713. Ryan Kralik UAP & Consciousness

Join Martin Willis as he sits down with researcher, author, and trained remote viewer Ryan Kralik to explore the ideas behind his forthcoming book, It From Us – An Information-First Framework and the Purpose of Consciousness. Kralik proposes a groundbreaking model in which matter, life, consciousness—and even UFO phenomena—are emergent expressions of information seeking stability, structure, and meaning. Drawing from years of analytical work in communication and technology, combined with his background in psi research and anomaly investigation, he examines how reality may encode experience itself. We discuss how this framework may help explain UFO/UAP encounters, remote viewing, synchronicities, and the deeper architecture of consciousness. If you’re interested in cutting-edge theories at the intersection of UFOs, mind, and physics, this is a conversation you won’t want to miss.
SHOW NOTES

👉 Join us on Patreon — Get ad-free podcast episodes (for any media player) for as little as $2/month:
https://www.patreon.com/MartinWillisPodcastUFO
🛸Did you have a UFO/UAP Encounter? Leave Us a Voicemail: https://podcastufo.com/ufo-sightings/ufo-encounter-voicemail
🧢 Podcast UFO Merch (Shirts, Hats & More): https://tinyurl.com/mrybmnwb
📬 FREE Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter — Get updates on upcoming guests, blog posts, and more:
http://eepurl.com/LPHKD
🌐 Our Website:
https://podcastufo.com
📱 Follow us on Social Media:
Twitter (X): https://x.com/PodcastUFO
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PodcastUFO
📺 Subscribe on YouTube (It’s Free!):
https://www.youtube.com/user/PodcastUFO?sub_confirmation=1

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:15):
Hello, and welcome to the show. And Martin willis your host.
We have a very interesting guest tonight, Ryan Kralik, and
he is going to be talking about a lot of
things that you know, we're just kind of hard to imagine.
We're gonna be talking about uap UFOs as well, but
just he has very interesting theories. I have listened to

(00:37):
him and I'm really glad that he's on as a
guest tonight. He's going to make us all think quite
a bit as we go along. Our blog this week
is part two, the Rise and Fall of Interests in
the UFO. I mean, I'm in the British Crop Circle mystery.
That's again by Charles Lear, who's on every new blogs

(00:57):
and audio blogs every week, and as I mentioned before,
he is Charles is just going to be putting the
audioblogs on the podcast feed and you can catch the
podcast feed anywhere you can get a podcast basically. So,
I just realized that we just passed our fourteenth anniversary,
oh fourteen years, and so yeah, we'll probably have some

(01:20):
little celebration on the fifteenth year. But anyway, I want
to thank you all for listening. I was talking to
a long time listener today on the phone, and it's
made some This show has made so many great connections
for me over the years, and so many new friends,
and what an experience it's been. I enjoy doing it

(01:41):
doing it and I plan to do it for as
long as I can, so I hope you're enjoying it too.
And I really do appreciate all the feedback that I
get from all of my listeners. And in the chat
right now we have Dispatch Center and also Thurston and
Duckhead and welcome to you all. People will start coming in,

(02:04):
but these are people just in the chat. How do
you all? And glad that you were all here, and
thank you for all of you who support the show.
Anyone can do that. If you can't support the show,
I do appreciate you listening. And also just to let
you know that if you want to listen to the
show ad free, all you have to do is go

(02:24):
to our website, which is podcastufo dot com and join
Patreon for two dollars or more a month and you
can have a podcast feed and about any podcast player
that is out there ad free. Hello Christopher, how you doing?
And last couple of days ago, I asked everyone to

(02:45):
put in the chat where they're from, and so Christopher
just said Houston. And it was pretty fun. We had
from all over the world. Actually, people were chiming in. Anyway,
I'm going to introduce my guests now, welcome to the show. Ran,
good to have you here, Thank you appreciate it. And Ryan,

(03:06):
you have many interests, but you know, one of the
one of the things I have talked about was uh
and and I'm going to have you try to explain
what you think about this because people have been on
my show. I had two shows devoted to the connection
between consciousness and UFOs and I still don't understand. So

(03:27):
I mean, among some of the things we can talk
about tonight, I do want to touch on that and
see if you can try to have it make sense
to me.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
Oh well, I can't wait.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
Before we do that a little bit, talk a little
bit about your background, what you got, what gets you
interested in this topic to start with?

Speaker 2 (03:48):
Sure, So, well, my my background is primarily advertising, uh
you know, marketing, communications, Uh, crafting, you know, crafting story
that kind of get told between business and consumer, which
is not nearly as fun as this, But you know,

(04:09):
starting mid childhood, when I was about ten to eleven
years old, I started to take an interest in some
of these weird topics. I found out Santa Claus wasn't real,
which I think happens to most people a little bit
earlier than it did for me. I was eleven, I think, oh, yeah, yeah,

(04:33):
I was like four or five. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well
we're going through this right now with my kids. I
have a six year old and an eight year old,
and the eight year old is just barely hanging on.
But I was the oldest, you know, of three kids,
so I can see why. You know, I'm like five
years older than my youngest siblings. So my parents were

(04:53):
trying to hold it together. I get that. But when
I found out that there was no Santa Claus was
it was right at a time I was really starting
to question a lot of what I was being taught, Uh,
you know, in my religion. I went to Catholic school,
and we were fairly strict, devout Catholics from a you know,

(05:14):
a pretty long line of those, and and I was
a questioner. I wanted to know why. And you know,
I don't know if you ever went to Catholic school,
but why doesn't do that? Well? There yes, yeah, why
why simple answer, because we said so and God told

(05:35):
us to say so. So kind of all these things
happen at the same time where I'm questioning things, I'm
not liking the answers I'm getting, and I'm finding out
that that that people lie to us, you know, to
get things out of us. Really, And it wasn't long
before I kind of drew this correlation between the Santa

(05:55):
Claus story and religion. So it started there, and then
you know, the year the following year I went to
public school. I finally convinced them, let me get out
of this place and I'll go to uh to public school.
I promise it'll be better there, and they relented and
let me do that, and uh it was. It was
a better place for me, generally, it was, and I

(06:16):
think it was a better education as far as you know,
the things that you learn. And uh, I remember the
first thing, you know, the first thing I remember happening
that that was different was in science. They they were
talking about evolution, and I was fascinated by it. For

(06:38):
you know, for the rest of that year, I would
go to the library every week, uh in my town,
and I would I brought home every single book about
human evolution, whether I you know, whether it's for my
my reading level or not. Uh And I read all
of them, you know, to the best of my ability.
So around that time, which is like the early nineties,

(06:59):
uh UFO and UAP kind of starts working its way
into the you know, mainstream psyche of our society. You know,
before that it was strictly a crazy thing. I mean
in the nineties it was still a crazy thing, but
you started to see it more because I think that,

(07:20):
you know, media companies understood the entertainment value of it.
And you know, I've said this before about UFO and UAP.
Regardless of whether you believe them or not, you know
that they exist. Almost everybody finds it interesting. And there's many, many,
many things that people could come and say, we're true

(07:43):
that aren't that you would not find interesting at all? Right,
you know, like grass is made out of I don't know, spaghetti.
If a bunch of people said that, you'd be like, yeah,
obviously they're crazy. But you wouldn't say, say, you know what,
we should make a movie about spaghetti grass or what

(08:05):
about a science fiction genre that's all about the different
things grass is made out of? Besides grass. You know,
it's a category, it's an entertainment category, and there's you know,
there's lots of things that are that are not true
and not interesting. Well that was weird to me. Why
would this thing be not true and yet interesting to

(08:28):
almost everyone? So I started to study that, and then
by the time I was in high school, ninth grade,
they started to teach us physics and I passed that
class with a D. But I was completely enthralled by

(08:49):
the material. I passed with the D because I basically
refused to do homework my entire you know, my entire education,
but it didn't mean I didn't earn anything. And that
the teacher in that physics class he used to tell me.
I'd ask a question, and hey, why is this You know,
I don't understand that, and he'd say, of course you

(09:11):
don't understand it. You don't know anything because you're too
damn dumb. Oh but well, if you knew him, it
wasn't it's not that much of an offense. But what
he did let me do is during my lunch period,
he would write me a pass and let me come
up and hang out while the advanced you know, the

(09:33):
seniors advanced placement class. These are seniors who are getting
a college credit for the class because it's advanced. They
were doing their labs during that period, and he would
write me a pass almost every day to let me
come up and just hang out and watch and listen
and a lot of the some of those guys are
are pretty pretty serious scientists now. And you know, I

(09:55):
absorbed what I could, but I was just fascinated with
the material in particular, or the things that did not
make sense, which is, you know, you start to get
into things like like quantum mechanics and it's like, Okay,
that's weird, and so so, you know, things like this
have always fascinated me as I got older, you know, anthropology, sociology,

(10:18):
I always I always loved studying about ancient civilizations and
ancient cultures, and I was never really sure why. But
you know, then as I kind of got into adulthood,
more and more I wanted the answer. I think my
entire life, we've been getting answers, more and more of them,
faster and faster. You know, when I was born, we

(10:40):
didn't we didn't know nearly what's known now, and so
I've just kind of been you know, like I think
there's some you know, spiritual and religious people throughout history
that they they feel like they're living during the end times,
you know, I think that's a common thing. Well, I
always felt that I was maybe living during the time
that we've figure all this stuff out, and that that

(11:02):
was fascinating to me. But that's how I how I
got studying them. And then the whole time, you know,
I'm in sales and marketing and you know, kind of
more corporate oriented communications. So I guess that's why I
get by doing a podcast. M maybe writ in a book,

(11:23):
but that's uh, that's that's kind of my background up
to pretty recently.

Speaker 1 (11:29):
Yeah, and so as far as now I know, I've
heard you on another podcast and you talk about like
things are more like information based, and can you explain
that a little bit. Yeah, like when it comes to
you know, for instance, UAP travel perhaps, you know, because

(11:51):
that's always been a big mystery people trying to figure
out how whatever it is whatever they are that get
here get here.

Speaker 2 (11:58):
Sure, Well, let me take ninety second and some kind
of run through the framework work real quick. So I'm
just in the process of finishing a book about this.
It's called it from us, and basically what it what
it says, what it boils down to is reality is
not exactly how we we think it is. Primarily our

(12:21):
science tells us that the universe every you know, the
material universes, we see it is that's it. That's what
it is, right, And the reason that that doesn't make
sense is because of what we see in quantum mechanics.
And I come back to that, but we see things
in quantum mechanics that don't behave as you know, a

(12:43):
planet behaves orbiting around the Sun, or you know, material
things behave a certain way, except when you get down
to you know, when you get down to a sub
atomic level, they start to behave in other ways. And
science has had a hard time making sense of that.
So but you know, our our our material universe. What

(13:07):
what that's led to, because it makes so little sense,
is it's led to you know, for you could argue
between one hundred and fifty and five hundred years. Uh,
you know, philosophers and people who want to who want
to understand the big picture have kind of relied on
this idea that well, it must be consciousness is you know,

(13:31):
something to do with it or some people go so
far as to say it's all consciousness. And you know,
a couple of years ago that didn't that didn't make
me giggle, But now that I see the world differently
through this framework, it does make me giggle. Because what
this framework says is that underlying our physical reality is

(13:54):
the information about our physical reality. So if you, if
we can go to quantum mechanics for a second, you
look at that double slit experiment and you'd shine the
beam at the panel and it goes through both slits
and it creates an interference pattern on the other side. Right, Okay, great,

(14:14):
it's exactly what you'd expect a beam of light to do.
But when you measure that situation, you know, you put
another panel on the other side. What they find is
that it doesn't then come through as a beam or
a wave. It comes through as a particle. It chooses

(14:36):
a slit, it goes through, it lands on the panel
on the other side. So what do you make of this? Well,
after you know, years of doing my best to understand it,
what I make of it is this, there is no
particle until there needs to be one. That wave they

(14:59):
like to call it, or you know, probability cloud that
is an informational structure that is pre reality, and what
you're seeing there is the the total number of outcomes
that are possible, so that that that probability cloud represents,

(15:21):
you know, in physics, uh, all the all the possibilities
of where the particle could be, right, and what that's
led science to do is uh is, in my opinion,
go off the deep end string theory and you know,
the many worlds. You know a way of looking at
it says essentially, I'm simplifying it, but it essentially says,

(15:44):
therefore there must be an infinite number of universes, and
that particle is in one of them all the times
that it isn't visible to us in this one right, Well,
I don't know. I think that this kind of helps
us prove that that math will show you how it works,

(16:05):
but math will not tell you what it is. And
so you know, my framework sees it sees it differently.
That's a pre reality informational structure, and when the particle's
presence is required, that's when you have it, and measurement
is what causes that requirement for the particle to be there.
So you know, what does that mean? It means that

(16:29):
that there's an underlying informational substrate to our reality. And okay,
that's exciting. But if that's all there is to it,
this is a pretty quick podcast, right, But that's not
all there is to it. When you start to look
at anomalies, and these are the things that you know,

(16:49):
mainstream science poo poos, and you know they thumb their
noses at it. Now it's it's either fake or somehow
otherwise not worth a careful look. When you look at
things like remote viewing, UAP, you know, even religious experiences,
you know, revelation, these are impossible in a strictly material universe. Right,

(17:19):
So like remote I'm a trained remote viewer. You know,
I've I've taken classes, I've learned how to do it.
I I've read you know, most of the good books
out there on it. I I know how it works.
But I always wanted to know what the mechanism was.
That's that's how I ended up with this framework. Is

(17:39):
I wanted to know how remote viewing worked. But if
if you give me a coordinate, and you know that
coordinate is associated with an object or a place, or
a or a an event, there is nothing about how
we understand the physical universe. That should allow me to
describe that thing to you with anything anything close to

(18:02):
you know, accuracy. And yet I've seen it done and
I've done it, So how could that be? Well, if
there's an underlying informational substrate, if what I'm doing is
not seeing anything my brain, isn't, you know, leaving my
body and going to some other place that may or
may not exist. Frankly, you can remote view things that
aren't real. You know that. That just doesn't work. If

(18:26):
it takes waves and particles for information to travel, that
obviously isn't the truth. So but if there was an
underlying informational substrate that all things come from, every particle
comes from it, so we come from it, and consciousness
allows us an interface with that substrate, then when I

(18:49):
remote view, I'm not seeing anything, I'm not going anywhere.
What I'm doing is I'm using my consciousness to query
the information from the substrate. And that that that's how
I believe it works. So, uh, you know, bas based
on research. I didn't just throw this idea together last
weekend and and put a put a stamp on it

(19:12):
and market for sale. I mean I've been at this
for some time you with me so far?

Speaker 1 (19:19):
Yes, so yeah, But let me just say this. So
when you get to something like quantum entanglement, I'm thinking
of matter at this point, but I mean, are you
is that in your mind? Is that more like an
information type of thing than matter?

Speaker 2 (19:37):
Well, quantum entanglement essentially the way that that science describes
it is, you know, like two protons for instance, or
or let's go with photons. You know, photons that that
come from the same source regardless of where they are.
There seems to be an information transfer between the two

(20:00):
because if one spends this way, the other spends the
same way at the same time. It is a simple
way to explain it that. That's that's how science is
describing quantum entanglement. Now I won't pretend that I definitely
have my finger on exactly what the mechanism is. But

(20:21):
if if reality is based fundamentally on an informational substrate,
then space and time are completely irrelevant. They're they're renders there,
they're local renders of material reality that the underlying substrate
that there is no space and time. Does that make sense?

Speaker 1 (20:44):
So this sort of you know, that's how.

Speaker 2 (20:47):
My framework would explain quantum entanglement. Just like That's how
my framework explains you u AP defining the laws of physics.
They're defined the laws of physics because the laws of
physics don't apply to them. That isn't a craft. It's
not an airplane going from you know whatever, a few
hundred feet above sea level to you know, the ionosphere

(21:10):
in a fraction of a second. That isn't possible. You
can't do that if you there's no material. I'm going
to go on record right now, I'm saying it. This
is probably the only absolute statement I'm going to make tonight.
There will never be a material invented that can do
that travel through space, time, through an atmosphere five hundred

(21:32):
feet above sea level to sixty five seventy five thousand
feet above sea level plus. It's not going to happen there.
There will not be There will not be that advance
in material science. I'm not trying to be a jerk
or anything. People can study whatever they want. But you know,
on LinkedIn the number of people who claim to be

(21:52):
the CEO of some advanced aerospace company that is going
to solve proton propulsion and warp drive and all this
other stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't. I don't
think it's going to happen. Uh, you're not. You're not
going to star trek your way from here to there.
The only the only thing that the only idea I've

(22:15):
encountered about this, that that seems to make any sense
is uh, is that they're not traveling at all, not
by our definition. They're definitely not flying. They were here,
now they're over there. Because that craft isn't a spaceship.
It is a it's an informational device. It's a it's

(22:37):
a local space time rule rewriter.

Speaker 1 (22:43):
Well, how does it appear as material?

Speaker 2 (22:46):
I think it can. It can appear probably any way
it wants to. I mean, if you're talking about something
that I'm not saying that it isn't material. I'm not
saying that. I'm saying that around it, it has the
ability to make it so that the rules of the
physical universe don't apply. So I'll give you an analogy.

(23:12):
And I should also just preface this by saying my
framework is not simulation theory. What simulation theory does is
it simply puts the question one level back. It says, oh,
this reality isn't the real reality. There's another real reality,
and this reality is a simulation running on top of it. Okay,

(23:35):
that's see, we already had a bunch of explanations that
the pushed the ontology question one step back. You know,
yahweh did it in six days or whatever? It's We're balanced,
our universe is balanced on the back of a turtle whatever.
All kinds of stories already existed where you don't really

(23:55):
get to know. You just have to accept it. And
simulation theory, as I see it, primarily does that. It
makes a load of assumptions about reality. My framework doesn't.
It makes one, maybe two assumptions, and it explains it.
And that's it. You don't need I don't. I don't

(24:15):
need to figure out the simulation so I can get
a look see on the other side and find out
what real real reality is. Does that make sense?

Speaker 1 (24:24):
Uh? Sort of? Okay, it's really interesting. I'm trying trying
to follow along. I think it's all fascinating. One of
the things that oftentimes people will say is, you know,
they can't get here from from there. And I do
understand that the distances we're talking about a physical craft,

(24:49):
the distances are you know, just crazy to even imagine
how far four light years away is to the nearest
star for instance.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
I mean, and that's you know, crossing your fingers that
that there's any life at that star. Now, if you
were traveling at speeds that are probably theoretically possible, but
that we haven't engineered anything that can travel, you could
be to like Alpha Centauri B or Proximus Centauri. You

(25:24):
could be there if you traveled one hundred thousand miles
an hour, and depending on when you did it, you
could be there in around fifteen hundred years. So it
would be theoretically possible. Now I'm just I'm not being funny.
This would be theoretically possible. You could design a way

(25:45):
for your entire civilization to travel over many, many, many
generations and have some kind of chance of somebody ending
up there. But I think that would be a pretty
pretty stupid move because you're going to get there not
knowing what's there. Because our even our technology to see

(26:05):
things that far away. I know that people, you know,
may may get the impression from news that our telescopes
can see that far. They really can't, you know, our
best telescopes, you know, distant galaxies are a few pixels

(26:26):
and the things that we're able to understand about, or
hope that we understand hope to learn about those things
that are that far away is based on you know,
visible light spectrum, you know, mostly visible light spectrum, electromagnetic spectrum,
but there it's miniscule, little little variations that we can see,

(26:47):
and it's definitely more advanced than it was, you know,
twenty fifty one hundred years ago, but still we don't
have anywhere near the information even about our closest neighbors,
to know whether not it would make sense to try
to go there. So I agree with the people who
feel that way that travel, you know, the traditional way

(27:11):
that we're even thinking about travel through through spaces is
pretty unlikely now. You know, what I believe based on
research is that whoever is controlling these craft and I
don't pretend to have solved that problem. I don't know
who they are any of the theories about who they are,
with the exception probably of transdimensional beings because in my framework,

(27:36):
there wouldn't need to be hidden dimensions. But you know,
I think they could be from other places in the universe.
I think they could be from other times that get
I don't want to get all in the weeds. But actually,
in my framework, traveling into the future would would probably
not be possible, but traveling into the past could be,
depending on what your definition of traveling is. So, yeah,

(28:01):
I think a lot of those are future humans, you know,
that kind of thing. I actually said on a podcast
last week. It hasn't come out yet, but it occurred
to me last weekend that as far as I can tell,
nobody else that I've ever seen or heard or been
able to find online has said you know what I'm
saying about UFOs, that they're reality rewriters, right. So it

(28:24):
just it occurred to me over the weekend, and I
giggled to myself, if I am the first human that
ever said it like that, and you know, I write
a book and go on the podcasts and so on,
and it turns out that they are future humans, then
it looks like I may well have invented these things.

Speaker 1 (28:45):
Through a thought process.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
Well no, so in the future, where would they have
heard about it? Fundamentally? The first guy that.

Speaker 1 (28:54):
Said it, Oh, I see what you're saying, right.

Speaker 2 (28:56):
So or conceptuallyized what they would later go on to build.
And I don't know if that's I.

Speaker 1 (29:05):
Just may have planted the seed.

Speaker 2 (29:07):
I just thought, yeah, I just thought it was funny.
I don't know if time works that way, but but
that's that's what I see them as, is reality rewriters.
And and if I'm right, and there's an underlying informational substrate,
then communication, uh is you know, for a civilization, a
species that had an understanding of this, you know, we're

(29:29):
we would then be talking about you know, a civilization
that has a far better understanding of the nature of
reality than we do, a far better understanding and probably
have for a very long time. So, uh, if they
if they possess the technology, uh, you know, relate relating
to that understanding that allows them to master those you know,

(29:55):
that master that truth that that reality is not not
as fixed as we think it is, then space and
time are just not factors for them to travel or
communicate or or think. And and if you if you
want to dig into this, you can, uh, you know,

(30:16):
look up what Gary Nolan has said and found about
some of Jacques Valet's materials that he's that he's been
able to run tests on mass spectrometry and you know,
a lot of materials analysis and he's he said, you wouldn't.
You wouldn't even if we could do this, and I
think he said we could, right. I'm just kind of

(30:38):
assuming that all the listeners kind of know what I'm
talking about. But Jaques Vala gave some materials, uh to
Gary Nolan, who's a uh, he's he's actually an immunologist,
but he's a you know, he's an academic at Stanford.
And Gary ran tests on these materials and he found

(30:58):
really interesting things. One is the isotopic ratios of some
of the some of the some of the atoms or
you know, some of the elements there are. They're not
from our son. Now, it doesn't mean that you couldn't
manufacture something to appear that way. You could, but it
would be tremendously expensive, and there would be no clear

(31:22):
reasoning for why someone would do that other other than
they're really interested in in a UFO hoax. And you
know that that theory really kind of falls apart just
at first glance, because you know, how do you know
Jacques Vallet is going to give it to him and
so on. But what he said about it is, you know,

(31:43):
this is not what you would do to make a
better wing, right, You wouldn't do this to make something
fly better, It wouldn't have.

Speaker 1 (31:51):
Had another part of whatever it was.

Speaker 2 (31:54):
It was an it was whatever it was created for.
It wasn't for material advanceage, you know, in applying Bernoulli's principle,
it was for something else. And he I think he
even said it could be an information handler of some kind.
And when I was going back through his work and

(32:14):
reading and looking at, you know, what he found. It
is very far from our current technology. If it's an
informational device, you know, if it's more of a microprocessor
than it is a wing. It's not a microprocessor like
we build today. It's but you wouldn't expect it to be.
You expect it to be very advanced, you know, versus

(32:37):
what we can accomplish. So sorry, I kind of lost
my train of thought.

Speaker 1 (32:43):
No, it's all good.

Speaker 2 (32:44):
Do I do that a lot?

Speaker 1 (32:46):
That's all right. I'll post questions up that and chat
now and then have you ever have you considered that
our access to information substrate is a function of DNA
he's talking about he as a geneticist friend that says
a substrate is a record of DNA of each of us.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
I think I understand what he's asking. So in my framework,
you know, there's not just an informational substrate. The informational
substrate actually has a bias toward coherent, persistent structures. And
this is why, this is why particles come together and

(33:29):
form atoms, because the sub the informational substrate from which
all things you know, spring for lack of a better word,
has a bias or favors coherent outcomes and structures that persist.
So it's the same reason hexavalent bonds work between this
element and this element. It's the same reason that bias

(33:53):
is the same reason that the that the star draws
in the material and it forms the planet and the
plant and it rotates around the star. Right. You know,
the the quote unquote five forces of physics are are
actually five expressions of the same force in my framework,
and that that is this coherence bias. So what that

(34:18):
causes over time is an increased complexity in structures within
the universe. And we actually see that there's a there's
a couple of scientists, Robert Hazen and Michael Wong, who
a couple of years ago they published an academic paper
with a few other people that essentially says that you know,

(34:42):
the way that they evaluate it. Everything has gotten more
complex now that now they're primarily looking at just things,
you know, rocks and elements and atoms and so on.
But you see this with life too. The only place
that we're absolutely certain life exists is here, and we've
seen that increased complexity throughout the evolution of life on Earth.

(35:06):
So what I actually think, uh, you know, biology is
is just the next expression of that bias. And what
you get from biology is the substrate sort of creating agents, right,
consciousness agents who can at first, they can alter reality

(35:31):
in little ways. So for instance, if you if you
want to break it down, every thought that you have
is an electrical and chemical process at least an electrical
and chemical process happening inside your head. Right, that is material.

(35:52):
Just by thinking something, you are changing reality. Now granted
you're not necessarily doing it in a very very big
way or very meaningful way, but you are just just
by virtue of existing, you have a measurable physical effect
on reality. But then what what I find in my

(36:12):
valuation is as we get more complex, so does our consciousness.
And now our consciousness is to the point, you know,
it is what it is in human beings and that
consciousness interfaces with the substrate. That's how remote viewing works. Uh,
it's it explains ndase you know where your your consciousness,

(36:34):
at least for a period of time, is able to
interface with the substrate with with kind of no interference. Uh.
And I did it again, I forgot what the oh biology,
So DNA is in and of itself code, it's an

(36:55):
informational structure. It's it's uh. And and evolution itself is
an algorithm. It absolutely meets that definition, you know, natural selection.
You know, even as we understand it, and as we
admit we understand it, is not exactly how I think
it works. But you know, I think biology is just

(37:18):
the current state of the art in the substrate creating agents.
It's the substrate interfacing with itself and understanding itself. And
other people have said that before that you know, we
are consciousnesses that allow the universe to experience itself. I

(37:42):
think that's a perfectly safe way to look at it.
Hopefully that answers the question. Now, do I think that
DNA is a magic thing where all this starts. No,
I think it's it's just a it's a it's a
natural component to our evolution across you know, what I
envision is this beam that we're traveling on that reflects

(38:06):
the coherence bias of the substrate.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Okay, now i'd like to I'll thank you for all that.
I'd like to kind of have you try to explain
to me when someone says to me, which a number
of people have over the last mostly I want to say,
the last few years, is there's some type of conscious

(38:32):
connection between UAPs. And what am I trying to say, Like,
when we witness the UAP, it's because of a conscious connection,
and I just have never been able to figure out
exactly what that means.

Speaker 2 (38:51):
Well, I actually have an interesting theory about that, if
you don't mind going off on a little tangent here. Sure,
I've started to put you know, like my book's almost
done and I think it'll come out for you know,
the first part of next year. But in the meanwhile,
i'm starting, you know, it's just about done. So I
don't know if it's my tend ADHD causing me these tendencies,

(39:16):
but I'm kind of looking at what's next, you know, like, Okay, well,
all right, now that I figured it out, what can
I do with it? And So I've started just brainstorming
the beginnings of putting a team together, and I've I've
talked to some people because if I'm right, and I'm
open to being wrong, by the way, I'm not like

(39:38):
ninety percent of the guests on UAP podcasts where they
absolutely know because whatever, you know, they had an NDE
and it was all revealed to them. First of all,
if you've had an NDE and it was all revealed
to you, who says you can believe it? Right? When

(40:00):
and they're going to put your animal to sleep? Do
they growl at it? Do they punch it? No, they
say it's okay, little Fido. Everything's going to be okay,
everything's going to be fine. It's all beautiful dead. Right. So,
if we're talking about you know, entities or beings or

(40:20):
whatever that are far enough advanced of us that they
can manipulate literally how we think and feel and understand
and reality and all that, then just because you heard it,
you know, on the craft or from the the you know,
giant lizard or whatever, does not mean it's reliable information.

(40:42):
Right If I told you something, could I tell you
something that isn't true? Of course I could, could I
get three people to tell you that they think it's
true too. Yes, it doesn't make it true, right, So sorry.
But so I'm starting to put together, you know, an
idea of how do I bring it together to look
at what might the technologies be that can be developed

(41:05):
as a result of you know, at least some people
accepting this as a potential understanding of the universal reality. Right,
So right off the bat, I'm trying to look at
things where first of all, how could you test my theory?
And I've got some ideas about that. I'm working with
some people. A matter of fact, over the weekend, I

(41:26):
was back and forth with Dean Raydon just about all weekend.
You know, hey, with this experiment work? No, that wouldn't work. Okay,
what about this one? What if we did this? He's like, oh,
dear boy, you know, if only you were a scientist.
And I'm like, yes, if only I was a scientist.
But you know, the kind of the next step of
that is, okay, well, what the things that we would

(41:48):
use to test this are kind of already the first
step toward a technology like this. Okay, So for instance,
how would we prove that I'm I'm right? Well, we
would prove that I'm right with experiments, you know, essentially
SI experiments that have the ability to show that you know,

(42:08):
certain mental states uh change your physiology, change how the
information in your body, uh, you know it behaves, and
that if SI functioning is is better when those informational
states are better. That shows a relationship between informational coherence
and SI functioning. So but then that kind of takes

(42:32):
you to the next step, which is okay, well, well
then how would you develop a technology to better use
those SIGH abilities? And here's what you do. You'd want
a quiet place with low light, with not a lot
of you know, you'd want it nice and rounded, nice
and soft. You would let me know when this starts

(42:56):
to sound like something to you, right, you would want it,
you know, noise canceling. You wouldn't want a bunch of
furniture around you just want, you know, maybe just one
place to sit. You'd basically want like the ultimate meditation Uh.
You know, have you ever seen any of those pods,
the meditation pods? Yeah, you were in California. Those are

(43:19):
a big deal out in California. They got a whole
strip malls and on the end of it is the
meditation pod place.

Speaker 1 (43:24):
Well, they also have those I forget what they absolutely
floating them and their body temperature and all that.

Speaker 2 (43:33):
Yeah, yeah, float tanks or immersion tanks. So but is
this starting to sound like anything to you?

Speaker 1 (43:41):
Yeah, being in your mam yah, well before you're born.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
What how are those UAPs described? The people who say
they've been inside of them, they just they describe them
in a a in a kind of a specific and uh,
you know the descriptions that you hear about these harmonize
with each other. You know. Uh, there's there's no equipment,

(44:06):
there's uh, you know, there's just a seat or there's nothing,
and the walls are smooth and there's no seams and
there's no rivets, and the lighting is just so and
you know, if you're inside, you can't hear anything outside basically. Uh.
And I realized this about halfway through kind of working out, Okay,
what might that next technology? What's the first technology that

(44:27):
maybe I could participate in developing as a result of,
you know, the understanding and acceptance that that whatever reality
is based on information and SI shows us how it's done.
And and that's that's kind of what I came up
with as The next step is is you know, devices
that would improve access to the substrate between your consciousness

(44:52):
and and underlying nature of reality and so and then
I'm I'm doing research into Okay, well, well what kind
of things would do that? And that led me to
you know, you know, modes of meditation and things like that,
and so then I'm thinking about it, kind of going
back and forth with my little AI assistant, and lo

(45:15):
and behold, it looks an awful lot like the inside
of a UAP, which is not weird. It's I wasn't surprised.
It was fun, fun to realize, but I wasn't surprised
at all, because that's exactly what I'm saying. The UAP is.
It's a it's an interface device that allows you to
rewrite local reality. Now, I only know of one thing

(45:37):
that definitely already exists that can do that, and it
is consciousness. Right, I don't know. You know, have you
ever heard of spoon bending?

Speaker 1 (45:50):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (45:51):
Yeah, it's real. I've talked to enough people that I
trust to have done it. Now. I haven't personally seen it,
but there's many many things people believe they haven't personally
seen yet. But you know, if if p k and
you know psychokinesis, telekinesis, even remote viewing. If those things

(46:11):
are possible, then our consciousness already has the strongest, the
strongest attributes towards some kind of command of the substrate.
So it doesn't surprise me at all when people say,
you know, either the device itself seems to be conscious

(46:33):
or you know, the inhabitants communicate telepathically. There's people who
see UAPs that get the impression that they're somehow participating
mentally with the behavior of the UAP. That's not weird
at all because, again, based only on what we already know,
not trying to star trek this thing and imagine stuff

(46:56):
that's based on who knows what, Based on what I
already know about the substrate reality and consciousness as participation
in it, then my guess would be that that all,
all or most of these devices operate that way. You know,
somebody with a consciousness is in control of that craft

(47:19):
to some degree consciously, and if there's no steering wheel inside,
it's got to move around some way.

Speaker 1 (47:26):
Yeah, very interesting. Well, you know, I I think I
asked this with my guests last week when we talk
about consciousness, What defines consciousness at what level of intelligence
or does it not matter? I mean, can a tree
be conscious?

Speaker 2 (47:46):
A tree is conscious?

Speaker 1 (47:48):
A tree is conscious.

Speaker 2 (47:49):
Okay, are you familiar with any of the work of
Rupert Sheldrake.

Speaker 1 (47:54):
M M.

Speaker 2 (47:56):
Rupert Sheldrake is a technically, I think he's a I
think he's a biochemist, but you know, evolutionary biology is
has been kind of his his primary endeavor. But he
wrote a book called what was that called? It was

(48:20):
a New Science of life, and he he that's when
he came out with this idea of something called morphic resonance,
which is not dissimilar from what the the viewer who
asked the question about DNA, it's not dissimilar from that,
he says.

Speaker 1 (48:38):
Follow up question, by the way, Oh okay, good.

Speaker 2 (48:43):
Yeah, Rupert Sheldrake says. And actually, Rupert S. Sheldrake was
one of the first people I reached out to when
I was developing this framework, and I just, you know,
fire off a bunch of emails. These people are famous,
They're not going to reply to me. That was not
the case. He he got back to me and said, yeah,
I actually think what you're saying makes a lot of sense.

(49:04):
But he says, you know, basically that he calls it
a morphic field, that there's a morphic field that all
biological life is somehow connected to. And this is why
when you teach mice to do something on this part
of the planet, experimental data shows that everywhere else that

(49:24):
you then try to see if they can do it,
they can do it when previously they couldn't. He I think,
was one of the ones that did the some of
the experiments with plants where you know, you cause harm
to a plant and then you go you go into
another room where there is a plant, and as soon
as you come into the room, that plant demonstrates, you know,

(49:47):
activity measurable about this.

Speaker 1 (49:49):
All the way back in the seventies they were doing
experiments like that.

Speaker 2 (49:53):
Yes, yeah, so yeah, I think all life is conscious now.
Even if you look at like a single cell organism,
if you introduce a stimulus that is able to be
recognized as harmful, then that then that single celled organism
will respond. It will it will attempt to preserve itself. Uh,

(50:17):
you know, an amoeba, if you you know, poke it
with a needle, it'll it'll try to move the other way.
So that's a consciousness. I don't think. Now, what I
don't do with consciousness is give it a bunch of
things that it doesn't have that nobody can show that
it has. I don't think consciousness. I don't think the
universe is made out of consciousness. I don't think unconscious

(50:39):
things are conscious. I do not put it on a
pedestal that it hasn't done anything to deserve it is.
It is special. It is that it is the thing
that we have that apparently, uh, you know, to a
to a mostly tiny degree, gives us superpower. Uh, it's
the it's it's evidence that you know that that the

(51:04):
universe is participatory. And I think that's I think that's
uh that that's enough. I don't think it needs to
be you know, magic necessarily.

Speaker 1 (51:15):
We've only got a little bit of uh uh time
left here. Let me just see here, but you know,
four or five minutes. But uh, I've always wondered, how
does consciousness be? Consciousness began? How does it go away?
You know, is it being born and dying?

Speaker 2 (51:33):
Is that?

Speaker 1 (51:34):
Is that what it is? But but you can totally
ignore that question because I think this one needs to
be answered first. So it's a follow up Chris is
writing about the DNA, really asking more about the ability
to access memory of the substrate, not necessarily in real time,
but as a recording. Every T cell has more storage

(51:55):
than all the libraries.

Speaker 2 (51:58):
Yeah, you said, uh, that person's name is Chris. Yeah,
thanks Chris.

Speaker 1 (52:03):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (52:03):
Yeah, I think that that kind of helps me understand
that what you're talking about it is a lot to
do with what doctor Sheldrake has been working on. So
but I'll try to answer it simply. We have access
to this substrate. You know, anybody that doesn't believe me,

(52:27):
give something a number and send me the number, and
I will more than half the time, with more than
half more better than fifty percent accuracy. I will describe
that thing to you. I will sketch a rough drawing
of it. Now I won't know what it is necessarily,

(52:47):
but when I show it to you, you'll say, oh, yeah,
that's the that's the vase on the shelf over there.
And sometimes I'll even have drawn the shelf.

Speaker 1 (52:55):
So I'm going to do that. I'm going to do
that after we hang up. Oh yeah, and then I'll
put the results in.

Speaker 2 (53:02):
Interestingly fun Yeah, so now you know, then somewhat less
than half the time it's it's gobbledygook that makes no sense.
Sometimes it's gobbledygook that makes no sense that goes on
to make sense later. But you know, I think what
he's asking there is you know what what is? What
is biologies level of access? It's it's tremendous, is what

(53:25):
it is. It means that that there is nothing theoretically,
there is no information that that can exist that you
don't have some level of access to. Now you also
have a very large, complex, very noisy brain. It's working
all the time. Frankly, the brain is in the way

(53:46):
of this. But yeah, and Rupert Scheldrake says that morphic
field actually informs biology of what's likely to work next.
This is why bats and birds and bugs all develop
wings into of each other.

Speaker 1 (54:02):
Mm hm. So we have just one minute, So if
you want to here's another just I'll just quote this.
The idea of a particle not existing until necessarily I
fits simulation theory like a video.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
It does. It does. But the reason the problem I
have with simulation theory is that all all it does
is explain why this reality doesn't make sense. It doesn't
answer then what is what's the other reality? That this
one is operating on top of and information first, which
is what I call my framework. There. There isn't any

(54:35):
additional universes needed. Dark matter is not needed, gravity isn't space,
time isn't bent. Space time doesn't exist, dark energy doesn't exist.
The speed of light doesn't have to be constant everywhere,
the Big Bang doesn't have to have been at an instant.
I could go on, but it is similar to some

(54:57):
of those theories. And what he said about simulation theory,
he is accurate.

Speaker 1 (55:01):
Okay, we got less than a minute, so just throw
out all your information, would.

Speaker 2 (55:05):
It from us dot com. You can learn everything you
need to learn there, whether I say it out loud
or not. Book will be out when it's out. I
you know, if you if you get it, I hope
you like it. I've enjoyed writing it. Yeah, excellent, And
thanks for having me on. I appreciate you.

Speaker 1 (55:22):
Thank you very much. It's been a real pleas Yeah,
very very interesting, all right, and I'd love to hear
from guests like you that have these great theories, So
thank you. I appreciate it. Anytime, all right, everyone, So
we will be back next Tuesday with Len Philippo Philippo
if that's his name. He may be on Tuesday, I'm

(55:44):
not sure, or it might be Professor Matthews Shadegas one
or the other. And one of them is going to
be on Thanksgiving Day next week. And so thank you
all so much for being here, and remember to keep
your eyes to anything