do you think with AI we make more
connections along those lines and we
come to some new insight that oh my god
like this isn't random. The sun is
conscious it's some supercomput you know
the earth is you know a node of it or
something. we're all, you know, micro
nodes and we just completely rethink our
reality because we're able to make sense
making progress so much quicker through
these new tools.
But I don't really think that um AI is
certainly very useful in finding out
what's already known. I I use it all the
time in my research to find out, you
know, when I'm doing research on some
obscure phenomenon. I look it up and it
scans the literature for me in a way
that would take me weeks if I did
internet searches on scientific journals
or physically went to libraries and
looked up papers. Tremendously helpful.
But basically, it's modus operandi is is
scraping what's already known. So, it
enables us to find out obscure papers in
scientific journals we might not
otherwise have found or bring together
information that we might not otherwise
bring together. But it's always stuff
that's already there. But it's not
inherently it's not biased maybe in the
way that academia is. And it might be
biased in the way that it's built now.
But if you pour all of your, you know,
anomalies that fit awkwardly into
conventional models into this or, you
know, some other heterodox scientists, I
do think you can make progress much more
rapidly as to the true nature of
reality. Well, possibly. I mean, it's
it's true that it's less biased um than
say Wikipedia, which in areas to do with
psychic phenomena is incredibly biased,
has been captured by dogmatic skeptics.
So AI is better than that for sure. And
in other areas of disputed where where
where the gatekeepers of academia and
and the materialist paradigm try to
filter out anything that's contrary,
it's much more um rounded and balanced
in my experience, but it doesn't come up
with new ideas. And so if I want to find
out, you know, how consciousness relates
to vision and how extra mission, it will
tell me what other people have said
about this in the past. It won't come up
with the answer. I mean, I'm trying to
think how to understand these things,
how to fit them together. AI can't do
that for us. If I found a way of fitting
it together and wrote a paper in the
scientific journal, AI would then scrape
it and other people would then find it
on AI, but it's not going to do it for
us. and it's certainly not going to do
the crucial experiments for us. Um um so
I don't think AI is going to be um that
much of a help in anything truly
creative.
>> So I I I guess I half agree with you. I
think uh it yes it it's basically solves
combination problems not consilian
problems. So things that are truly
require interd domain you know
specialization or you know polymathism
between the domains. It's, you know,
it's, you can't really cut up, uh, you
know, fire and, uh, digitize it and and
and and get a light bulb on the other
side or do that with a horse into a car
or something like that. Um, and then
when it comes to pattern matching, it's
obviously much stronger. But I do think
the reasoning is getting to a point
where if you feed it a bunch of
anomalies and you ask it to do sense
making around those anomalies, the
anomaly set has become so wide. I mean,
you could pick your poison. You It's
like UFOs, telepathy, you know,
conscient all all of these sorts of
things. And then you say, "Hey, like
help make sense of it." I could see that
at least accelerating or speeding up
one's own sort of thought process. And
then obviously they would need to, you
know, follow their own intuition where
fit. Well, I mean, that's already
happening. I mean, as I said, people are
doing this all the time, putting in
these anomalies into AI, and it comes up
with theories that they clog my inbox.
the they I mean I've just got so many of
them. I mean it did occur to me that I
should just put all these theories that
people generate by AI into AI itself.
Come up with a meta theory. I can't be
bothered. But um the problem with it is
that it's only too easy for AI to come
up with these theories. And when they
first started people first started
sending to me I sort of a fivepage
theory. I mean mercifully short some of
them. So, I'd read it and then I made a
series of comments on it and thought
about experiments to test it. I took it
seriously and I sent my response to the
person who' sent it to me. 10 minutes
later, back came the response. He'd
obviously just put everything I'd said
into AI and it just fired it back at me.
So, I thought, well, why don't I just
have AI read these things that people
said and fire back a response and just
keep cut out the middleman, just have AI
firing things backwards and forwards.
But that's not what these people who
send these things want. They want a real
person to read it. Unfortunately, they
want me to read it.
And and
the trouble is that we're a wash with
theories now thanks to AI. You know, all
these dimensions, some are filled with
mathematical equations, something
>> but so what? I mean, that that's the
problem. It's not that AI can't do this.
It can do this and it's doing it
already. Um but in my experience quite
uselessly.
>> You speaking of things that distinguish
humans from AI, you mentioned that uh
people who are close experience more
telepathic connectivity with one
another. It seems like a lot of the
people I know who've studied these
random event generators or
parasychology,
it almost feels like they go in with
this sort of scientific method in mind
and then they come out like religious
initiates or something where the more
they know the less they need on the
materialist dimension. Like it's like
they don't even want to like harness the
power for, you know, some sort of
left-hand path, you know, materialist
ends or whatever and or even turn it
into technology. and they become far
more aligned with their themselves. They
become more heart-c centered. And
they'll even say things like my, you
know, how far above the standard
deviation or or my zcore on the random
event generator, which is basically your
ability to affect the material world um
is determined by my, you know, heart
coherence or something sort of seemingly
very woowoo like that. Do you think
that's like an essential part to to to
all of this? And and is that sort of a
microcosm of life?
>> I don't think so. I mean, if they really
can affect the the thing more when their
hearts coherent, that's testable and it
would be a great subject for an
experiment. Um um I don't within the
very small world of parasychology. I
mean there's probably in the whole world
there's probably what 20 or 30 people
actively engaged in parasychological
research
>> and even less who are uh you know really
rigorous.
>> Yes. I mean it's very small. There's an
email discussion list which I'm on and
I'm in almost daily contact with people
in the parasychology research community.
Yes.
>> Any new discovery etc was immediately
shared and there's a small enough number
of people you can know them all. There's
hardly any field of science like that.
You work in cell biology or molecular
biology or something. They have
conferences with 20,000 people at them.
Unless there's, you know, 20 or 30
active researchers and there's a growing
number in China, interestingly. Um, and
I think that if there are going to be
major advances, it may well happen there
because in the west this is academically
excluded, underfunded, whereas the
Chinese are are getting really quite
interested in this.
>> Yeah. Um, so I think that the and things
like morphic resonance and and
psychic phenomena and stuff could take
off in China long before they take off
in the west because
well it all depends on the climate of
inquiry. If if you could get a good job
doing parasychology research or morphic
resonance research and if there was lots
of funding for it, lots of people would
love to do it. But right now, you can't
get a job or at least it's very hard.
You can't get the funding. People are
worried about destroying their career.
PhD students are warned off doing these
topics told that if you do research on
this, you'll destroy your career before
it's even started. Um, so there are
these sociological or institutional
institutional barriers and the Chinese
may be able to remove them before people
in the west.
>> Yeah, it's extremely frustrating. You
know, I don't know if you know who Bob
John is, but he was a
>> Oh, yes, I knew him. Yes,
>> you knew him. So, he was a dean of the
engineering school at Princeton. He was
a wellrespected plasma physicist and he
he worked on uh plasma propulsion
that's, you know, are still in
satellites today. And he sponsored the
the the pair lab that, you know, he
created this, you know, engineering and
anomalous research center at at
Princeton and they got all these
positive effects from the random event
generator experiments. He writes a book
about it and none of the physicists take
it seriously at all and they say things
like, "Oh, it's file drawer issues or
survivorship bias or P hacking or you
know, pick your sort of lame, you know,
AAMS razor way of explaining away, you
know, the actual effect."
>> And they would say, "No, it's not.
Here's here's what we did to mitigate
that." And, you know, and it it sort of
he just end up in these sort of circular
conversations. And if you think that,
you know, somebody of of that sort of
pedigree and credentials who's, you
know, in the the heart of the ivory
tower of the United States um acu
academic system can't can't get this
across the line. I don't know who can.
And it got to the point where he almost
shut the pair lab down and then
ironically some Navy guys came to him
and I think uh James McDonald from
McDonald Douglas aircraft were like you
can't do this. This is really important
research. And so it's this weird, you
know, in my experience covering the UFO
topic in the US, you have this academic
citadel that won't entertain any of this
stuff. And then you have, you know, the
people with sort of more skin in the
game at these prime defense contractors
that, you know, they can make money off
this stuff. It's sort of life or death.
And, you know, they have skin in the
game and they they think it's all real
and it's this weird bifurcation.
So yeah,
>> but it's the same in this area. You see,
and the thing is
I've come to conclusion that, you know,
publishing papers in peer-reviewed
journals on statistically valid
experiments and makes very little
impact. I've done it for years. I still
do it. I I play the game by the rules
and that's the rule and I do it. But
that's not what changes people. What
changes people is personal experience.
And the scientific world is full of
people who've had telepathic or psychic
experiences. And whenever I give a talk
in the scientific institution on the
surface everyone's pretty conventional
but in the tea break after the talk
people come up to me one by one they say
you know I've had these experiences I
can't talk to them my colleagues are all
so straight and stuff and sometimes so
many of them say this to me I say I just
say to them all why don't you guys come
out you know you'd have so much more fun
so the scientific world is full of
people who actually know these things
are happening but they don't dare talk
about it. It's a bit like gays in the
1950s. You you know before the gay pride
movement and gays coming out and so on.
It's a bit like that. I think what will
really make a difference is as you
suggest some technological applications
or public events. So I think that an
earthquake warning system based on
animals if it worked would have a huge
impact because people would then say
people would then say well how does it
work you know and they they'd say well
it's their picking up tremors and so and
then you say well why can't
seismologists pick them up with their
fancy kit and apparatus and and then and
it may be something much more much more
profound but in in relation to
presentiment one idea I had there is
that you get an emotional reward for
picking
detecting something in advance that's
emotionally challenging and I think the
best way of making that uh something
that would make a difference would be
using day trading where people are using
very short-term
some people are betting you know seconds
in advance on price movements and I went
to one of the top day trading firms in
the city of London and
the guy in charge was interested in my
work and I met the traders and I said to
him, "Well, how do they do it?" And he
said, "Well, our best trader is here.
He's Greek criate by background." And he
just seems to know which news screen to
look at, which stock out of all the
screens on his desk, you know, which is
going to move next. He just seems to
know he's making millions a year. And
and this is over seconds. It's not sort
of carefully reading the financial news
evaluating, you know, futures in cobalt
or something like that. It's it's very
it's I think it's pre-sentiment.
And I said, "How do you train staff?" He
said, "We take 10 recruits a year. We
give them a year to play with. They do
real trading. And at the end of it, we
keep one of them, the one of them that's
doing best." And I said, 'Well, if all
this depends on intuition, then you
could just set up a testing app where
you could do test playing with fake
money, monopoly money or something, do
day trading with actual trades and train
people uh to make these punts by they
get immediate feedback to hone this
ability. And if they could do this, you
could potentially even train people to
become very successful day traders using
presentiment. That would make a
difference because lots of people would
sign up for training courses in
presentiment. If so, companies offering
them would make a fortune. The people
doing it would make a fortune and they'd
beat the computers because the computers
wouldn't have pre-sentiment.
>> You famously wrote a great paper about
how the sun might be conscious. So the
sun may have all sorts of possibilities
in its mind if it's conscious. It's
assumed to be totally random within
regular science.
>> We were talking about a mutual friend,
Robert Temple, who's written a great
book called The New Science of Heaven.
And the thesis of the book is that
atomic matter, you know, this is sort of
prosaically understood, is actually the
exception to the rule in the universe.
And actually most of the universe is
charged to ions in the form of ambient
plasma. And he goes a little further and
he says that plasma could itself be
alive. And you could explain a lot of
our sort of human metaphysics through
plasma. Seems like plasma engages in
sort of cell division, you know, or
like, you know, fra fractal forms of
plasma are created by, you know, higher
forms of plasma. Uh it seems like it has
maybe a role in prebiotic life. Um, do
you think that that takes your sun is
conscious thesis a step further because
the sun is basically full of plasma?
>> Well, I think that it's
I think the idea of organized plasma
which is enormously conductive of
electric currents with magnetic fields.
It stretch there there are magnetic
plasma threads stretching joining
galaxies throughout the universe with
they're hundreds of millions of light
years long. some of them. Um,
>> he describes them like nerve filaments
or something.
>> Yes, they're like nerve filaments. Well,
yes. I think that the there's a whole
school of thought called the electric
universe group. I you've probably come
across them in your journeys.
>> Yeah. There's like Donald Scott and
>> Yes. who think that we've got it
basically completely wrong, thinking the
whole universe is primarily organized by
gravity. They think it's primarily
organized by electric currents, plasma,
and magnetic fields and so on. and that
the people who think it's all gravity
end up with think they have to postulate
dark matter because their theory just
doesn't work to explain galaxies. They
say, "Okay, well, there's all this
invisible matter." At the stroke of the
pen, they invent as much invisible
matter as they want. Many times the
amount of real matter that we do know
about
>> and we've never detected dark matter,
>> never detected. And yet that passes, it
was not a shred of evidence for it. and
it passes as mainstream physics
inventing an imaginary substance uh to
explain anomalies and and the same
people would be terribly offended if you
suggested that telepathy might exist.
They'd immediately say, "Where's the
evidence? How does it work?"
>> I don't think heterodox thinking scales
alongside IQ.
>> No, but um but the the fact is that it's
matter of fashion in in science
paradigms as said. Well, I think
that plasma may well be able to sustain
consciousness. Not every random bit of
plasma is going to be alive, but
organized plasma structures like the sun
and the stars I think could well be
conscious. And actually um I myself
thought about this very long time ago
when I was at school. I was a fan of as
an astronomer called Fred Hy largely
forgotten today but Fred Hy was a really
one of the top astronomers at the time
and he wrote popular books on astronomy.
I remember I got as a school science
prize and my prize was frontiers of
astronomy by Fred Hy. He also wrote
science fiction and he wrote a book
called the black cloud. I don't know if
you've ever read it. It's very little
known. In fact a few years ago I tried
to find out it was out of print. I had
to get a secondhand copy. But in the
Black Cloud, he has a group of
scientists in a kind of country house, a
bit like Bletchley Park. It was modeled
on Bletchley Park and you know where
they were in this country house cracking
the co enigma code and so on.
Um these scientists are there and
there's this this the astronomers detect
this sort of black cloud in the sky that
seems to be a plasma cloud and they find
it's coming nearer earth and they are
frightened because it might block out
the light of the sun and and and then
everyone gets governments get involved
and secret discussions and all that and
someone beams a radio signal the the
black cloud and it responds in a
meaningful way and they gradually come
to the conclusion that this plasma Mloud
is intelligent that it has a mind, it
has a consciousness, they can interact
with it through electromagnetic impulses
and finally they managed to persuade it
to go away and solve the problem. But
the whole thesis of Fred Ho's book which
was written in probably in the 1950s and
we're talking probably 1955 or something
like that um was that plasma can become
conscious. And for me that was a it
helped liberate my mind from the idea
that consciousness has to be in brains
when I was about 17 years old. And um
I'm very grateful to Hy for doing that
because although it was science fiction,
it explored a possibility that would
never have occurred to me otherwise. And
in a sense, Robert Temple's thesis is
like Fred Hoy's black cloud writ large.
It's amazing. and he's written a new
paper about the L5 lrangeian point
between the earth and the moon and he
uses that to explain these quote unquote
long delay echoes which are these
signals that we sent out at the ear you
know the early advent of the radio in
the I think the 20s and 30s and if you
know I think seven or eight seconds
later you'd get the same signal back and
he thinks that there are these sort of
you know there's this sensient
cordallowski cloud which is basically a
cloud of plasma that is intelligent
might be sending the signals but back.
And if you watch Carl Sean's contact,
for example, it's this sort of really
jarring scene where you see this this
Nazi message back from the the alien
entities and you're like, what's going
on? Or it's I think it's a Hitler
speech. You're like, this is horrible.
And maybe that is an homage to this sort
of Cordallowski cloud. Who who knows?
But it's fascinating. There's even a
video actually of somebody walking up to
a plasmoid and the plasmoid seems to
cohhere to the heartbeat of the of the
person. And then obviously in UFO world
you have people sort of seeming to
commune with you know doing these
protocols these like theurgorical
protocols where they sort of see these
these plasma beings these UFO like
things and often receiving sort of
telepathic messages. And Robert Temple
talks about, you know, Moses's burning
bush as possibly just being this
plasmoid sensient ball or something in
the air. It's amazing. Well, Robert
Temple's a very original lateral
thinker. I mean, he's an independent
scholar of the most creative kind and
he's worked on many themes over the
years. So, he's prepared to go where
most people would not be prepared to go.
So I think it's very interesting his
thing about the the the lrandian point
and these plasma clouds. Um
yes I I mean it's
seems to me perfectly possible there are
intelligent plasma clouds and ball
lightning of course is a form of plasma
phenomenon which is widely accepted to
be real and behaves in very anomalous
ways. That's something is probably well
you've probably looked into it much more
than I have. It's on the fringe between
EUOS and regular physics cuz regular
physicists agree that it happens but
it's still very mysterious and behaves
in a very unpredictable way.
>> It's fascinating and I have a friend uh
whose YouTube channel is called Land of
Chem. name is Jeffrey Drum and he talks
about a lot of you know ancient
megalithic architecture as actually
involving a buildup of positively
charged toic currents in the ground in
order to sort of attract ball lightning
phenomena. So these touric currents in
the crust of the earth flow and
accumulate more prolifically in areas
where this the subterranean mineral
water. These stone circles are built
right on top which facilitate the
accumulation and flow of touric currents
into the site. And so maybe you would
maybe some of these sort of sacred
experiences that we have coincide with
this sort of ball lightning that we're
sort of we were able to harness that we
no longer really know how to. Yes.
>> Just fascinating. You you wrote a a book
about uh the physics of angels. Do you
believe in angels? And if so, what do
you think their physics are?
I wrote the book with a theologian
called Matthew Fox. Um and what we did
was looked at the traditional
understanding of angels in the west
looking at the works of Dianius the
Aropagite who was a 6th century AD
philosopher.
um probably a monk in Syria or a Syrian
Orthodox monk um Hildigard of Bingan the
visionary medieval abbis and St. Thomas
Aquinus, the 13th century
codifier of a whole lot of ancient
knowledge and synthesizer of knowledge
who they all had theories angels and we
looked at what they said about angels
and why we called it the physics of
angels is that when Aquinus is discuss
discussing how angels move he says that
each angel is complete in itself when it
acts it acts with its whole being and um
you can't have half an angel acting with
half its being. It has to act with its
whole being. So it acts so in a sense
angelic action is quantized. And he said
when they move from one place to another
because he was convinced they did could
move from one place to because
messengers is one of their roles. They
move from place to place that from the
point of view of the angel no time
elapses. But from an external observer,
there would be a finite time between it
leaving one place where it was acting
and reaching the next place where it was
acting. Very like photons of light. So
there's a whole section where he's
discussing angels that are very similar
to a photon. Um well, in terms of
angels, this is the minimalist way of
thinking of angels is that they're
creatures of our imagination, but
they're creatures of our collective
imagination. And they may exist in much
more much more than human imaginal
realm. In fact, the mind of God may be a
realm of divine imagining or
imagination. Angels may exist as beings
within an imaginal world. And you may
then encounter them in states of
consciousness where your normal
consciousness isn't functioning like in
dreams and in the Bible where people
encounter angels. For example, Joseph,
the putitive father of Jesus. Um there
are several stories in the Christmas
story where Joseph is warned by an angel
in a dream to do this or to do that. In
the Old Testament too, there are many
cases where people encounter angels in
dreams. And today people encounter
angels in dreams and people encounter
them in altered states of consciousness
with psychedelics. And in fact in the
Christian psychedelic church in Brazil,
Santiame
um which is a Christian church where
Iaska is their sacrament. This has been
going for decades. This church um they
have invocations to the angels and hymns
to the angels where people collectively
experience angels.
Now,
at that level, you could say that even a
materialist would say, "Well, okay, yes,
people can imagine. They're just
fantasies of the imagination and people
see them in their dreams or imagination
doesn't prove they're real." But what's
real? If there's an imaginable world
that it it has huge effects, the world
of the imagination, um, enormous
effects. I mean Hollywood movies, the
media, fiction, book novels, most people
spend most of their entire spare time
involved in an imaginable world. I mean
looking at plays or films or fantasies
or reading novels or indulging in
various imaginative activities. So the
world of the imagination is extremely
important. Um well I think it's very
significant that the main global driver
of the world's imagination is Hollywood
and Hollywood's in Los Angeles and as
you probably know the original how it
came to be that in 17 I think it's 69
the Spanish expedition up the coast of
California had Franciscan friars in it.
St. Francis was very devoted to our lady
of the angels. His little church in Aisi
was the holiest place on earth for him
was called the church of our lady of the
angels. They found themselves camping by
a river on the feast day of our lady of
the angels and as Franciscans took this
seriously. So they called the river the
river of our lady of the angels and when
a time town grew up around that it was
called the city of our lady uh queen of
the angels
sora rehood de lo Angeles that's Los
Angeles. So Los Angeles actually grows
out of France St. Francis's intense
devotion to the angels and um it's to me
significant that the angels which can be
thought of as beings that work in and
through the imagination among other ways
of working um uh are the presiding
spirits that that to whom the whole city
of Los Angeles was dedicated our lady
queen of the angels. Um and so in the
middle ages people thought that we had a
good angel and a bad angel that good
angels would suggest higher things. The
ang good angels would turn towards God
and would put into our minds helpful
thoughts and lead us onwards and and
into better ways. Now, bad angels would
suggest to us thoughts and actions that
would lead us into lust, greed, envy,
avarice, pride, all the things the
advertising industry does for us now.
It's sort of more or less supplanted the
bad angels.
>> Would you call those demons?
>> I'd call them the seven deadly sins. Or
you could call them demons. Yes. I think
the bad angels you could call demons or
or Yes.
Um, so I think there's no doubt that
they exist in the imaginal realm. And
then the only question is what kind of
reality does the imaginal realm have? Is
it all inside our heads just produced by
distorted activity of nerve cells and
neurotransmitters?
Or is there a a conscious world out
there that we tap into uh which all
religions take for granted, all
traditional cultures take for granted
there's a realm of spirits and beings
that influence the course of the world
and influence us. Um so in that sense,
yes, I do believe in angels.
Speaking of the intersection between the
imaginary realm and the material world,
that's what I find so fascinating about
UFOs because they seem to exhibit flight
characteristics and do things in the sky
that, you know, we could never dream of
with sort of even tip of the spear
modern aerospace. And yet there are all
sorts of rumors now coming out of the
American government that they exist in
real nuts and bolts form, you know, in
hangers. And I don't know what you make
of that conversation. Do do you have a
take on it?
>> I don't really. I haven't followed the
EUO world very much. I mean, I've got so
many other things. I feel there's a lot
of people investigating it. I'm glad
they are. Um, but I feel that's not a
field that's underpop populated. The
fields I work in are fields where
there's practically no one else doing
it. So, I focus on these areas. Um I
mean I'm happy to read about any
conclusive results that come out of EUO
research or suggestions or
but it's I don't have time to follow it
in detail.
>> Yeah. Well, I want to I want to end on
perhaps the most practical but also
transcendent note which is uh you gave a
great talk about uh the usefulness of
different religious practices and
rituals. Um, and so it almost feels like
you sort of force ranked and did
statistical analysis on some of these
rituals. If somebody is watching today
and just wants to be a little bit
happier and have a little more meaning
in their life, are there rituals that
you would particularly recommend?
>> Well, it's not. They're spiritual
practices. My book, Ways to Go Beyond
and Why They Work, and my other book,
Science and Spiritual Practices, are
really about each book's about seven
different practices that's been studied
scientifically. Not by me. I mean, I've
tried all these practices myself, but
there have been actual studies. These
things have measurable effects. I
meditation, for example, has measurable
effects on brain activity, blood
pressure,
countering insomnia, reducing depression
and so on. All these spiritual practices
have measurable effects. Um, and taken
together, people who have religious or
spiritual practices are happier,
healthier, and live longer than those
that don't on average. Um, I mean,
that's a very clear result from
thousands of papers in scientific
journals. That has to be the case
because you have people like Andrew
Huberman who has like the most popular
health podcast in the United States
who's all about sort of statistical meta
studies in medicine basically saying
yeah it's adaptive for you to believe in
God. I don't know if he attaches any
sort of metaphysical ontology there but
so I think what you're saying is
definitely true. Yeah. So in terms of um
practices, I mean the very simplest one
and the easiest one is gratitude.
There's lots of studies by positive
psychologists that show that people who
are grateful are happier and more
popular than those that take things for
granted or feel entitled
um and who complain when they don't get
what they feel they're entitled to. And
not surprisingly, such people are less
popular. Um so um it's a really simple
thing you know they did exercises where
they divide a group into three. One
group they asked them to write five
things that happened in the last week
which were hassles and problems for
them. Another group to write just five
stories about things that had happened.
And and the third group to write down
five things good things that had
happened for which they felt grateful.
And the people who'd simply listed the
great the things for which they felt
grateful were measurably happier as a
result. And and sometimes some of their
exercises lasted for weeks. So it's it's
not a new idea counting your blessings.
But being thankful um grateful for
things makes people much happier. I do
it myself every day. I in the evening I
think about things for which I'm
grateful. Um, and I find it's incredibly
helpful and it's a really simple thing.
Also, you know, giving thanks before
eating a meal. Everyone used to say
grace before meals. Um, you know, go
back a 100 years and most families would
have done this. Now, hardly anyone does
it. And yet, it's very simple. We always
do it at home. Um, either we hold hands
in silence or I say a grace or someone
else says a grace or we sing a grace
together. and just pausing to give
thanks for the fact we're alive, we've
got food to eat, we we're together,
we're among friends, we feel safe, and
these are such important things that
giving thanks for them, acknowledging
them collectively just changes the
atmosphere in a really positive way. So,
I think if if anyone's looking for one
simple thing they can do that won't cost
them anything uh and will have
noticeable effects, that's what I'd
suggest. Final final question. Do you
think those rituals bring you closer to
God or do you think they're just
effective?
Both. I think that they provide
spiritual practices don't necessarily
turn on God like a tap. Um they all
depend on grace. They grace is a gift.
You know, God's presence or feeling of
God's presence, experience of God's
presence is a gift. But these practices
can make it more likely that that will
happen. They remove barriers that stand
in the way. Um and um make it more
likely that you'll be experience this
sense of being closer to God. Um and
that generally speaking is for people a
joyful thing to to to feel. So um yes, I
think they they really help.
Rupert Cheldre, thank you so much for
for being here and it's always always
fun to to come out here and and and
speak to you and uh yeah, I think people
are going to get a lot out of this
conversation.
>> Very nice to speak to you, Jesse. You
think about a lot of different things
and you have an open mind and I love the
way you're spreading ideas in the world
which need to be spread.
>> Well, that that means a lot. I'm just uh
you know I'm I'm not the the source
material like you, but I you know I like
to aggregate and make connections and
that sort of thing. So thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> If you want to go deeper on some of the
crazy questions we ask on this show,
check out Venice. It's a privacyfirst AI
platform that gives you access to some
of the world's leading AI models without
giving up any data about you. It gives
you more freedom to explore the ideas
we're all so curious about on American
Alchemy without giving up your online
sovereignty. Check out Venice through
the link in the description. And thanks
so much to Venice for sponsoring this
show.