FADE to BLACK host: Jimmy Church guest: Eric Wargo

Tonight, author and researcher Eric Wargo joins us to discuss Pre-Cog, Time Travel and UFOs!!!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Yeah, this Hope Radio for the NASSIS headline of this

(00:34):
July eighth, nineteen forty seven, the Yadi Airport is person
outstart applying the pertin found and there's now in the possession.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Of the arda that the game is really changed.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
The game gage.

Speaker 4 (00:47):
I occasionally think how quickly our difference is worldwide would
vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside
this work.

Speaker 3 (01:03):
This is Day to Black. It's your host, Jimmy Church
on the Game Changer Radio Network. All right, welcome, how
you doing fade to black? That's right, but you knew
that today is Thursday, July third, twenty twenty five. Let's
do this man. Yeah, I'm your host, Jimmy Church. Happy

(01:26):
fourth of July. Everybody, tomorrow is July fourth. Pretty cool
that a holiday like this is landing on a Friday,
so it is a legit. You know, it's not Sunday night,
it's not money. It's Friday, right, So have a great, safe,
fun and amazing Fourth of July weekend and be safe

(01:49):
and do all those things that I would do. Okay,
So happy fourth of July. Yeah, wow, it is. It
is the fourth of July, and I just got back
Peru everybody knows that I have been out of town
for the last three weeks, but feels good to be
back in the saddle. Great week of shows this week.

(02:09):
Monday night we did our Peru and Bolivia recap special.
That was a lot of fun. I still don't know
how I pulled that off with that kind of sleep
deprivation in so many hours in airports, but we did
that on Monday. Tuesday night, Ron Meyer was here, Jesus
had an ND. Last night, Lance high Tower was with

(02:32):
this great conversation about dog Man in the USA and
crypto zoology and all of that fun stuff. Tonight, Eric
Wargo is with us. We're going to be talking about
pre cog precognition, throwing a little time travel and some
UFOs for good measure. I do have one major event

(02:52):
coming up later on this month is the sy Games.
I am the host of this event Agust first through
the third, twenty twenty five in Charlotte'sville, Vaginyah the Psychic
Olympics game show host. They picked the right person. The

(03:13):
links for that are below on our website and throughout
social media for tickets, info, speakers, schedule, all of that.
The links are below. All right Tonight's gonna be interesting everybody.
I'm gonna throw Eric under the bus a little bit
doing sound check before the show. I've done a lot
of sound checks. I soundcheck every show and it's always great.

(03:37):
But I found out something about Eric. He knows nothing
about Fade to Black. Yeah, And I'm thinking, wait a minute,
we're talking about precock tonight. Shouldn't he know? And that's
interesting because I get to go into this fresh. This
is great for me. Most guests are just excited to

(04:00):
be here and oh, Jimmy, I can't believe I'm on
your show, and thank you? And oh not Eric, Oh no,
Eric is here for a great conversation. But he's about
to get the experience. I'm excited and I get to learn.
We are going to do pre cog, precognition, the science

(04:23):
behind it, all of that stuff. When we get into
these subjects and you start to throw in time travel
and UFOs, I think we all know that they are connected.
And bringing on someone that studies this and researches this
and writes about this is about as exciting as it
gets for me. Now here's the deal. We're going to

(04:46):
talk about science. We're going to talk about that mystery
of pre cog We're going to talk about our dreams
and creativity. We're going to do all of that and
how artists have probably predicted future events. But here's the
big part. Eric has a PhD in anthropology. He is
the author of several acclaimed books on precognition, the unconscious, creativity,

(05:10):
and time travel. He also writes about science fiction and
parapsychology at his popular blog, The Night Shirt. His links
are below. And I would like to welcome for the
first time to Fade to Black, Eric Wargo. There he is.

Speaker 2 (05:24):
How you doing Eric, great, Hi Jimmy, thank you for
having me on your show.

Speaker 3 (05:29):
Yeah, that's that's good. Eric, that's good. That's a good start. Okay,
you get the first time guest disclaimer. Now, most first
time guests are excited about that. But you don't know
this is coming at all, do you? Okay? All right?

Speaker 2 (05:44):
I mean we established that I am way with two kids.

Speaker 3 (05:48):
I know, I job dude writing. I have no time,
say no more, say no more. Do you know how
many people or you can imagine that, come up to
me every time get an email or whatever. They'll go,
Hey man, so have you checked out this podcast? Blah

(06:08):
blah blah, and I go, no, I have never heard
of it. Well what about blah blah blah? No, never
heard of it? And it's just what you're saying. It's time.
You know, life is in the way. And there are

(06:29):
a lot of people out there hosting and podcasting, and
I think that's great. If you have a passion and
you want to go for it and you have something
to say, people resonate with it, things are going to
be good for you. And a lot of people are
dipping their toes in the water. I commend that I
have no idea what everybody else is doing. I have none.

(06:49):
I have zero clue. All right, let's get to the
first time guess disclaimer? Eric, which is this Eric? It's
just you and I sitting on my case out to
having a conversation as friends. Where that conversation starts, It starts,
where it ends, it ends, but we're going to end
as friends. There you go. Now you have to accept
so we can move on. You do, Okay, that was cool?

(07:12):
That was cool. I actually want to start here, all right.
Nothing to do with pre cog, everything to do with anthropology. Well,
it was the last time you got a good anthropological
question been a minute.

Speaker 2 (07:32):
I don't know if I've gotten a good anthropological question,
least in the last few years.

Speaker 3 (07:38):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
And I haven't worked in anthropology since you know I have,
and I've never really worked in anthropologist my PhD. But
I left academia as soon as i got the PhD.
So it's like I'm an anthropologist by training.

Speaker 3 (07:56):
But okay, well, let's see. Let's see where you orthodox
academia took you. How's that all right? Scientifically, based on data,
suggests that Homo sapient sapien is between one hundred and

(08:18):
fifty and two hundred thousand years old, right. We don't
know about the missing link but or if there is one,
but we do know that Homo sapient sapient just appeared
as we are right now, roughly two hundred thousand years ago.
How is that possible without millions and millions of years

(08:41):
of evolution? And when we did pop up, we were
missing a pair of chromosomes three and four, and we're
sitting with a different chromosome pair count than other primates.
Does that suggest something strange to you that happened in

(09:05):
the record in the deep past. It's some intervention I.

Speaker 2 (09:11):
I'm fascinated by this idea, absolutely, And I'm not a
physical anthropologist. I mean someone like Michael Masters, who will
probably talk about later when we get into time travel.
I don't know if you've had him on your show yet.

Speaker 3 (09:24):
Yeah, a few times.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
He's great, Okay, yeah, totally well, I mean he's he'd
be the kind of person that can give a much
more educated answer on that question. I was a cultural
anthropologist or that's how you know my training was so,
but no, I'm fascinated by that question. I I I
am totally open to that idea. Unfortunately, it's like I
don't know how you you know, how you you know,

(09:48):
test test that idea, you know, other than other than
genetics that I don't understand. You know, some sort of
gene sequencing technology that that well okay, you know whether
our our genome has been.

Speaker 3 (10:05):
Messed to it? Yeah, well yeah, I.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
Mean that seems to me like that's how you'd have
to establish that type of thing. And I know that
you know, certainly people can look at uh, you know,
geneticists can look at organisms and see or you know,
like viruses and see if they've you know, or bacteria
to see if they've been engineered somehow. But you know,
I don't know, I don't know. I am totally open

(10:29):
to that idea, though. I think it's a fascinating idea,
all the all the hallmarks of being domesticated.

Speaker 3 (10:36):
Right right. I need to get you to stand close
to your mic and maybe move it over to the
center of you. My producer just said, turn them up,
and I've got you turned up full blast. Okay, Okay,
so no more taking steps back. Okay, we're only moving forward. Eric,

(10:57):
But is it is it too oo? Is it too
out there to even start to start to frame this
like some et intervention or is that one of the
easiest things that you could boil this down to. It's
like an easier answer than luck.

Speaker 2 (11:21):
Well, I mean that's a misunderstanding of evolution. I mean
it's luck I mean it's there. There are a lot
of different ways of understanding natural selection. Certainly, I don't
think we can rule out that be just emerged through
ordinary processes of natural selection. I mean, the fossil record
is so so spotty that that you're not going to

(11:42):
have those missing you know, you're there always going to
be those missing links, you know, between you know, species
so the fact that we have not yet found uh,
you know, an ancestor direct you know, you know, precursor
to to Homo sapien sapiens doesn't mean that we're not
going to but you know, yes, I mean that the

(12:04):
idea that that we we could have been you know,
engineered or tampered with or accidentally. You know what I'm
really intrigued by again we met, We mentioned Michael Masters
when I'm intrigued by the possibility that that you know,
there may have been interbreeding with our future descendants that

(12:24):
has that created some sort of runaway evolution that that
resulted in our current form. And that's that to me,
you have, the time travel possibility is far more I
think compelling in a lot of ways, I think than

(12:45):
the et uh you know, manipulation. So there's all kinds
of possibilities there.

Speaker 3 (12:51):
Yeah, whenever, and we can move on. I just wanted
your take on that. But whenever I talk to a
professional anthropologists archaeologist and this, and I do want their
opinions on this subject, they'll usually dismiss it with man
stuff happens, you know, and just ah, you know, it's

(13:17):
because they're uncomfortable and they everybody thinks about this, but
they don't want to give their opinion and they don't
want to sound wack of doodle. But it's a huge,
non trivial, serious question, one that we just don't have
the answers for. All we know is here we are,

(13:41):
and we just appeared like in this perfect divine body overnight,
you know, and it's it's it's pretty incredible. Okay. Moving
on from that, the the idea behind precognition. It's about
as fascinating as it gets. I really love this subject.

(14:03):
Let's start with the basics first. In your definition of
pre cog and precognition.

Speaker 2 (14:09):
Yeah, so precognition means literally knowing before, and it's any
way in which a person can be influenced by something
in the future. That is to say, you know, the
most obvious that people think about is maybe like a

(14:31):
precognitive dream. You know, you have a dream about some
event and then a few days later it happens in
real life or you see it on the news. That's
incredibly common. I mean, it's beyond common. I think it's
probably a universal phenomenon. We can talk about this. I
think that this probably is basic to our psychology our cognition.

(14:55):
But people have these have waking experiences of of getting
a glimpse of something that then comes to pass uh
in their lives, or people just uh. You know, they
may write a song or a or a or a
poem or a novel, and you know, a few years later,

(15:16):
the exact situation that they wrote about uh comes true
in their life or in the news or whatever again,
and that is similarly ubiquitous. It's so common. I mean,
I've just written two books on this, on the connection
of precognition and creativity, you know, I think it's it's
basic to creativity. So precognition is being, is knowing, seeing, saying.

(15:45):
The word prophecy is a is a is a is
a common vernacular term that that means saying before uh.
Premonition that's another common vernacular term that usually kindnotes of warning,
you know, being warned about some thing. But any of
these terms really mean sort of being influenced by something

(16:05):
in the future in a way that that couldn't be
accounted for by ordinary you know, prediction or inference about
the future, like inferring that you know something, predicting that
something might happen. That's different it's not prediction. Precognition is
knowing something in the future that there's just no way
you could possibly know other than that somehow information came

(16:29):
back from a future event and influenced you.

Speaker 3 (16:33):
How Okay, agreed, But how how is that for somebody
that has zero belief in anything outside of their two
D reality? How is this possible? Because they would say

(16:54):
that that is impossible, it's coincidence. This is you're putting
stuff together, your brain is working in a strange way.
It's impossible. This is an untruth. So how is it
possible that pre cog can even happen?

Speaker 2 (17:11):
Right? And to answer that question, really you need to
go back to the Enlightenment, which you know, three hundred
four hundred years ago, when the rules and the sort
of basic premises of the scientific worldview were being formulated
by people like Francis Bacon and then later Isaac Newton

(17:32):
and so on. They One of the things they got
rid of that had been pretty much taken for granted
until that time was what we now call teleology. That
is to say that the future can influence the past,
or that sort of where you're headed is somehow pulling
you towards it. They got rid of that idea because

(17:57):
it sounded to them like intervention. The only teleology that
these guys could imagine was had to do with God's
divine plan, and the new rules of science said, well,
we can't bring God into it, Okay, we need to
come up with an explanation for everything happening in nature
that doesn't involve God, all right, So they got rid

(18:21):
of teleology, and it was like literally throwing the baby
out with the bath water. Don't talk about God as
a bathwater, but they they they threw out this idea
of teleology, and it became basic to a scientist's training
that you do not accept any kind of explanation that

(18:42):
doesn't that isn't causal at that kind of linear linear
way past the future, okay. And to this day, scientists
are steeped in this, and anything that violates ordinary understandings
of causality is regarded as you know, just verboten. Okay,

(19:03):
you cannot talk about it. But the exception is in physics.
It's becoming more and more talked about in physics that,
in fact, the one way linear causality that we've been
steeped in since the Enlightenment may not be true, it
may not be the only, the only truth to things.

(19:26):
There's more and more physicists are talking about retro causation,
that is to say, the idea that the future can
influence the past, and that information can travel future to
past same way it travels past to future. Now, recently
there's been a revolution in biology to talk about quantum biology.

(19:50):
You've probably heard that term, and various quantum processes that
would allow retro causation may be happening in living systems
like and like neurons. So in fact, there is a
growing there are growing reasons to think, oh, something like
precognition could be real, And unfortunately the skeptics and debunkers

(20:13):
haven't gotten these memos from the higher echelons of the
physical sciences that causality is not what we used to
think it was.

Speaker 3 (20:24):
Well, here's what's fascinating about that. When you look at
retro causality, it only can affect to this moment from
the future. It can affect the past that's just left

(20:46):
us right right, It only until this moment and then
this moment is just passed, but it can come back
and affect the stuff that is very close to being
in front of us from seconds to minutes to days.
That's the true. Well, but the past, let me, well,

(21:08):
let me okay, can I finish?

Speaker 2 (21:10):
Eric?

Speaker 3 (21:10):
Is it okay? Can I finish? Uh? That's where they
that's their safe zone. And commenting on this, when you
go into the idea of things changing in the past
and well, wait a minute, what's the evidence of that,
I would immediately go into conversations like the Mandela effect

(21:34):
and how things in the past are obviously different than
we remember. Right, millions of people either have flawed memories
or some deep seated psychosis, some issue that we don't
know about, or something is indeed changing the past that

(21:55):
our memory is not changed, but the past is. And
then there's the like an element to this. It's called
deja vu. Any physicists or scientists out there that wants
to poopoo this idea has had a deja vu, but
they don't like to talk about that stuff because they
can't prove it and they can't measure it. They know

(22:16):
it exists, don't they.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
Well, okay, I'm not a believer in first the Mandela
effect that we can go into you know why why
that is? I mean very basically, if your memory is
you know, your memory should be a product of the
same history that led led to you right now. So
what what is explaining the fact that your memory is

(22:39):
different from from uh, you know, history. But we can
we can go into other uh equibbles with with that.
Deja vu is another problem. A lot of people, you know,
when you talk about precognitive dreams, they will bring up
deja vu as like, you know, an example of something
that seems like you you must have had a premonition

(23:01):
of this moment because it feels familiar all that. Maybe maybe, maybe,
But there are other ways to explain deja vu too.
You can you can cause the brain to misfire and
and to give you know, you could stick a probe
in a certain part of the brain and give you
and you'd suddenly have this feeling like, oh, I lived
through this before. Uh, there's kind of a familiarity I

(23:23):
don't know, circuit or something in the brain that can
be triggered. And if you can trigger it, you know,
in an artificial way. It's possible that deja VU's are
just the brain misfiring. I don't know. I mean, I
think I suspect it's both. I suspect that yes, some
DejaVu is a memory of precognitive dream or something like

(23:45):
that you've forgotten. But I would say that the real
best evidence is precognitive dreams because that you know, those
are incredibly common. Of course, yes, skeptics, they're gonna, you know,
refuse to accept that, but uh you know, almost most people,
by according to many surveys, have had those dreams. Uh

(24:07):
And and throughout history, every single culture here's an anthropological fact.
You know, every single culture throughout history that we know
of has taken it for granted that some sometimes you
get glimpses of the future in dreams and visions and
so on, and scientific culture since the Enlightenment, is the
sole exception to that. Uh So it is a universal

(24:30):
human belief that that that, you know, people do get
glimpses of the future. And if you've experienced it, I've
I've had hundreds of precognitive dreams.

Speaker 3 (24:41):
Sure, I've worked.

Speaker 2 (24:42):
With many people who have regular precognitive dreams, and I've
and I teach people how to experience it themselves. You know,
even if you're not aware that you're having precognitive dreams,
I believe you are possibly on a nightly basis, and
you can learn to experience that fact for yourself. So
I think that's the best evidence for essentially retro causation,

(25:03):
which is the idea of you know again, information traveling
from the future to the past.

Speaker 3 (25:13):
My own experience is this. Without getting into me personally,
you're the guest on the show. It's about you. But
when I look at the subject, I always, or any subject,
I look at my own experiences. That's what I do.
That's I other people's research and books and things and documentaries.

(25:35):
That's all fine, and I love that, But my own
experience is what I that's my go to reference. And
I don't talk about this ever, and I'm not going
to get into the specifics now, But throughout my life,
I've had certain dreams that have repeated and I didn't

(25:56):
understand them. And I had for years a very specific
dream about very specific things and a location in this
and down to and I had it so often that
I knew all the details of this dream, and I
didn't know what it meant until it happened and suddenly

(26:20):
I'm you know, and I'm wait a minute, this is
not only the dream, but how could I possibly have
been dreaming about this for ten twenty thirty years, and
now here I am down to the finest detail. Who

(26:42):
is reading my book of the future? And how is
that in my head? Now, I don't your books, anybody
else's books, anybody else's theories and this and how they look.
That's all fine. My experience is more important than all
of that, and it's you have to just step back
and go, well, I don't have the answers, but the

(27:04):
reality is here right.

Speaker 2 (27:07):
Right absolutely, And I think that you know, I wrote
my second book, Precognitive Dreamwork in the long self to
kind of get people to to have that experience themselves.
I mean, it's one thing to read about another person
having a you know, amazing precognitive dream or or whatever.
But just do it yourself and you can. You know,

(27:30):
it's really not that hard. And I can tell you
how even in the show. But do it yourself and
then like then have that Holy you know, I don't
know if we're all to swear on this.

Speaker 3 (27:40):
Show, do what you want you're the guest.

Speaker 2 (27:42):
Yeah, I mean, holy shit, you know, it's like, what
the fuck? How did I How did this very specific
life circumstance, you know, how did my brain or whatever?
Find out at this you know, it's one thing when

(28:03):
it happens like a day or two in advance. That's
most common to have a precognitive dream about event that's
a few days hence, but you can. But it's also
very common to have dreams that are decades decades out
in the future of an event, and like that is
mind blowing to have those experiences.

Speaker 3 (28:21):
I was in I was in the fourth grade, fourth grade.
I'm young, nine years old, you know something like that. Eight.
I'm in the fourth grade and I'm in class. My
teacher was missus Lafferty. She was wonderful by the way
she read us a wrinkle in time to the class.

(28:41):
I will always right right forever. She's got that credit anyway.
So I'm sitting in class and I remember remember looking
around going, uh, this feels weird. I'm feeling weird right now.
And I turn and I look at this part, and
I know what they're about to say. And then they

(29:03):
said it. I'm a kid, and I turn over here
and I hear the answer, but I know what the
answer is going to be. And I look over here
and I know it's about to happen, and I'm scratching
my head and I knew it and what And I
went up to missus Lafferty and I said, somebody has
read my book. She goes, what are you talking about.

(29:26):
I said, I don't know, but I knew what everybody
was going to say before there, before they said it.
She goes, you're having a deja vu. I was like,
oh really, Now I was a young kid. She defined
it as deja vous. I don't know, but that was
a moment and I remember going to her and saying this,

(29:47):
I am sure that everybody on this planet has the
same experience. I'm positive of that.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
Yes, yeah, it's incredibly common. Uh. And people when they're
and the you know, for some reason, it's possible to
get in the zone with this stuff, and it's possible
to be way out of the zone. And and people who
are you know, experiencing a lot of Yeah. I don't
know if it has to do with life crises or
life turning points or whatever, but people will go through

(30:16):
kind of periods where like, you know, the whole world
is aligning, everything's they're having synchronicities all over the place,
and you'll occasionally have that experience. We're like, wait, bit,
wait a minute, what the fuck I know what this
person is going to say, and then they say it.
The trouble is letting you feel like, oh wow, if
I could always do that, wouldn't it be awesome? And
it's like it can't. But but absolutely that that is
a very very common kind of experience.

Speaker 3 (30:39):
And how many, how many, how many? How many ignore it?

Speaker 2 (30:44):
I think everyone ignores it. That's the problem. We live
in a culture that does not accept this sort of thing.
And so you know, people a they don't they sell,
they don't tell other people about it and say that
don't get any kind of validation that it's real. And
if they do tell people, it's like, oh, well, it's
just blah blah blah, it's just deja bu it's just
you know, you're just self deceived or you know, you're whatever.

(31:08):
But it'll be written off. And the thing is kids
are experiencing this all the time. I know this about
with my own kids. They're having these precognitive experiences all
the time. And it's the kind of thing that that
I think most parents are just gonna like be dismissive
of because they don't under they don't have even have
a concept of precognition. I mean, how many people have
even heard that word? You know, if you've read science

(31:29):
fiction or whatever, you may know that word, but it's
not an everyday term. And uh. And if you you know,
product of our education and our society and so on,
you're not going to have a conceptual box to put
this kind of experience in. Uh, And so you're gonna
just kind of write it off. Or maybe you've maybe
you've heard that concept of synchronicity, maybe you've read Carl

(31:51):
Jung or something like that. It's like, okay, so you
can sort of call it that and and whatever. But
but most people don't have a conceptual framework for this.
And so you know, when you don't have a conceptual framework,
you forget it, you know. And it's amazing how often
people have remarkable and this is not just true of precognition,
but true of any kind of paranormal experience. Will have

(32:13):
an amazing paranormal experience that ought to be life changing,
you know, it ought to create ontological shock, but you
kind of start to doubt it afterwards. It's like, well that, no,
that can't have been real, that that wasn't real, And
then you kind of just forget about it, and then
it's only if maybe you meet someone else or you watch,
you know, a radio show or a podcast that talks

(32:35):
about it, and it's like, wait a minute, that happened
to me, you know. And I think that we're now
in this great time of awakening about a lot of
paranormal subjects thanks to shows like yours that and thanks
to some academics who are now kind of being a
little bit more bold about talking about this stuff. But

(32:57):
you know, for many decades or century really, you know,
people just didn't have a way to talk about this
stuff or a way to have it validated by other people,
and so they will just kind of have these experiences,
but then they get swept away or forgotten.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
Leonard Suskan the great physicist, right, and we all love Leonard.
He's amazing. He said something a couple of years ago,
maybe longer than that, but it just stuck with me.
I was watching one of his presentations and he said, well,
today we're going to talk about time travel. And how

(33:33):
can you tell when a physicist is about to retire
they start talking about time travel, you know, because they
all and his point and he went on to expand
on this they all think about it, they just can't
talk about it. And then you get to that point

(33:53):
in your life, you know, where the some of those
moros thoughts start popping in and you were starting to
realize you'remmortality or whatever, and you're like, well, screw it. Yeah,
but how is science now starting to open up and
look into this without the fear of the linear limit

(34:15):
of their life closing in that it can be something
more freer to talk about. Are they Are they starting
to do it now? And how are they approaching it?

Speaker 2 (34:26):
Well? There, I think we're not quite starting to do it,
but I think they're going to soon. And the reason
I think that is because basically everyone in like the
academy or in any intellectual field, they basically all ultimately
take their marching orders from physicists. If physics says it's

(34:48):
okay to talk about a subject, then then the rest
of the world. Then it sort of trickles down, you know,
to like biology and chemistry and psychology and answer Paul
all that, you know. But until physicists have sanctioned an
idea like then no one's going to talk about it.
So the physicists are going to be the first word

(35:10):
people to talk about something like time travel and retro causation,
and that is what's happening. More and more physicists are
are kind of really pushing aside the sort of what's
been sort of the dogma not really dogma, but consensus
in quantum physics for a century now called the Copenhagen interpretation.

(35:36):
They're sort of pushing that aside and realizing that that
was kind of a dead end in a lot of ways,
And a lot of physicists are talking about retro causation
as an explanation for a lot of the sort of
quantum spookiness that you know, you associate with quantum physics.
You know, we don't know understand why, you know, all
these mysterious things happen on the quantum scale. But retro

(35:59):
cause is now being talked about much more openly, just
in the last couple of decades. And it's partly I
would say, there's a cultural reason for the shift, but
there's also an experimental reason. It's very hard to test
retro causation because of the uncertainty principle in in clontum physics,

(36:20):
but recent like very sensitive experimental techniques have started to
demonstrate retro causation in the laboratory and sort of the
more so that the more that people talk about retro
causation as a possibility, and then the more they demonstrate
it in experiments, then physicists are going to start I

(36:44):
think a momentum is building right now around this idea
of retro causation, and it also goes by different terms.
Some people don't like the term retro causation, but they
like other terms that sort of are more I don't know,
there's a lot of disagreement, but still, well, the idea
basically of causes sort of going in reverse. Once that happens,

(37:07):
I think that there's going to be a big paradigm
shift or not or maybe not a paradigm shift, but
it's going to be this much more openness about the
idea of causes traveling backwards and information traveling backwards. It's
going to happen in conjunction with quantum computing, because a
lot of quantum computing research is what's showing this idea
that you can reverse the temporal sequence of like of calculations,

(37:31):
for instance, in the quantum computer. So I think in
the next decade two decades we're going to get a
lot more physicists talking about retro causation, and once that happens,
then that's going to trickle down and psychologists, you know,
I'll bet you a ton of psychologists. You know, they're
the they're the worst skeptics of all around anything anything

(37:53):
to do with.

Speaker 3 (37:53):
Esp anything cool, anything anything cool.

Speaker 2 (37:57):
Absolutely, but but you know, you can You've got to
imagine that that, like a lot of psychologists are out
there who had precognitive dreams and who've had, you know,
these kinds of exact same kinds of experiences, but have
never felt safe to talk about it because their field

(38:17):
is very dogmatic that that's pseudoscience or whatever. Well, if physicists,
if they see physicists starting to talk about it, then
they're going to go, oh, you know, maybe maybe this
isn't absurd. So I think that's what's going to happen.
I think that there's going to be sort of a loosening,
you know, once physicists start being more open about this.

Speaker 3 (38:36):
Idea for for the audience, give us an example of
retro causation that they would understand.

Speaker 2 (38:48):
Well, a precognitive dream like like uh, you know, involves
involves information traveling backward in time somehow, I would say,
in a in a human brain, you know. Let me
give you example. Tons of people had had precognitive dreams
about nine to eleven for instance. Oh and the Titanic

(39:09):
disaster too, and like tons of examples of this. And
the more and the more farther we go in history
with the Internet, the more examples we have now of
people having precognitive dreams about big news events. But just
take take nine to eleven for instance. You know, Okay,
so they there was a painter in England, and I'm gosh,

(39:32):
I'm blaming and blanking on his name all it'll come
to me. But anyway, he you know, he had a
dream on the night of September eleventh, nineteen ninety six,
so five days, five years to the day before nine
to eleven, he had a dream of the Twin Towers
in New York collapsing. Okay, And he he because he

(39:52):
had a history of precognitive dreams, he painted all of
his dreams. And then he actually had himself photographed under
the bank clock of his Barklay's Bank, local Barkley's Bank, Okay,
And so it had Dayton timestamp, and there's a photograph
of this guy holding this picture under the Dayton time,
you know, under the clock. This says September eleventh, nineteen

(40:16):
ninety six. And anyway, he had this dream. Then he
had another dream a few months later of planes hitting
the buildings, and then of course, then five years to
the day after that dream, the you know, the real
event happened and he was like, you know, blown away
and incredibly upset. You know, he'd had this dream and
here it had come true. So that you have to

(40:38):
imagine that information somehow, information about nine to eleven, somehow
went backwards in time from September eleventh, two thousand and one,
five years in that man's brain, I would say, to

(41:01):
give him a dream on the night of September tenth, eleventh,
nineteen ninety six about you know, towers collapsing. Now, it
wasn't exactly what happened in the real event. I mean,
in his initial dream he didn't have see planes and
the towers fell into each other, you know. And that's

(41:23):
true of most precognitive dreams. They're not you know, they're
never quite exact, and they're not usually video quality.

Speaker 3 (41:28):
But he also had I remember all of this, most
of it. He had the Statue of Liberty depicted as well,
and reportedly I think didn't he paint the painting on
September eleventh, like nineteen ninety six.

Speaker 2 (41:47):
Yeah, yeah, and I'm saying he did a watercolor.

Speaker 3 (41:49):
He did. He was this is my memory, but I
find this fascinating. He was somebody and you know people
should do that, I should record your dreams. Well, he
started doing that in watercolors. He was just mad. Yeah,
David Mandell, Ah, you beat me to it. My brain

(42:11):
was working, that's him. And so he was, you know,
he's waking up and he's painting his dreams. And then
on September eleventh, nineteen ninety five, nineteen ninety six, he
did that painting and okay, so continue I remember. This
story is fascinating.

Speaker 2 (42:29):
Yeah. Well. Another example, really great contemporary example, is Elizabeth Crone.
I don't know if you know her or had her
on your show, but she she's a Houston woman who
her story is fascinating for a lot of reasons. She
was struck by lightning in the parking lot of her
synagogue in nineteen eighty eight, okay, and she had a

(42:51):
near death experience. She was she was actually unconscious for
about fifteen minutes, but subjectively she was on another planet
for essentially two weeks is what she felt like. And
a lot of a lot of amazing, amazing stuff with
her experience in her NDE. But uh, she after that,

(43:14):
she started regularly having dreams about disasters that would then
unfold in the news a few days later, and usually
they were air disasters. And there are a number of
examples of this, Like she had a dream. Uh, I
forget the exact date, but she had this dream. She

(43:36):
was she happened to be on a visiting Jerusalem at
this while she had this dream, and she woke up
from this dream. Uh, and she she knew, like like
David Mandel, she had sort of figured out a method
to give a timestamp to her dreams, and so she
would go she would Gmail, she would email herself these dreams. Anyway,

(43:56):
so she gmails herself. I think it was a Gmail,
this dream of like American Airline making a water landing
in New York and there were no fatalities, but everyone,
all the pastors were standing on the wings. Okay, So
six hours later the photographs of the miracle on the

(44:19):
Hudson like start going viral on the internet. Like, because
that was when Sully Sullenberger piloted the plane to a
safe landing on the Hudson and all the passengers got
out on the on the wings to be rescued by
nearby boats. She's had several examples like this that where

(44:39):
her dream matched the image that then went you know,
viral on the internet. There there was one a couple
a few years after that, and I even remember this
one of like, there was a view of a plane
crossing over a highway. I was about to crash, and
this happened in Taiwan, I believe. And and again a

(45:01):
couple of days later she dreamed this exact scene and
then a couple of days later it happened. So and
she has a record of doing this. Uh, there's but
it's it's it's common. I'm I'm currently emailing with a
medium in Argentina who who routine he's actually been been

(45:25):
putting posting his dreams on Twitter, okay, which is sort
of again producing a record of the dreams. And then
you know, very often, you know, in a few months,
a few days or a few months or whatever, he'll
there'll be a news report, you know, often about some
celebrity in Argentina or whatever that will match his dream.

(45:47):
So you know, this is a very very common, very
very common phenomenon. And but in all those cases, to
get back to your question, this somehow information you know,
information about an event or about an experience. I think
this has to do with personal experience. I don't think

(46:09):
that this is events somehow radiating through time. I think
that's our own experiences, like like a watching you know,
nine to eleven unfold on CNN that morning, which we
all remember, you know, really vividly. You know, that was
a powerful, impactful, you know, emotionally impactful moment for millions

(46:29):
of Americans everyone, and tons of people had dreams about
it beforehand. I did. I did on the morning of
nine to eleven. You know that it was very common
to have dreams that that foreshadowed or prophecied or whatever
that event, but that somehow involved information traveling backward in

(46:53):
time from an event out there in the future, like
you know, somehow.

Speaker 3 (47:00):
Wow, Okay, let's let's let's theorize a little bit. Let's spitball,
let's wipeboard this thing. Is it something as fundamental as
entangled particles from the future that are entangled with particles
to the past that this is happening back and forth?

(47:21):
Is it happening at a quantum level? Uh? And it
would have to be. It couldn't be a single particle.
It would have to be a buttload of particles. There
would have to be a data stream of information. But
is that do you think that's what it is like
entangled pairs?

Speaker 2 (47:37):
We don't know, of course yet, But I have some
ideas on this. I mean, I've I've certainly I've certainly
done my own spitballing about what could be going on.
And my my hypothesis is that it involves microtubules. I
don't know if you've had Stuart hammer Off on your show,
but the anesthetist who who who sort of has done

(48:01):
so much work on the role of microtubules or the
possible role of microtubules in consciousness. These are these, These
microtubules are these little tubular polymers, molecular polymers that are incredible.
They're they're found in all cells, all living cells, but
they're incredibly prolific in neurons, and they used to be

(48:23):
thought of as just the skeleton of a neuron. It's
called the cytoskeleton. But we're now realizing that actually these
things are little quantum computers, uh, and they maybe they're
really kind of the brains of cells. And what we're
also learning from quantum computing, as I mentioned earlier, is
that you can potentially send information backwards in time in

(48:47):
a quantum computer. So if that's true, and if then
the neurons are full of quantum computers, like you know,
trillions of these things, then right there you have a mechanism.
And the most interesting aspect of this is that microtubules
are actually what what control the changing shape of a

(49:08):
neuron when it's you know, forming a new synaptic connection
to another neuron and when during learning, uh, you know,
it'll it'll change the shape of the synapse to facilitate that,
you know, the signal going to another neuron. So it's
the it's the microtubules that are actually controlling the neuron
and how it shapes itself during learning. And we know

(49:31):
that that's actually what's happening in dreams. Dreams are the
experience of new synaptic connections being formed to create long
term memories. And so if that's the case, then right there,
I think you have a mechanism for precognitive druce.

Speaker 3 (49:46):
So it's acting as an antenna or a receptor.

Speaker 2 (49:51):
Not an antenna, it's actually acting as like an information
cable from your future.

Speaker 3 (49:55):
Well okay, now we're saying the same thing. We're saying
the same thing. How is okay? I love this. By
the way, how does it select what it wants to
see from the future or is the future one of
these is predetermined. I don't know which one is. I

(50:16):
don't hope it's free. But how is the future selecting
its event back to the individual or is it the
individual reaching out for it and pulling it back?

Speaker 2 (50:28):
It's kind of both. Think of it, okay, think of
think of vision, all right, just just uh, you know,
before the first sort of theories of optics modern optics
in the Renaissance, people thought that vision was reaching out,
the eye was suddenly sending out, Yes, the world, they

(50:49):
were reaching out, and then they really then you know
the theory of optics. Oh wait, no, it's it's like
it's light rays coming into the eye. Okay, So like vision,
think I mentioned's sort of the same thing. You know,
It's like, well, is it like reaching out or is it? No?
I mean it's information is coming from the future to
you in the in a certain time point. Okay, And

(51:11):
but what is it that determines why you have a
certain dream on X night about a certain event you know,
X days or years later. Well, that's a really interesting question,
and I think that there are a number of reason
things that determine it, and one of them is dates.
We we unconsciously are are hyper aware of calendrical dates.

(51:37):
And you'll find that many, many, many, many many precognitive
dreams are what I call chlendrically resonant with a future event. So,
for instance, that David Mandel example, that date September eleventh,
somehow unconsciously reminded him, preminded him of something that was

(52:00):
going to happen on September eleventh, five years in the future.
And I think that that resonance of dates often determines
why you have a precognitive dream when you do. But
I think that's only one factor. I think, uh, there's
also what I call thematic resonance. That is to say,
if you have a certain you know, preoccupation on a

(52:21):
certain day, or you see something or or something that
resembles something that's going to happen in your future that
may prompt a dream that night about that future event.
So I think there are a number of things that
can kind of determine why and when you have a
precognitive dream. But that's a fantastic question, and as you

(52:45):
sort of said, you can no longer talk about it like, oh,
I'm I'm dreaming of the future or the future is
determining hearing this is this is there's a circular causation
going on there. That's why I called my first book
time Loops, because because you start to have to talk
about causality in this kind of circular way.

Speaker 3 (53:04):
Einstein did it. Einstein specifically addressed time loops, and I've
always found that fascinating how he did it and wrote
about it just by thinking about it. He didn't have
an example. It just came out of the math, and
the math presented itself that way. I sound like a PhD.

(53:26):
I'm full of shit. But here's but here's the other.

Speaker 2 (53:29):
Thing mile higher and deeper.

Speaker 3 (53:32):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, here's the thing though, Why doesn't if
that ripple of data right, the significant event in the future, right,
this bubble of data coming back, you know, everything is
flat all of a sudden he had this huge event.
Why why why doesn't everybody on the planet have the

(53:55):
same dream? Why is it only specific people or individual
down to you know, a serious micro situation where you
just have one or two people or a dozen or whatever.
But there's eight billion people on the planet that don't
have these dreams?

Speaker 2 (54:11):
Why is that they or they don't know that they don't.
First of all, how many people? Uh, you know the
Drake equation for you know, calculating the number of like
civilizations in a in a in the universe.

Speaker 3 (54:24):
I have a Drake equation T shirt by the way.

Speaker 2 (54:26):
Oh dude, Okay, well I think there should be a
Drake equation for dreams because okay, first of all, well,
you know, there are eight billion people on the planet.
Is it eight billion? I forget what it is now,
but billion let's say close enough? All right, how many
of those people? Like, first of all, we're all all
eight billion of us are dreaming throughout the night. Okay,

(54:48):
so we're having who knows how many dreams in a night.
At best, you're gonna remember maybe one or two of
those dreams, probably the one you had right before you
woke up. Okay, So when you wake up. You know,
there's a huge swath of humanity. You know, let's say
six billion people who don't even remember their dreams, or

(55:10):
they very occasionally they'll remember a dream or whatever, but
they're not interested, you know, so they don't even write
them down, so they'll forget. So they'll they won't remember
their dreams, and then they'll forget about you know, you know,
and even if they remember them, they're gonna forget about them. Okay, whatever,
So just take those stuff people off the table. Then,
of the people left who pay any attention to dreams,
maybe you know, some people dream, you know, they pay

(55:31):
a lot of attention to their dreams, they remember their dreams,
they maybe talk about their dreams, but even those what
percentage of those are actually keeping a dream driary? Okay?
So you know, the ones that they remember their dreams,
they may remember them for a few days, but for
the most part, those dreams go out the window too,
because you just don't remember dreams that you don't have

(55:52):
a reason to remember, you know. And so you know,
most most dreams go forgotten, completely ignored, and and you know,
so who knows how they connect to later events or whatever.
But then in that that last slice you have. You
have a small percentage of people who will take enough

(56:12):
interest in their dreams to write them down and think
about them. And even those people very seldom go back
to their dream records over the next few days or whenever.
And actually, like compare like say, oh, whoa I had that?
You know, I have this dream a few days ago.
You might consciously have forgotten it, but you wrote it
down and it matches an event that you just let

(56:34):
live through or some some experience you just had. So
you know, I think you have to think in terms
of that Drake equation. You know, the number of people
who are going to be aware of having had a
precognitive dream is a tiny fraction of the number of
precognitive dreams that probably happened about that.

Speaker 3 (56:52):
Could you imagine That's a fascinating thought. Could you imagine
if we wake up one day to headlines all over
the media the world had the same dream last night
of a comet hitting the earth on such and such
a date. Could we handle something like that? It sounds

(57:15):
like from what you just said that that is entirely possible.
And what if it was so significant that everybody just
one day remembered one dream and then boom, there's the headline.
Could the world handle that?

Speaker 2 (57:31):
I don't know. I just don't. I just can't see
that happening because the world.

Speaker 3 (57:36):
Is, oh, it's oh, Eric, I'm gonna argue with that.

Speaker 2 (57:40):
I'm gonna argue with their of their dreams or interested
in dreams. I mean, like, come on, I mean, how
many people do you meet in your daily life who
really are interested in their dream world? I mean it's
it's a small percentage, and people who you know, are
you aware of dreaming and able to talk about their dreams.

(58:01):
But there was a part of your question I still
want to answer. You know, everyone dreams. You can have
a million people dreaming about the same event. They're going
to dream about it differently. Everyone's like dream world speaks
a very idiosyncratic language of personal associations. And this is
in fact as it relates to the way memory works.

(58:21):
In fact, again I talked about how dreams are actually
memories being formed the but everyone's memory works on personal associations.
So you know, you may you know, you may dream
about that comment in a certain way. You'll you'll you'll
bring a personal sense of associations to it that another

(58:43):
person will will dream about it in a completely different way.
Most most precognitive dreams, again, are not like these video quality,
you know images. I mean, some people do have those,
I think, I think, you know, like Elizabeth Crohn's dreams
are kind of like wow, they're very vividly exactly the

(59:03):
image that she sees on the internet. But most precognitive
dreams are symbolic or associative to a degree, and it
depends on the individual. And so a given event, now,
obviously a comment hitting the earth is going to be
pretty much equally significant maybe to everybody. But you know,
most events that we're going to you know, dream about,

(59:26):
are something that's just significant to you personally. You know,
it's not going to be some news event. It's going
to be just something in your life. Maybe it'll be
an interesting news story. But even then, not everybody is
equally interested in the same news stories or sees the
same news stories. So everyone dreams differently, even about the
same event, They're going to dream differently, which is one

(59:52):
of the reasons why this stuff hasn't been studied scientifically,
because it's very even if you had this hypothesis that oh,
people are having precognitive dream can you imagine designing an
experiment that would, you know, where you could create the
conditions in which enough people dreamed, you know, in an identifiably,

(01:00:14):
an identifiable way, about.

Speaker 3 (01:00:16):
An accurate, accurate way.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
Yeah, it's it's very hard to study dreams anyway. And
then then when you're bringing in a hypothesis like this,
I mean, it's like mind bogglingly hard because everybody's everybody's
dream world is different.

Speaker 3 (01:00:33):
I we need to take a break right here. Have
you seen the movie? Don't look up? Okay, write it down.
You're standing at your desk. Write it down. Don't like
you're not writing, Eric, you don't have a you're a PhD,
A PhD without a pen.

Speaker 2 (01:00:54):
I know, I no longer need pens.

Speaker 3 (01:00:58):
Where we're going, you don't need pens. Don't look up.
And that movie is Yeah, it's phenomenal culturally, pop culturally,
it is way too spot on, especially where we are today.

(01:01:18):
It's a comedy. It's a comedy with a bad ending,
but anyway, with a great ending, a true ending. Anyway.
It's about this comment that just appears in our solar system,
all right, and it's headed our way. All right. Now,
let's put that aside. Did you read the news yesterday

(01:01:39):
and today? What's going on?

Speaker 2 (01:01:42):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:01:42):
We have an interstellar object going at one hundred and
fifty thousand miles per hour towards us, you know, and
he's just going to think, well, okay, the movie, don't
look up, you know, Okay, all right, all right, what
it's actually happening? I was watching the visuals that they're

(01:02:07):
showing right now of this object. It's exactly like, frame
for frame what happens with Jennifer Lawrence when she first
discovers this object. It's like talk about a weird case
of deja vu. Yeah, it's it's pretty bizarre. All right,
Eric's stay right there. I am your host, Jimmy Church.

(01:02:28):
This is Fade to Black tonight. We're talking about pre
cog UFOs, time travel, all the fun stuff. More with
Eric after this shortbreak. Stay with us. Subscribe to our

(01:03:10):
YouTube channel to get your alerts and access to over
two thousand videos. Click that subscribe button right now. Go
to Jimmy churchradio dot com and get the Fade to
Black Official podcast two thousand episodes, all of them commercial free,
for just two dollars a month. Watch Into the Vortex

(01:03:51):
on Guya TV. It's Fade to Black. For the screen.
Simple to do go to Guya dot com search Jimmy
Church or click on the link below. Follow Fade to
Black on Twitter at j Church Radio. Get all of
the show updates every single day. It's now called expert.

(01:04:13):
Who cares? How you doing? Jimmy Church here, special announcement.
Get your Fade the Black T shirts. That's right. Help
support the show, help support everything that we do over here.
We've got two T shirts. We've got two ways to
get them. Get your Fade the Black T shirt today.

(01:04:34):
Go Beckley Teppe. Go to Jimmy Churchradio dot com and
become a fade or not. Get a membership. That's right.
Everything is commercial free. You have access to downloads, and
you get to call yourself a fade or not. Jimmy
Church Guy TV. Fade to Black here at Machu Pichu

(01:04:57):
with Brian Forrester and Hidden Ink. Amazing tour so far, Brian,
but we're here to announce what we're gonna do next
year in twenty twenty six. What's going on?

Speaker 5 (01:05:07):
Okay, November twenty twenty six, We're going to have our major.

Speaker 3 (01:05:10):
Tour of Peru and Bolivia.

Speaker 5 (01:05:14):
Either a pre or post tour of Parakas and Nasca
on the coast, and then after that six days in.

Speaker 3 (01:05:21):
Easter Island bucket list Easter Island. Come join Brian and
Ian his amazing team here at Hidneika Tours four Peru,
Bolivia and Easter Island. Signing out, say goodbye Brian, Bye
gang Yeah. Rivermoon Coffee, makers of the Fade to Black Blend,

(01:05:46):
truly the best coffee on planet Earth. Just visit Rivermoonwellness
dot Com or their Amazon story. If it's all simple
to do, you can check out the Fade to Black Blend,
the Game Changer Blend, or any of their Black Moon
Wellness products. It's the only coffee I drink. It is the.

Speaker 5 (01:06:02):
Best, and it's doc again Rivermoonwellness dot Com.

Speaker 3 (01:06:31):
All right, welcome back, Fade to Black. I am your host,
jummy Church. Today is my Friday. It's your Thursday, but
it is July. Tomorrow's July fourth, and I finally get
a weekend to relax, well, sort of, finally. I've been
waiting a few months for this, and I hope that

(01:06:52):
everybody has an amazing and safe and fun July fourth weekend. Tonight.
Eric Wargo is with us, and we're talking about pre
cog consciousness. We're going to get into that next and
our dreams, precognition and time travel, and maybe we'll get
to some UFOs. My favorite subject, Eric, I have had

(01:07:19):
a very consistent dream most of my life, and the
dream is and I've had since I was a kid.
I haven't had it recently though, I don't know what
that means. Maybe you can answer of me looking up
into the daytime sky looking at the moon and it's exploding.

(01:07:41):
And I've had the dream so much and it's so vivid,
same dream that I found myself as an adult looking
up at the moon to see if it's happening now
right right right. It's like it consumed me for a
very long time. I've talked about it a lot on

(01:08:02):
this show, only because I want a timestamps, right, you know,
Well I said it wasn't gonna happen, you know, I
dreamt it. But is that pre cog or is that
just a dream? It hasn't happened yet, But is it
something that I do need to, you know, make a

(01:08:24):
note of would you?

Speaker 2 (01:08:26):
I would certainly make a note of it. Absolutely. People
should write down all their dreams I tell I keep
insisting this to people. Write down all your dreams, because
even the most insignificant ones can turn out to be
precognitive in some way you hadn't anticipated. But yeah, absolutely
you should. You should be paying attention to that dream.

(01:08:47):
But there's there is absolutely no way of knowing that
a dream is precognitive until the event happens. You can suspect,
but you can't know it, you know, And so is
it a recognitive dream? I don't know. I I have
a feeling that it probably is, but it'll probably come

(01:09:08):
true in a way that's that you're not expecting. I
don't think the moon is literally going to explode, but
you might find yourself in a situation that where what
you saw on your dream is you know, manifested in
some way totally unexpectedly. That's that's my That's what I

(01:09:30):
would bet.

Speaker 3 (01:09:31):
And now why is it that? And somehow we will
have precogged this. We're going to steer this into UFOs
and et in contact. But why is it? By the way,
I have had so many artists, actors, comedians, artist musicians

(01:09:52):
on this show, and I asked them the same question,
which is, why is it that artist of any flavor
seem to be able to tap into their subconsciousness and
and work with it. It's it's an amazing trait that

(01:10:16):
artists have.

Speaker 2 (01:10:17):
Why is that, Well, that's what creativity is, you know.
It's it's tapping into the unconscious. Now what is the unconscious?
And that's uh, you know I I have written a
couple of books now proposing uh that that precognition is
intrinsic to what we call the unconscious. Uh, that that

(01:10:39):
the that the that our minds are constantly you know,
well again back to is it reaching into the future
or be just receiving something from the future. Our minds
are constantly doing it. And and that's what the imagination is.
Is this constant like churning of images and thoughts that

(01:11:00):
that relate very often to things coming down the pike. Uh,
And artists are purchased particularly sensitive to that. I think,
you know, so it's you know, it's going to go
together that you know, artists often are interested in their dreams,
and artists are often there there's that they're in that
little you know, slice of our Drake equation. That are

(01:11:21):
people who are paying attention right to that kind of
stuff and so yeah, they're they're they're tapped in and
they're very often pre cognitive without even knowing it. You know,
occasionally they do know about it, you know, like Phil Dick,
he was aware that he was writing the future in
his novels Uh, and he was like paying attention. Most

(01:11:43):
artists don't, but I think it's just as true for
you know, you know, you know, any writer or any
artist that they're they're often tapped into their fat.

Speaker 3 (01:11:54):
You can you can tell when you are walking through
an art museum and you're looking at different artists works.
You can tell when somebody is painting their dream or
their imagination. It's totally different, it's totally separate. It comes
from a different Anybody can paint a bowl of fruit,

(01:12:19):
right right, Okay, I get that. But when you walk
up to a painting that is somebody's dream and they've
captured that moment, you can tell, and it's magic. And
also with making movies or songwriting. Songwriting, you can tell
when it comes from another place. Anybody can write about

(01:12:40):
a broken heart and sing about it, right, well, that's
the that's every country song. But when something comes from
the future, you can tell, you can tell there's something
else that they're tapping into, right.

Speaker 2 (01:12:55):
Yeah, absolutely, And it happens all the time. I mean
it's just it's really common, really common.

Speaker 3 (01:13:00):
Do you think you think Prince was e t I
don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:13:06):
I don't know his work enough.

Speaker 3 (01:13:07):
I mean, well, you know what I'm saying. Jimmy Henri,
Yeah right right, you know Elvis.

Speaker 2 (01:13:13):
Oh yeah, yeah, Bowie absolutely.

Speaker 3 (01:13:15):
Bowie's a great Boways the perfect example.

Speaker 2 (01:13:18):
Yeah, yeah, sure, but yeah, like but in all arts,
you know, I think I always think of David Lynch.
You know, he was like, you know, he's tapped in,
he was tapped into to his own future, I think,
and and a lot of a lot of true, a
lot of artists though.

Speaker 3 (01:13:35):
Yeah, you're you're right about that. David Lynch had a way.
And staying on the subject, you brought up David Lynch,
He's a classic example. There's other directors that that were
really good at it too, but but David Lynch was
the perfect example of a twisted, demented dreamscape that was

(01:13:58):
remembered and then turning around and laying that thing into
It's the story, for sure, but it's the visual elements
as well, that's coming from a deep, deep subconscious place,
but he had the power of recall.

Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
Yeah, but it wasn't just dreams for him. In fact,
he you know, he said that, you know, sometimes he
got his ideas from dreams, but mostly his meditation. And
people can access that same place in meditation.

Speaker 3 (01:14:26):
I would say, it's the same thing.

Speaker 2 (01:14:28):
Yeah, it is the same it's the same thing. But
I mean it's like when you do it in meditation,
it's a lot easier to remember it afterwards. Yeah, true
can think into that place and then come up and
then okay, you're all there and you can write it down.

Speaker 1 (01:14:43):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:14:43):
And so that's that was his basic method, was using
transcendental meditation to fish for ideas.

Speaker 3 (01:14:51):
Yeah, you were guaranteed with Lynch. And it doesn't matter,
it doesn't matter what we're talking about here when it
comes to him. But if you were watching a David
Lynch film, you were, uh, you were able to plug
in and escape into something that you have never seen before.

(01:15:11):
He was able to do that, and I love that ability.
It's the same thing with like I said, with fine art, sculpture,
you know, great poetry, Uh, certainly music and other forms
of media like TV and film where you can tell
when that subconscious is tapped into. Somebody is seeing the

(01:15:32):
future and they're able to turn around and share it
with us. I love that form. Look at Picasso, look
at Dolly right, great exempt mc escher right.

Speaker 2 (01:15:45):
Speaking of sculpture, you mentioned sculpture. Do you know about
Michael Richards And I'm not talking about the comedian, not
talk about the sculptor, Michael Richards.

Speaker 3 (01:15:54):
Let me pull him up.

Speaker 2 (01:15:55):
Go ahead, tell us, yes, okay, Well pull up the
sculpture called Tar Baby Versus Saint Sebastian. So, Michael Richards
was an up and coming Jamaican American sculptor in the
nineteen nineties and he worked in various places in Miami
and New York. But he he made a series of

(01:16:18):
sculptures in the years leading up to the Millennium of himself.
There were self portraits of himself in flight suits and
they often involved crashing, parachuting to the ground, or falling
to the ground. He would do sculptures of planes that
were like crashing to the ground and so on. And

(01:16:40):
his most famous sculpture, the one I just mentioned, Tar
Baby Versus Saint Sebastian is. I believe it's in a
museum in North Carolina. It shows it's a self portrait
of himself standing vertically erect, kind of levitating off the
ground being pierced by a bunch of airplanes. Okay, Well,

(01:17:01):
on the strength of his work, including that sculpture, he
got a residency in the Twin Towers in the summer
of two thousand and one. They the Lower Manhattan Cultural
Council gave studio space to cohorts of artists, small cohorts
of artists, two cohorts a year, and they would have

(01:17:24):
the studio space for like six months and then there'd
be an exhibition. Anyway, he was the only one in
his cohort of the summer two thousand and one cohort
to be who had stayed the night working on his
sculptures in his studio and was killed on the morning
of nine to eleven. And when you look at that sculpture,
it's like, you know, pretty incredible. But you know, like

(01:17:46):
I said, it's this stuff happens all the time. But
that anyone anyone who can go you can go online
and google that sculpture. Google Michael Richards sculptor. You'll see
a picture of that of that of that sculpture and
it's just, you know, it is stunning, stunning premonition of
of of his own death and of a tragedy that

(01:18:09):
you know, took the lives of thousands of people.

Speaker 3 (01:18:11):
Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna pop this up right now
for everybody so you can see what we're talking about.
But I do remember this. It's pretty famous, and uh
so I'm just gonna pull this up. Just give me
one second and I'll have it up for everybody.

Speaker 2 (01:18:38):
There.

Speaker 3 (01:18:38):
It is right there. Yeah, that's pretty incredible.

Speaker 2 (01:18:45):
And the thing is, all of his all of his
sculptures were sort of on the same themes. You know,
they were on on themes of of of martyrdom, on
the theme themes of crashing planes, planes, crashing planes, burning
apparent People who had visited his studio in the in
Tower one described two works that he had been working

(01:19:09):
on that summer, one of which was a him self
portrait at his own torso with wings but that had
crashed on the ground, called Fallen Angel, and another one
of himself riding a burning meteor. So just incredible that

(01:19:30):
his you know, he was obsessed with these images over
the span of years leading up to his death. On
that morning, his studio was on the ninety second floor,
which was the The ninety first floor was the highest
floor of tower one from which anyone got out of

(01:19:50):
the building alive.

Speaker 3 (01:19:52):
Yeah. Strange, weird, Yeah, all of that, but anything possible.
And when we start to look at this with precognition,
You're right, it's one thing to remember it. It's another
thing to write it down and take note. And certainly

(01:20:14):
he did that in grand fashion, didn't he? Now how
does how does consciousness start to play into this? We
talked about the subconscious, but I asked every guest the
same thing, doesn't matter what your background is. Is consciousness
physical or non physical?

Speaker 2 (01:20:34):
I don't know. I'm agnostic on that question. I I
you know, I part of me says it's non physical,
part of me says that doesn't exist at all, part
of me says it's physical. I'm like, I'm I'm I'm
not a big consciousness guy because I don't think you
know that people throw around that word all the time, consciousness. Uh,
And it's sort of an easy, hand wavy way of

(01:20:57):
talking about esp for instance, that it's all about conscience business.
I don't I don't think it's really I don't think
it's a useful term. First of all, it's not useful
because precognition is something we access through the unconscious, specifically
through then what Freud Sigmund Freud called the unconscious, that

(01:21:17):
is to say, things that are outside the realm of
our conscious awareness. So those dreams, dreams and and art
and and you know, visions that just you know, come
out of nowhere, uh and and neurotic symptoms and things
like that, that's where you that's where that precognitive information

(01:21:39):
is getting to us.

Speaker 3 (01:21:41):
But the ability, your ability and and I'm saying this
in in a not in a cavalier way, Eric, but
your ability to ponder this subject is the power of
the ginormity of what consciousness is. And we all have it.

(01:22:03):
But where does it come from? And how does it
exist in the first place? For you to have this
conversation with me. That's that's the fascinating part, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:22:14):
Do we need to call it consciousness? Though? You could
just call it intelligence. I mean, you could call it intelligence.
You can imagine, you know, we could go into a
debate about whether two machines, you know, that were sophisticated
enough could sit and have the same conversation. Sure, and
believe that they were alive and conscious. I mean, you know,
you can go down all kinds of out that's.

Speaker 3 (01:22:33):
The agnostic way to look at it. That's the non
spiritual way. That's the biology, that's the chemistry way of
describing it and attempting to do it. We can't measure it,
so it makes it a very difficult, you know, thing
to quantify. But we have it. And yes, intelligence is

(01:22:58):
part of it. But I was talking about this last
night on the show. Biting into the perfect slice of
pizza and what your mind and body goes through at
that moment, that is something that you can't define. That
is the beauty of consciousness right there. That is something
that AI will never have. It will never possess that

(01:23:20):
warmth that you have that you get Christmas morning when
you're five years old, waking up before your parents, that joy.
That is an intelligence, That is consciousness that we possess.

Speaker 2 (01:23:36):
And yeah, I.

Speaker 3 (01:23:37):
Often wonder where that comes from. Where does it develop?
I don't think it's chemistry. Maybe it is, though I
don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:23:44):
Well, look, you know, I don't know about consciouns. But
the thing is, I don't think precognition is a function
of that. I think precognition could be chemistry. And it's
like I think precognition was there was present in the
primordial soup. I think the first could be could be
the first cells. We're guided, we're guided by by something

(01:24:04):
like a presense of the future. I think that preceded
the senses. You know, the you know what?

Speaker 3 (01:24:13):
You know what I love about that statement, You're one
step away from saying spiritual without saying spiritual. You won't
do it. You won't do it?

Speaker 2 (01:24:23):
Why?

Speaker 3 (01:24:26):
Because this is my take, and this is why I
love these kinds of conversations on the show. I always
learned something from it. I just don't think that math
and chemistry and biology is that accidental. I just I don't.
I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:24:47):
I don't either, But I'm but but the thing is,
what if what if retro causation plays a role in evolution?
What if time loops play a role in as you know,
as as what if there is the teleology? That's what
I'm saying. Sure, And again, what what I'm saying is
that you can talk about teleology and you don't have
to talk about spirituality. Uh that that's what physicists are

(01:25:11):
now coming around to that. You can talk about teleology
in nature, uh that that this kind of pull towards
order and towards mind if you want to put it
that way without talking about a uh an intelligent designer.

Speaker 3 (01:25:32):
Sure, but see and that's and I go to the
simple side of that, which is it's there's got to
be something spiritual and some some type of intelligent design
behind it that has been around for infinity. And here's
here's here's why I want your take on this. You're

(01:25:55):
the one with the anthropology PhD, by the way, not me.
Is is this if you have a nucleus, if you
have a membrane and you have action going on inside
of that, that then divides into two Holy crap, how
does it know to do that? And then you have

(01:26:18):
RNA and DNA that comes into play, and then suddenly
consciousness is developed from that. Now is there? So what
you're suggesting is consciousness is already in that single cell
that it's it's already there. I don't know. But the

(01:26:39):
process of that of DNA coming in, the odds of it,
the odds of this machine of nature being put into
play as perfect as it is our brains and everything else.
I'm going divine and I'm not.

Speaker 2 (01:26:58):
I'm not.

Speaker 3 (01:26:59):
I'm not religious, man, I'm not religious. I'm not.

Speaker 2 (01:27:02):
What if that intelligent designer is in the future, Yes, sure,
what if that intelligent designer is at the end of time?
And that and that that that we're kind of a premonition,
We are a living premonition of this kind of intelligence
that that is in the future.

Speaker 3 (01:27:22):
And you meet okay, and you meet that person eventually
or that thing or whatever. And the species, right is
is that is that God? Is that something that is
so intelligent that it's poof creating and creating and creating.

(01:27:45):
I'm not speaking of a religious angle on this or
a religious bent at all, But would you then have
a reference point to yourself that well, I guess it's
not chemistry. Somebody did this. Are you able to resolve
that to yourself?

Speaker 2 (01:28:02):
Yeah. I think chemistry is a lot more than chemistry.
It's a lot more than what what we have thought
we think of as this kind of mechanistic, you know,
random kind of thing happening. I think retro causation is,
is this this pull towards towards rightness and towards success

(01:28:23):
and towards uh and towards order that comes from the future,
and it's and it's pulling us. Uh. So whatever you
want to call that, you can call that God, you
can call that spirit, whatever, but it's a principle that
is operative in the physical world and pulling, you know,
creating and pulling things out of the soup.

Speaker 3 (01:28:46):
And you must be a great dad. Do you have
this conversation with your kids over breakfast? Do you remember
you remember an animal house? There's that there's that scene
where there are Donald Sutherland's house and they're all sitting
around and Donald Sutherland, by the way, and Donald Sutherland
is dressed just like you right now, right right, He's

(01:29:12):
got that he's got that tan jacket on, and they're
sitting there and the comments. But you remind me of
that type of enlightened individual, professor. Is that how you
deal with your kids?

Speaker 2 (01:29:27):
I don't know, that's just you know, that's you know,
I I love that scene, and I love Donald Sutherland
in anything, yeah, right, right right, including that that character.
But that's funny. Yeah, yeah, I know exactly you're talking.

Speaker 3 (01:29:41):
You got the same haircut, you got the glasses. Yeah, yeah,
that's that's a pretty mean you mean the universe could
be in a yeah, yeah, that's a great scene. That's
a great scene. But uh, if if that is the
case physics today, You brought up a good point earlier,

(01:30:02):
and I didn't touch it then because I knew that
we would swing back to it. You said something earlier
that is part of my belief system, and I talk
about it a lot. I love the woo woo. Okay, Eric,
I am fully woo, but I depend on science to

(01:30:23):
support my deep seated mental issues that I'm working through,
and science grounds me again, and once physics starts to
support my belief system, I'm okay right, I'm not going crazy.

(01:30:44):
And physics today is talking the craziest woo that twenty
years ago our community was this tinfoil hat crystal hugging
right awakenings. But today physics is really going full woo
and it's starting to support that. They don't want to

(01:31:06):
talk about consciousness, but they'll talk about thinking and thought
and its existence in the universe and entropy, but they
won't say the C word consciousness. Why is that?

Speaker 2 (01:31:18):
There's lots of reasons because it's so poorly defined. Everyone
means something different by consciousness. First, of all. I mean,
you know, it's not an easily defined term, and you
know exactly what someone else means by that word. It
comes with a lot of baggage. It comes a lot
of baggage. A lot of people use the term consciousness

(01:31:40):
to mean something like what they used to mean by
the soul, and that comes with a lot of baggage.
So it's like there's a lot of reasons that people
are careful and don't necessarily want to use a term
that is not well defined. But then you know, there
are even when people think they know what they're talking

(01:32:01):
about with that term, there are hundreds of different theories
of it. I mean literally, someone on Twitter a few
months ago posted a little like infographic of like two
hundred different theories of consciousness. Okay, you know, ranging from
the physical physicalist, you know, all on the way, all

(01:32:21):
across the spectrum, you know, of different theories of consciousness.
So it's like when you don't even know, so there's
no agreement on what it is, how it comes about.
I mean, it's yeah, it's a fascinating question, but it's like,
I don't know, I don't think we're anywhere close to
being able to answer any questions about consciousness because there's

(01:32:43):
it's we're just not there, you know, we don't so like, like,
for instance, whether or not it has to do with
the brain, We need to know a lot more about
the brain before we can answer that question. We can
before we can like eliminate the brain, either either eliminate
the brain as the source of consciousness or say yes,

(01:33:03):
it's the brain that produces consciousness. We don't know nearly
enough about the brain, and you know, I don't think
we're going to for decades. So like all these discussions
about consciousness, I just don't think now is the time
to have them, because I don't think that science is
science is there. I don't think so. I don't think
that science is able to debate or provide the evidence

(01:33:26):
that is needed or to refute or support you know
what more spiritual people want to say, or mystical people
want to say. So I just don't I don't know.
I think there's a lot of reasons people shy away
from using that word.

Speaker 3 (01:33:40):
Are you familiar with the Brain Project in Switzerland? It's
okay to say no, I've heard of it, Okay, in
a very condensed version. The Brain Project, which is still
ongoing was a project is a project that the concept

(01:34:04):
was this, there are so many end points in the
human brain, and it's in the trillions obviously, and so
if we develop a computer that has trillions of endpoints
and transistors that once we get to that number, then

(01:34:29):
the computer should act like a human brain. That's the
Brain project. So they built this huge, ginormous man this
computer and they get to the number, right, it's it's
in the trillions. They turned that sucker on. Didn't work,
not even clothes, and so now they are adding it's software,

(01:34:55):
and they're adding more you know, more end points and things,
but trying to get technology to mimic the human brain ultimately,
and it's still ongoing. It's a fascinating and if you
haven't speaking to the audience, I've done videos on this,
going and research this. It's a fascinating project, and international

(01:35:20):
and so forth involved in it. But here's the thing
they found out. I think that the conclusion is, even
though the project is still going on, we will never
understand how the human brain works. It just makes so
much brain research, you know, is ongoing trying to figure

(01:35:45):
out this mystery. Can't do it, and we use so
little of our brain. So that's the other part of
why why was it developed the way it is? And
it's so perfect, it's so perfect that again I lean
on the divine. Maybe some things we're not supposed to
know about. Maybe maybe there's things we're not supposed to

(01:36:07):
figure out, like consciousness.

Speaker 2 (01:36:11):
Well maybe, but I think that either way, we are
so far from understanding, you know, whether we'll ever understand
the brain or maybe, but not not for centuries, you know.
I mean like we you know, I write about neuroscience
for my day job, and I and you know, so
I you know, I'm a I'm a bit up on
current you know, neuroscience, and we know so little about

(01:36:34):
the brain. We can where at the point where we
can sort of characterize how circuits work together and how
signaling works between and the cross circuitry and so on,
but like what goes on inside of the cells inside
of neurons, I mean, we know a lot less about
and we're starting to learn that there are a lot
of important stuff is going on inside neurons, not between them,

(01:36:57):
and what like the microtubul stuff. You know, like this
is the frontiers of neuroscience and and it's going to
be so long before we can even begin to characterize
how the brain works on every level of complexity. I mean,
it's just it's beyond beyond.

Speaker 3 (01:37:16):
Here's my here's my pre cog. This is my premonition.
Is my prediction. Et Lands right Lands, It's been said
so many times on the White House lawn right and
starts answering our questions. And this is my prediction. E

(01:37:37):
t is going to go no, no, no, no, stop
stop stop stop. It's not about any of that. It's
about consciousness. That's that's your next stage of evolution. And
I that's my prediction. And that is the barrier, that's
the bount we we and we haven't crossed it yet

(01:37:57):
and until we do, we're not going to evolve. We're
gonna stay right w are.

Speaker 2 (01:38:04):
So what does that mean with the consciousness? Is the
next stage?

Speaker 1 (01:38:07):
You know?

Speaker 2 (01:38:07):
It's like well you well see that's that's what you
canza and more consciousness than that.

Speaker 3 (01:38:14):
Yeah, exactly exactly. You answered the question perfectly because that's
what you would say to et right and he's going
to go to see you're not ready yet. Man, if
you if you have to ask, yeah, I am being
very very very serious about this. Until we figure that out,

(01:38:36):
we're going to just stay right where we are with
ones and zeros and circuits and stay in this technology
boundary that we find ourselves in. But the next stage
of evolution is consciousness and unraveling that whatever it is. Yeah. Yeah,
and I'm not a PhD here because.

Speaker 2 (01:38:59):
That's be as advantage.

Speaker 3 (01:39:02):
Yeah yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I know, I know.
Because have you done? Have you done d MT?

Speaker 4 (01:39:12):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:39:13):
Are you going to? I may you thought about it?

Speaker 2 (01:39:19):
Yeah? I think. Yeah, it's fascinating, it's fascinating.

Speaker 3 (01:39:22):
Now I don't do anything fun, Okay, I don't smoke
pod I don't. I don't. I don't. That's the reason
why I have a job. But I don't. But because
I interview who I interview, I do, I do back
up my my bullshit. So if I'm going to talk

(01:39:44):
to somebody about regression therapy, well, you know what, maybe
I should go get regressed and see what that's all
about before I You know, so I have some basis,
some grounding, right, some data set to tap into, and
and this DMT thing, ayahuasca, that's something else all together.
It's not altogether, but it's a it's that's an investment

(01:40:07):
of time that I don't have. But what DMT showed me,
I've done it twice that one hundred percent, without question,
one verifiable proof, there is a parallel world around us

(01:40:30):
existing that we do not see period not this is
in fantasy, This isn't conjecture, this isn't Donald Sutherland smoking
weed and in animal house you do that, and the
way that your brain processes what's going on because it's
not a drug, Eric, it's not a drug. It's a key,

(01:40:51):
it's a tool. It's very interesting. But anyway, when when
you access that and your in and out, it's five minutes,
five minutes, five minutes, you're back. You know, you just
go visit this uh what's her name? Uh earlier went
to that planet for two weeks. Well okay, it's like that.
So anyway, well.

Speaker 2 (01:41:12):
Like people who do do you know, I've I've read
a lot of in the ayahuasca literature. It's like it's
they described the same. Well, it's because it's d MT
common experience.

Speaker 3 (01:41:21):
Yeah, yeah, it's it's the same thing. It's d MT
in ayahuasca. But that's a that's a full one and
two day ceremony that I don't have the time for
But anyway, I think that any theoretical physicists or scientists
even doctors that wonder about the possibility of this, because

(01:41:46):
the numbers support this in physics, the metaverse, you know,
multi world theory and eleven dimensions of string theory. You
go and do that and then they will see that well, yeah,
it is real. Okay, So how do we get to
this point? It would support science just to open up
the mind knowing that that there is another reality that

(01:42:12):
exists right here. We're just not on that frequency. It's
it's a tremendous thing to experience.

Speaker 2 (01:42:20):
Well, there are a lot of you know, spiritual technologies
that that will open you to you know, amazing experiences
that that you know, suggest that reality is a lot
more than we we experience, you know, in are you know.

Speaker 3 (01:42:38):
To say though that that a lot of that other stuff,
all of it is recreational.

Speaker 2 (01:42:42):
Though, No, I'm talking about you know, meditation for instance.

Speaker 3 (01:42:46):
Oh yeah, for sure. Oh yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:42:48):
I mean I've I've you know, I I'm a zen
person and I you know, I was very intensive in
my Zen practice for a few years and I had
some really you know, profound incredible experiences. I mean you can.
There's all kinds of paths and they all lead to
kind of different kinds of experiences that give you different facets.

(01:43:09):
You know, I think of consciousness.

Speaker 3 (01:43:12):
Do do you meditate every day? You know?

Speaker 2 (01:43:15):
It's I integrated in my life to an extent that
I don't like usually sit down for like, you know,
twenty minutes or half hour anymore the way I used to.
But I I I slip into meditation very quickly and
so like you know, and I want to have downtime
at work or or or in the evening before before

(01:43:36):
I go to sleep. You know. Yeah, I meditate, but
not like not in a ritualistic way.

Speaker 3 (01:43:43):
Yeah, I used to be meditation to me, the correct forms.
Oh my friends meditate, all right, and they do, and
they've got it's that's too disciplined. I'm not. I don't
have that mindset. But I ride my Harley. Okay, remember

(01:44:06):
the book right Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
And so I found that I've accidentally meditated. I've meditated
on purpose a couple of times, didn't it. No, I
don't like it. I don't like the breathing technical I
don't like any of it. Actually, I think it's boring.

(01:44:27):
But I get on my Harley right and disconnect and
I go into the zone. I'm inside my own head
and it is incredible, and I don't mind that at all.
Sometimes it's two three hours of it, you know, out

(01:44:48):
there riding, and I find that to be incredible. But
here's the other part of that. It shows you that
there is another place that you can go to outside
of this existence. And if you want proof of that,
do it. Do it. I don't. I concern myself very

(01:45:12):
little about the stuff that bothers other people. It doesn't
come into my life. Makes sense, Yeah, totally.

Speaker 2 (01:45:21):
And that's it's those Zoe. You know, those flow states.
You know, a psychologist would call that a flow state
when you're like, you know, in the zone, riding your
motorcycle sort of in a trance. You know, that's where
that kind of state is very conducive to what we're
talking about. Recognition, Like anyone doing a skilled activity that

(01:45:43):
they're just really good at, you know, whatever it is,
whether it's you know, driving a race car, piloting a jetplane,
or doing brain surgery, or you know, for me, it's writing.
You know, like when I really get going, you know,
you know, writing, I'm like in a zone and missing
time and everything. You know, but that's where you're tapping
in to your own future. Uh and and you know

(01:46:06):
that's that's just as good as as dreaming, honestly, for
having these kinds of experiences. In fact, you know a
lot of people you know have have have like premonitions
and precognitive flashes when they're driving. So I don't know,
I don't know if you've had them, while you're right.

Speaker 3 (01:46:23):
I have them all the time, and I set the
intention before the ride too. Not all the time, but
I do. I'll go, okay, you know what, I got this, this, this,
and this I need to work out today. Right, take
off and I come back, this, this, this, and this.
Usually I have the answers or decision on what I
want to do now. Okay, so pre cog is real,

(01:46:44):
we can agree on that. But if that is indeed
the case, would they have figured out the technical hurdles
of time travel in the future? And why don't we
see time travelers here?

Speaker 2 (01:47:04):
How do you know we don't?

Speaker 3 (01:47:05):
I'm asking you.

Speaker 2 (01:47:07):
Well, I mean a lot of people would say we
do you know, Michael Masters would say, we're you know,
anyone who's you know, seen a UFO may have seen
a time machine. Uh, and I tend to agree. I
mean I think that that that's a much more you
know now, I think the UFO phenomenon or the U
I P phenomena, I still prefer UFO.

Speaker 3 (01:47:27):
It's it's UFO. Yeah, is already pass.

Speaker 2 (01:47:31):
Yeah, good, okay, excellent. I didn't like that. But you know,
I think it's a very multifaceted phenomenon. There's a lot
of stuff going on there. You know. Yeah, there's certainly
like human technology present, human technology, that's a part of it.
But but but the exotic part of it, whatever, that is,
the you know, paranormal part of it. I I really

(01:47:54):
think that that time travel is much more more rich
and and I think interesting line of thinking than you know,
the old extraterrestrial hypothesis. Uh there's.

Speaker 3 (01:48:11):
Can it be both?

Speaker 2 (01:48:13):
Yeah, it absolutely could be both, and maybe is both.
And but uh, there's time. I think we need to
start thinking in terms of time as a dimension that
will be traversed, and that there's there there's nothing all
there's nothing to prevent you know, people from traveling backwards

(01:48:35):
in time other than technical feasibility issues. Either, which are
kind of huge for us right now. But you know,
given you know that that's it's not necessarily that far off.
And honestly, I think we're on the cusp of a
sort of uh sort of sort of halfway house to
to real trime travel with quantum computing. Because quantum computing again,

(01:49:01):
to get back where we're talking about earlier, it opens
up a door to that informational time travel. So even
if you can't send you know, you know, send an
object you know yet into a wormhole or into a
time machine to go back in time, you can send
a message.

Speaker 3 (01:49:17):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:49:18):
And that's uh, you know that that I think is
going to be the stepping stone to ultimately developing physical
time travel. Is that ability to send messages across the
fourth dimension in both directions, because you know, you could,
you know, plug in a three D printer to a
quantum computer that is you know that that you leave

(01:49:39):
plugged in for a few hundred years. And so theoretically
a user in the future could send a message and
print out an object, you know, print out a flying
saucer in our current based on information sent from the future,
and can send and you know, information to be sent
and now I don't think it's it's quite that simple.
There are a lot of like uh wrinkles to the

(01:50:02):
idea of sending messages across time. But nevertheless, I.

Speaker 3 (01:50:06):
Yeah, yeah, well here here's here's here's an idea waiting
for us to get to a technical level like understanding
how quantum computers work. Okay, entangle pairs and in parallel

(01:50:29):
infinite that that's that's crazy, but that's how they work.
Don't understand it, really, but we know that it does
get done showing getting past that. For the future, I
could see soon like an email blast that goes to
everybody on the planet from the future with a friggin

(01:50:53):
video file right somebody's face. Okay, you're Eddie, you know
what I mean. You know this is okay, So this
is what's about to happen. I could see that. I
could see an info data stream coming from the future.
Quantum The idea behind a quantum computer supports that right there.

Speaker 2 (01:51:19):
Right, yep, yeah, I think this is I think this
is We're at the advent of this technology. It's being
worked on, being being developed all over the world. And
they don't quantum computing people. People in that business don't
talk about this, And I don't know if it's because

(01:51:40):
they're not aware of this possibility or I think it's
because they're aware of it and don't want to talk
about it. Because it's the most like transformative thing. I mean,
because you know, the moment you can start sending messages
backward in time, you're going to gain that to like
get rich on the stock market very quickly. But you know,
and so you want to keep keeping.

Speaker 3 (01:51:59):
One one step ahead of everything.

Speaker 2 (01:52:01):
Yeah, yeah, And but this is I think part of
that technology, and it's and it's going to you know,
it's going to open all kinds of doors to further
technological leaps. You know, it's gonna you're gonna start leap
frogging over these you know, technology is is gonna like
not only be exponential, it's going to be hyperbolic. You know,

(01:52:22):
it's gonna take off really fast. And yeah, it's gonna
you know, it's it's it's it's it's coming. It's coming.

Speaker 3 (01:52:33):
If if pre cog becomes a thing, what would happen
to society? What would happen to decisions? If you know
the result of the decision, right, I mean, how does
that that does that fundamentally change the fabric of everything

(01:52:55):
in existence.

Speaker 2 (01:52:57):
Well, when you consider what if every if everyone was
doing this, then it would be like no one was
doing it. I mean you there would be automatically kind
of like limits on this because it'd be then like
an arms race, right and and and every everyone would
have that same ability. I think this really accounts for

(01:53:17):
why precognition is so in the background, uh for us.
And it's not like you'd think, well, gosh, if we
have precognition, why aren't we like scope in the future
all the time? Well, the point is we're living in
a world of organisms that are all like theoretically able
to scope the future, and like evolution would kind of
decide that, you know, actually that scoping the future is
not quite as valuable as scoping the next few seconds,

(01:53:39):
you know. And uh and and so you know that
that precognitive thing is sort of in the background. It's
not foregrounded for any organism that has to survive in
a minute to minute you know, basis and avoid predators
that are lurking in the bush right there. Now, you know,
it doesn't make you know, we don't do that that
that animal doesn't need to know about the predator that's

(01:54:01):
going to be there tomorrow. They need to deal with
the one that's right there now, you know. And humans similarly,
I mean, we're mostly need to deal with you know,
we need to control our body right now. You know,
Like if we were driving, like I don't want to be,
I don't want to be you know, having a full,
full you know, uh, preview of what's happened, going to

(01:54:22):
happen tomorrow, you know, I need to be you know,
would also take that following my vehicle in the moment,
you know.

Speaker 3 (01:54:29):
And yeah, it would take the fun out of it.
It would take the fun out of everything. If you know,
if we did get that information stream from the future
and we know the end result of everything, that takes
the sense of wonder out of it. Right, why even exist?
Let's just burn this thing down now, let's just party,

(01:54:51):
right because we know the answers.

Speaker 2 (01:54:54):
Yeah, the thing is, you're never going to know the answers.
The other reason is we have free will or or
you know, we have at least a sense of what
we think is free will, and and we get information
from If we got information that we knew was from
the future, and we knew was accurate. Well, you know,
most the information, most of the things in the future

(01:55:15):
that we would see are things we would want to avoid,
you know, or there you know, even if even if
it's something that's pretty good, we're all neurotic and we
we don't want to feel guilty, so we you know,
do things to avoid feeling guilty, you know, and we
do things to avoid things that have outcomes that we
don't want. Okay, so we would create a different future,

(01:55:36):
so that would be a grandfather paradox, right, that that
wouldn't happen paradox. So yeah, right, So the only information
that reaches us in the present is from the future,
but in a way that's oblique and symbolic, and all
those things that happened in dreams, that's distorted and enough
that we bring about a future without really being aware

(01:55:59):
of of how we were guided towards that. Uh. And
and so that's I think a really important facet of
working with precognition and working precognitive dreams is that is
that it's always going to be kind of distorted in
a kind of trickstri ish way. You know. It's why
the dream world is kind of like a trickster. You
know and why things come true in our lives, you know,

(01:56:23):
in ways that we wouldn't have anticipated. You know, even
if we're aware of precognition, it's like it's it, it's
it's always kind of one step ahead of us. Uh
and and kind of you know, it always kind of
fools us. And and you know, it's it's a higher intelligence.
But I think it's that higher intelligence is us. It's

(01:56:44):
our long self, is what I call it. That that
kind of four dimensional you that extends through time. And
that's that that that quantum computer of your brain, your
tesseract brain, that's thinking in four dimensions about your whole
life and sort of focusing it in on a on
a certain moment, you know, from moment to moment, but

(01:57:07):
that you're drawing on your whole life experience at every Yeah, you.

Speaker 3 (01:57:13):
Wouldn't want to know. Let's say you get information from
the future that you are going to win the lottery
in three months. Okay, all right, that's everybody's pipe dream
most and and and then you get reckless in your life.
You don't care, You get stupid, and you wreck your
car doing one hundred miles an hour and die, and

(01:57:37):
you don't get to that point only because you've found
out that there was no reason to be cautious, and
then you blow it.

Speaker 2 (01:57:46):
There's all kinds of ways in which that grandfather paradoxical
is right right again. So that's why information of the
future is always oblique, symbolic, indirect, sort of devious in
a way. And that's I think explain a lot of
dream symbolism. The reason our dreams don't sort of give
us those video quality, you know, images of something that's

(01:58:08):
going to happen, and we know exactly when and where
it's going to happen. That doesn't work for a creature
that's like us, who's trying to outwit even ourselves, you know,
and and exerting a free will. You know, even if
in the larger philosophical sense we can debate whether free
will exists or not, we act as if we have
free will. We feel like we have free will, and

(01:58:29):
even like those like your example, like winning the lottery
often you know this this is I always go back
to Sigmund Freud because Freud had a lot of important
things to say that are very relevant to this topic.
And and you know, one of them is that like
we you know, we obviously are going to avoid. Like,
you know, if you had a dream of of dying

(01:58:51):
in a car crash, you'd like stop driving and all that.

Speaker 3 (01:58:56):
So there's that you never leave the house, you never leave.

Speaker 2 (01:58:58):
The house and all that stuff. But the thing is,
even dreams about rewards like winning a lottery, those make
us feel guilty, and so we do things to sabotage ourselves.

Speaker 3 (01:59:08):
Right right now, that's my point. Yes, yes, yes, yes,
that's exactly it. It reminds me of I hate to
say this, but I just watched back to the future one,
two and three a couple of weeks ago on my
flight to Peru. I watched him back to back so awesome.
I had done that in a while. But DOC don't

(01:59:30):
know the future right right, No, no, no, And it
goes back to exactly this point, you know, I And
and it goes backwards too as well. There's a romantic
side to time travel that people can't get away from.

(01:59:51):
And the romantic side is, well, it's somewhat romance. But
it's just that I could if I would have just
done that, then my life would have been different, right
if I would. So, if I could go back in time,
I would say you know what. No, you wouldn't, right,
you wouldn't change anything in the past. Not you got

(02:00:14):
to where you are today because of those experiences from
the past. I don't know about you, Eric, but I
wouldn't change the thing. I change one thing if I
turn left instead of turning right in the past, I
don't have my daughter right right, I'm not giving up
any of that. No way, no, no, no. That that

(02:00:37):
romantic side of time travel is bullshit. It's fun to
think about. But you would never change the past, would you.

Speaker 2 (02:00:47):
No? No, for exactly the reason you said, you know,
like my daughters. It's like I'm not you know, It's like, yeah,
I mean, there's there's nothing I would change, but you can't.
There's a difference between this is what This is what
trips people up and thinking about this topic because a
lot of physicists, even like I'll have like the ones
you know you mentioned the physicists who are all really
interested in time travel. Well, there's a lot of physicists who,

(02:01:09):
even if they're interested in it, don't believe it or
don't believe in it because they're they're tripped up by
this question about like changing the past, Like like they
think that that would automatically cause a paradox because they're
confusing changing the past with affecting the past. You can
you can go into into into the past, do stuff,

(02:01:30):
commit mayhem, whatever you want to do, but that will
always whatever you did in the past is always going
to be part of your backstory leading to you getting
in that time machine in the first place. And uh,
as long as you understand that, uh yeah, it's not
going to be possible for you to get get in
a time machine and go and kill your grandfather. You

(02:01:51):
might try, and you're going to fail for some for
whatever reason, but the point is it's going to occur
to you that that's a pointless thing to try to
do anyway, So you're not even gonna try to do that.
So there's there's you know, those grandfather paradoxes, Just throw
them out the window. They don't they don't matter, they
don't actually happen. And it's a mistake to think that

(02:02:11):
the existence of time travel would somehow create paradoxes. It wouldn't.
It just makes the world really fucking weird. And I
think that we're about to enter a reality that's really
fucking weird. I mean, we are already. But but you know,
these possibilities of quantum computing, international time travel, and then

(02:02:32):
the possibility of real time travel, and we may be
seeing that with UFO phonomenon. So a lot of weirdness,
but that's different from paradox.

Speaker 3 (02:02:43):
Yeah, it is time travel as an observer, a vacation, right,
just to go and witness historical events that would kick ass. Yeah,
I mean, could you just imagine, you know, going out
to the Maha Bobby Desert and watching Chuck Yeager break
the sound barrier right, or you know, witnessing these historical events,

(02:03:06):
go to Kitty Hawk and watch the right right brothers
fly for the first time, or uh a deep history
and seeing how the pyramids were built. Okay, not affecting
the past, just observing it.

Speaker 2 (02:03:21):
You don't want to go back, but your presence would
affect it, and that's okay, that's okay. Your presence would
be a part of history. But you know, so what,
no one, you know, it's not no one's going to
be aware of it, really, you know, and and so
you know, and and and if they did, that's going
to be a part of history. I think it's going
to be part of our future. History. We become aware

(02:03:43):
of how time travelers affected our past, and how our past,
you know, included time travelers. That'll be something we become
aware of.

Speaker 3 (02:03:51):
I'm sure there's going to be vacation packages for sale.
Sure there will be. There will be Okay, it's time
to go and watch the art studio of Leonardo da
Vinci two days, right, right, food and lodging and you
get to stay in Florence. I mean, I think that
would be, uh, something that would be in the future.

(02:04:15):
I can't see it any other way. Eric, Where can
everybody check out your work?

Speaker 2 (02:04:21):
Yeah? So, yeah you can. You can visit me at
Eric Wargo dot com and it has links to my
books and stuff and you know, go just go on
Amazon if you're interested. Uh, and you can buy all
my books there. And yeah, and on my website you
can there's a link to my blog and stuff. So
Eric Wargo dot com is the central.

Speaker 3 (02:04:41):
Point for that perfect conversation.

Speaker 2 (02:04:44):
And I'm on Twitter, and I'm glad you call it Twitter.
I'm a Twitter at the night Shirt.

Speaker 3 (02:04:50):
No nobody cares about X. Nobody will always be will
always be right, No nobody cares. Nobody cares, Eric, Thank
you so much, perfect conversation, and I'll look forward to
our next one. Enjoy your Fourth of July, you too,
Thank you so much, great perfect night on the show.
Tonight everybody again. Happy Fourth of July to all of you.

(02:05:15):
Be safe, have fun, do everything that I would do.
Just don't get arrested. All right, those are the rules.
I'll see everybody right back here on Monday. Until then,
all I've got is go Beckley, Teppy, BEDA Black is
produced by Hilton J. Palm, Rene Newman and Michelle Free.

(02:05:37):
Special thanks to Bill John Dex, Jessica Dennis and Kevin
Webmaster is Drew the Geek. Music by Doug Albridge. Intro
Spaceboy Ada Black is produced by kjc R for the
Game Changer Network. This broadcast is owned and copyright in

(02:05:58):
twenty twenty four Fade to Black and the Game Changer Network, Inc.
It cannot be rebroadcast, downloaded, copied, or used anywhere in
the known universe without written permission from Fade to Black
or the Game Changer Network. I'm your host, Jimmy Church,
Go Beckley, Tappy