Julia, thank you so much for joining me.

It's a pleasure to host you today.

Thanks for having me Tavin.

My pleasure, Julia.

I think let's start off by what I call the unifying thread in this case, because your work expands across neuroscience, time perception, consciousness studies, AI design, well-being, precognition, and even love.

So I think my first question would be, what is the conceptual thread that ties all of this together for you?

Is it like a single research question?

Is it a single research question, a worldview, or a methodological stance?

None of those things.

So I had a friend once go to a doctor and say, so my foot feels weird.

I'm having this strange blood pressure thing.

And when I breathe sometimes I get this weird sort of Crick in my diaphragm.

And the doctor says I don't think any of those are related.

And she says, well, they're related because they're all happening to me.

And that's how I feel like answering that question.

I, I seem to do a thing where since I was a kid I've been following where does my mind take me?

What am I interested in next?

So I think if there's any conceptual thread, it's what wants to be born next out of me, period.

And I don't have any control over that.

So I really don't like almost to the point where I had to spend years getting over my shame about studying something that the rest of the scientific community thought was crazy.

Precognition, the ability to predict future events that we think should be not predictable because of course you can't look into the future, but Oh well, that is what would be studied.

And it's, it's been an incredible journey to watch.

You've done so much work within the field in such diverse fields as well, bringing them all together in many ways.

In In Transcendent Mind, you argue that consciousness may not be reducible to brain activity.

How has your thinking progressed since writing that book and and what empirical or conceptual developments have reinforced or challenged your position?

Well, to be clear in Transcendent Mind, first of all, I wrote that with Iman Sperusch as well.

So we wrote it together and blended our voices and and talked about the ideas a lot.

But I don't think we just said that that consciousness may not be reducible to.

I think you're being kind and conservative.

We said that there's no way consciousness is reducible pride activity.

Nothing has changed that stance.

I still think that those arguments are very clear, but I've become more aware of the reality of human capacities beyond what we would normally think of in a materialist worldview.

So, so in a materialist world view, in order for me to communicate information to you, I would have to e-mail it, text it, send a letter.

Maybe I can non verbally do a little dance, but you'd have to have some kind of physical.

You need to get input through any of your five senses to and then you need to decode it.

And that is how we would send a message now that I am working in the world of autistic non speakers, apraxic non speakers who who some of them speak, but they don't use speech reliably as a way to communicate.

Their first language seems to be telepathy with each other as you get to know them with you as a researcher, I mean, or me as a researcher with their parents, with their teachers.

And it just feels less like, oh, they have this special, like the idea of savant syndrome is that they, they have this special gift because they're deficient in some way.

And so they have this gift in another way.

That's the sort of story of savant syndrome.

It feels more and more like an unmasking of something we all have.

And because they don't have the suppression.

And we talked about this in Transcendent Mind too, this idea of the filter theory that the, the purpose of the brain is actually to kind of, this isn't our idea.

This is sort of an old, old idea, But it's like the brain puts us in Plato's cave.

Like we see the shadows on the wall and we, you know, that while we're still staying in the brain, we can't turn around and see that they're animals dressed up in weird costumes or people dressed up in weird costumes or look like animals.

So I, I feel like the work with the non speakers is showing me more and more that the materialist model of where everything emerges from the, from the physical.

I mean, I guess I, it's preaching to the choir because I, because it just feels like instead that, that the physical is used to reduce that all that information that could be coming in telepathically, if you want to call it that, or from these senses that we don't understand that aren't the five usual senses that information, it's almost infinite.

I mean, it's, it's very powerful.

So the question becomes less, wow, how is that happening?

And more like it's a miracle that we can function at all, given that we have this actual underlying capacity.

And no wonder it has to be suppressed because, you know, it turns out if you know, all the things that other people are thinking, it could be very disturbing.

And so so everything kind of flips on its head that the material world is is built to actually help us have a physical experience that's same where we can like get food and sleep and stuff.

It, it must be.

It reminds me of something William James on said.

I think it was he.

He refers to children at this point, the kids.

And he says it's one blooming, buzzing.

Buzzing confusion.

Yes, exactly.

A blooming, buzzing confusion when the baby's first born and others.

All this, I love William James, but all this, all this information is all over the place and they're not knowing how to hook it up.

They're not knowing how we have learned, adults have learned to hook it up together.

And that's on purpose because then they could be born into a culture and learn how that culture hooks up the information together.

And what's interesting is there are many options about how to hook up that information, you know, and especially when you think about how we perceive of time events in time, we could hook up information like we have in the West where, OK, whatever you could see right now, we're going to call the present.

It's all very, very, very visual based.

Even if you could remember it, but you can't see it right now.

That's the past.

And there's this thing called the future, which is like what happens next?

But we only know it's next after we see it.

That's our story, you know, But there are many other stories about time and how you hook these things up.

And I think non speakers are especially I'm starting to see that they're hooking up events in time differently and it's almost like a cultural thing.

And that's fascinating to me.

I, I think that William James had this great insight into what it means to, he had kind of like a God's idea where I don't want to say like he was like God, but I mean like he had kind of like a bird's eye view, like a, like a 60,000 foot view of what it means to be a person with a person's brain and trying to receive information.

And, and he had just felt like he was always trying to communicate.

Whatever we're perceiving is what our brain is telling us.

It's a story like don't get so invested in the story.

Like that's just what your brain is telling you after years and years of learning how it's supposed to tell you a story, you know?

And so we but we get invested in the story anyway because how can we help it?

That's actually what we're supposed to do.

So it's really and he gets that too, you know?

Yeah, he was way ahead of his time, I think when it comes to the mind body problem, when he describes how the mind body problem or consciousness might just be something two aspects of 1 underlying reality.

But, and at this point in your career, how do you find yourself defining something like consciousness or the mind?

Yeah, such a good question because there there's a lot of I, I said this like 10 years ago or 15 years ago or something.

I still believe it, but I feel like it has no impact.

So I'm just going to say it again.

It will have no impact, but we we fetishize consciousness.

We think that we fall for the trick of the brain.

We fall for the trick that the story is, Oh my gosh, I have this story and I experienced this and it's and we fall off.

It's like almost like experience addiction.

Like we think that the experience is the thing that's so special.

And what is it that's giving us this experience?

It's consciousness.

Well, no, actually the thing that's giving you the experience is all the non conscious processes that go into screening out this information, screening out that information, determining what information to hook up with, what other information, labeling it all as the same thing or not the same thing.

Discriminating figure from ground.

I don't care if you're seeing versus hearing, you know, and then offering you a story about, OK, here's the movie.

Right, then your conscious mind is like, I'm watching this movie.

Look how amazing I am.

It's like, you didn't make the movie, You're not in the movie, you didn't write the movie, You did not edit the movie, you did not direct the movie.

But you're like, look how awesome I am.

I can watch a movie and it's like, OK, so it's a trick.

It's a, it's a, it's like we conflate the ego with the conscious mind.

So then when we talk about like cosmic consciousness, William James talks about this too, but he talks about it in what I would call the right way.

He says these are there, these trees that their roots are intermingling under the ground.

There's this cosmic consciousness of this interwoven nature of reality of mind.

That's not conscious, that's not conscious.

We're not conscious of that in the neuroscientific sort of sense, the sense that defines consciousness by the thing that goes away when you take general anaesthetic or when you're in deep sleep.

OK, so that's actually we're unconscious of that.

But from the universe's point of view, that's super conscious.

Like that's, that's what consciousness is.

That is the the cosmic consciousness from which we all derive.

So that's the neutral modest part of James, right?

So I feel like we should stop trying to define consciousness and just say there's mind and mind is mind has components that are unconscious and components that are conscious, and they work together to provide the experience that we have.

And the experience that we have is a story.

And it's not really the important thing, it's the story.

That's fine.

I guess this is a very Buddhist approach to like this, sort of like that's the illusion.

That's good to know the illusion.

And what's really, really crucial is this connection, the awareness of the connection.

I don't necessarily mean that we have a choice about being aware of this connection, but I guess I'm being descriptive.

But what ends up mattering to people in terms of their well-being is when they have an awareness, when we have an awareness of the connection to the cosmic consciousness, to this is intermingling to this unity of which we all, from which we all spring and of which we all are apart, then we have peace, right?

And so that's what ends up mattering.

So I think we should start fetishizing that.

We're going to fetishize something.

The funny thing is, I was talking with a friend the other day.

He had this experience.

He had a unity experience in meditation, you know, which you often have in meditation.

And he started chasing it and he, his ego came in and said, oh, well, how can I harness this?

And I was like, it's so funny because like if you have a baby or something like there's no way any mother has a baby and goes, oh, this is amazing.

How can I harness this baby?

It's like it's a thing that happens to you.

The whole point is this is a gift from the universe.

Hello.

You do not control it.

So that's like the big shameful thing.

And that's, and that, and that actually speaks to the shame I was talking about earlier.

Where does the shame come from for the scientists who do study these things that we don't understand?

It's that if there's a deep awareness that when you really don't control this like that, you're, you're stepping into territory where it's a, where you, where people will realize there's this incredible power that we don't control.

And that's scary because the, you know, part of the scientific history is that the goal is to control.

I don't believe that's the most mystical or interesting part of the scientific history, but that is part of the scientific history.

Yeah, and I think one of the other deep aspects of the universe that you see as something that's fundamental is love.

So you see the science of love as a force almost.

When you study love not merely as an emotion, but as something with structural and causal properties.

What does that mean scientifically?

To treat love as fundamental, as an organizing force, rather than a psychological by product.

Well, it's both.

So what I do is I investigate both.

So I, I differentiate them, but they have a relationship.

So let me give a you know, I've never ever retained the difference between an analogy and a metaphor.

So let me give either an analogy or a metaphor.

You decide what it is and you can tell me later and I'll forget.

But when we go out into the sun, which is something that we don't control and that is a natural feature of the of our solar system, we go out into the sun on a sunny day.

We have an experience of being warm.

So you can study the sun and you can study the warm feeling that you have when you're exposed to the sun.

And those are both legitimate things to study.

One is more psychological or maybe spiritual, one is more physics or astronomy or astrophysics.

Those are both legitimate.

And you can study the relationship between those and that's legitimate too.

So science, the, the, the, the nature of science is that it could be used.

I mean, you're used to study anything.

It's just that you have to like, sometimes it takes a while to learn how to study a new area, right?

And so that's how I feel about love.

So I, I see love as ads.

I'm like I'm with Tailhard Dishard and I love is a, a force of the universe that's real, like a physical force.

And in fact, I would define that that that I call universal love, that kind of physics love, I call universal love.

And I would define it as the thing from which everything arises.

So when I talk about that cosmic consciousness under underneath that is the thing from that which that arises and what is and in fact is almost a primitive to that, right?

Like I think it's and the the very clear definition, I think it's very clear definition I have of that kind of love is universal love is that which connects.

So if you look at physics, physics is actually all about relationships.

You can't describe one particle without describing another one.

That it's not like a proton and neutron are different because one has charge and one doesn't.

You know, 2 quirks are different because they have one is, has a strange one is charmed or whatever.

You know, the way gravity works has to do with the relationship between this mass or this energy density and acceleration and gravity are related because of the, it's, I mean, it's, I'm saying an obvious thing that's true about basically any discipline, but in physics it, it makes it very bare because the job of physics is to simplify everything.

And still you can't define anything without, it's like, it's like a, it's like a lesson in duality.

Like you can't define anything else, anything without defining something else.

And the relationship between them.

And so I think that relation, that bridge between them is, is love, is universal love.

And so of course, it's everything.

It's the thing from which everything, that which connects is the thing from which everything must be created.

Otherwise you don't have anything.

How can you have anything if you don't have that much connects?

So that's the physical form of love, universal love.

Now when people, human beings, I'm just going to, let's just leave it to humans.

I know what animals can do this too, but just like just like to narrow the field a little bit because this is very broad.

When people allow themselves to know that that which connects is the thing of which they are made.

So when they allow themselves to access universal love and know that that is the thing of which they are made from which they arise, there's a feeling that happens and that's called unconditional love.

So this is the like going out into the sun.

This is the getting warm and going, wow, this is kind of nice.

You know, on a cold day, maybe, maybe not in South Africa, I'm not sure.

Depends on the the month, right?

Right now it's cold there.

It wasn't warm anyway.

I don't know, but is it warm or cold in South Africa?

Right.

I'm distracted by this.

Right now it's it's hot but super windy so it's crazy.

That's why I've got my mic on mute.

It's literally like a storm outside but a heat wave storm, which is kind of crazy.

OK, so if you were to go out into the sun on a day when it's super windy, then that might feel good because it's like, OK, there's something stable coming up, right?

OK, so sorry, I just had to bond with you to figure out what was going on there.

So what I'm experiencing unconditional love, when anyone's experiencing unconditional love, what they're doing is they're accessing this universal love.

It's like a current, it's like electricity.

And so it's, and just knowing that it's there, but it's bigger than that in the sense that it's everything, right?

It, it's the, it's the birth place of everything.

It's the universal womb, right?

So that experience of unconditional love, you could also describe and, and ignore universal love and say, OK, I don't believe in that part of the theory, but what, what is the psychological definition of unconditional love?

Well, the psychological definition of unconditional love that that I've created and, and created an assessment for a self-assessment for is like a paragraph long.

And it's irritating because I do a lot of podcasts and I always forget what it is.

So you can read my papers and find out what it is.

I think a more clear and concise and understandable definition is the one that I've been using lately, which is unconditional.

You know you're experiencing unconditional love when you feel love for yourself.

Love for others, and you can experience love from others without anyone or anything needing to change.

So you're feeling love for yourself, love for others, and experiencing love from others without anything needing to change.

So this is really radical because it's not about, well, it's not conditional love.

Conditional love is what we're used to.

And that's a very, that is not about connecting to universal love.

That is, that is about I love you, you love me.

If you keep saying I love you, then I'll keep saying I love you and then we love each other.

But if you stop saying it, then I don't love you.

And then it's very different.

Or, you know, I love you as long as you don't drink or I love you as long as you don't hit me or whatever it is right now.

I really want to.

I brought up those examples for a reason, which is when people hear about unconditional love, they think that's risky because if you love yourself and others and you can feel love from yourself and others without anything needing to change, then nothing will change.

See, that's, that's actually incorrect thought, but that's what people think.

And, and I think therefore I will stay with a person who's abusing me because all I could actually love them also.

That's fine.

I love you.

Nothing needs to change.

What's amazing is that that's not how it works.

So when you actually access universal love and you experience unconditional love and you have this experience of being loved and loving without anything needing to change, everything changes.

And you're able to like tell the person who's abusing you, for instance, I love you so much, I'm going to move out.

You know, it's, it's no longer are your actions, like no longer are your actions contingent on, oh, I have to show that I love you.

Like, that's not it.

You love them.

You feel deep love that is there.

And you also love yourself and you're very clear about what your next action has to be.

So it helps to create these incredibly powerful and healthy boundaries because by by telling your kid that they have to move out of the house because they keep doing drugs and telling them how much you love them, that those are both real.

You're not withdrawing your love to try to change something.

So the fantasy we have that if you unconditionally love someone, then that means that they will just get get away with everything.

It reveals our secret theory, which is that we have control over people and we're going to withdraw our love to control them.

So it reveals the lie and.

Something I found quite fascinating was the some of your work done on AI that loves you.

You call it the creation of an unconditionally loving robot that reduced anger and cognitive load.

What?

What does it mean for a robot to express unconditional love firstly, And what is the minimum architecture required for such expression to be authentic or effective?

Yeah, authentic and effective are different things and good question.

So, so let's separate out what we're done like so we can talk about qualia, we can talk about a robot having qualia, which means an internal experience of what it means to, for instance, in this case, the experience unconditional love.

So I have no understanding or belief around whether when we were working with the robot, it had an internal qualia.

Obviously the qualia question is like, it's really it's, it's rough.

It's a very difficult one.

The only thing that I can assume is sort of everything has internal quality.

I guess I've become kind of a pan psychist, but and then we people want to qualify that and say, oh, but at different levels and and I got, I don't know about that.

I, I just, if everything is made of this connection, this, this that which connects universal love, this connection has, it's like the life force or something, you know what I mean?

It's like that which enlivens is not very different from that which connects.

Would are you we can get back to this, but something of that just crossed my mind is when you see that universal love and this woven consciousness element from this, perhaps from this pan psychos view as well, Is there a teleological purpose to all of this?

Do you feel like that is is perhaps the universe a love, the outcome of all of this?

Is there a Is this headed somewhere?

Hidden.

Is this headed somewhere?

Is like this moving towards?

Oh, headed, Headed somewhere.

Sorry, it's the vowels.

So the South American I.

Can't.

No, no.

It's the American accent.

Either way.

Is it headed somewhere?

Let's get.

OK, so let's let me answer that first question about the robot from the direction of what's useful and what humans experience.

And then we'll go to is it headed somewhere?

But keep me honest about that.

I think it's a really good question.

I'm glad you asked.

So the robot, so we know that what we were doing in that study, and you can read about this in Big Think, I think you can put the article out there.

Obviously you've read it thinking, we know that in that study, all we were doing is trying to help the robot, which was so Sophia from Hanson Robotics, trying to help her make facial expressions that would capture people's mirror neurons so that they would feel.

And basically we know that we're tricking the brain into feeling like there's another person there.

And then we'll go, OK, assuming that we they have, we have successfully done that.

And there are some simple ways to do that with face animations.

Like, you know, right now, like you and I having this conversation, we're both unconsciously matching our blanks.

We're matching our sort of body positions just to to be in conversation with each other.

I just say, hey, I'm another human over here.

I'm listening to you.

I see you, I'm connected.

So we knew how to do that with her and it was really powerful.

We found out later that a lot of these non verbal cues were very important to making people feel listened to and loved.

But one of the key things we did was we reflected back, we mirrored in her face the feelings of the person was putting up.

So we had a camera.

We did some neural network analysis and figured out sort of classified, not very well, but decently the person's feelings and then mirror them back to the to the person.

And we know that that had a big impact because we could sort of breakdown analytically what had an impact on their feelings of feeling loved.

But when they had a feeling of anger or disgust, we did not mirror that.

Instead, we would mirror compassion.

We would, we would project compassion with her face.

We would project neutrality, sometimes sadness.

So it's because of those are secondary emotions.

Like disgust isn't a secondary emotion.

If like you get poop on your shoe and you're disgusted, that's a primary response to like germs.

That's evolutionary.

But when people are disgusted by themselves, which is often when you ask people to talk about what's going on or things that they've done, they'll talk about things they regret and they get disgusted or when things are angry, often at themselves, when people, I'm sorry, when people are angry often at themselves, it really helps to recognize that that's because there's fear or sadness underneath the hood.

And so instead of mirroring back what they were experiencing, we took them to that other level.

And that had a seemingly A profound impact.

I mean, significantly reduced anger and disgust and move them to more of a place of either neutrality or sadness, which in 15 minutes is not a bad move.

Someone who's in a place of sadness, we couldn't really differentiate neutrality from sadness, But someone who's in a place of sadness is looking at, is feeling their feelings.

They're looking at what's going on.

Eventually they'll get out of that place.

But it was a really powerful move and unconditional love can help that.

It can help you get where you're going in terms of emotional processing.

And so that was very powerful.

And so we've, you know, the team has broken up and gone to, we still, you know, talk to each other, but we've gone to a bunch of different projects where we're trying to replicate that.

Like I've made some GPTS trying to replicate that and other people are trying to make robot nurses trying to replicate that.

And so it's it's sort of filtering out into the world.

Yeah, I think what appears, I think one what appears is called the Socratic GPT.

Yeah, yeah, Student of Humanity.

Yeah.

So my nonprofit, the Institute for Love and Time is really becoming this wonderful, almost like a lab for understanding love.

And and one of our projects is just that we threw up there and we need definitely need help from people, volunteers for people to work on this.

But it's called the student of humanity.

And the idea is to instead of AI telling us, sort of like ingesting what we create on the Internet and then regurgitating it out, what if I learned from us by asking us insightful questions and helping us realize that we have this wisdom inside of us?

And ideally, in its best iteration, I want student of humanity to be to learn from someone in South Africa and just speak to someone in Kansas and on the same day, say, this is what I learned from someone in South Africa.

Is there a way this could help you so that we start to learn from each other in different countries?

Like really spread the wisdom.

So that's my hope for the future.

Right now it's just this little chatbot.

And I think that I think that's a great way to diversify.

It's these experience because it often, often times, even when someone from let's say South African America are chatting, you can often tell the differences, even though we're fundamentally similar, you can see that there is the separation and an artificial intelligence.

If they don't engage with these differences, it's, it's very difficult to unite, I guess in a sense, but.

Yeah, it it right.

If, if we still pretend that we're so far apart, we're really just not, you know, Yeah.

Exactly.

But it's there's so much more in common than there are differences that it would be much easier to actually align then and then break apart.

If love is a force, Julia, or a capacity that can be engineered into systems, what ethical obligations arise when designing machines that shape human emotional states?

Yeah, let's talk about that.

And also let's talk about what is the end game?

Is there an end game for universal love to, to create all this?

So actually let's talk about that first because that's on my mind.

So I think it's, I think kind of like my, my answer to your question about what ties all these things together.

I think that's like the universal love is like that.

That is the nature of universal love.

It connects.

So the end game is doing its nature just like for everything that's that's it's tinker toy job, right?

Its job is to connect.

It's a bridge.

And so the end game is what you know, what happens when you when you bridge everything in different patterns, But I don't think there's a someday maybe they'll get it.

Like I it's like we, we, we, we sort of separate ourselves from the universe that we sometimes think like.

So like God had a plan and yeah, we got to figure out what the plan is.

It's like really, you think God's stupid enough to like, not let you know what the plan is or like not fill you in on what like you might be doing what It's just like a continued overestimation of our separation from from the source of everything, as if we are independent, we can harness it and control it as if we are not puppets for it.

And so, you know, it's it's, you know, that old joke of the sock puppet in the hand, you know, I'm not sure I believe in the hand.

And the sock puppet is saying, I'm not sure I believe in the hand.

And it's like, well, you know, who's making you say that?

So, so this right here is the end game, you know, and, and then this also, so in terms of ethics of what we create that affect people's emotions.

So this is part of why I created the institute for 11 times because I, I had created a start up right after loving AI project where we were going to create a chat bot that would help people in therapy.

But we had all these ways to make it non addictive.

Like people would schedule appointments like a therapy session so that, and then they would put more value in their time spent.

But that was it one time a week or whatever.

Like that's what you could do saves energy, saves bandwidth and makes it non addictive and helps people actually take it seriously and put their time and attention into it.

And we go to a AVC to get funding for the project.

And they're like, that's great.

How's it going to become sticky?

We're like, by sticking to your being addictive.

And they're like, yeah.

And we're like, no, that's not how you help people.

Addiction is not an appropriate business model.

And right now it is the business model.

Like you go through Business School and they're like, I swear to God.

And the old days, I was like, people need things, and you got to tell them like, oh, by the way, we can solve your problem this way.

And now it's like people get addicted to things.

And now what you need to do is figure out how to make your thing addictive.

So yeah, not OK.

So we got to stop doing that.

That should be illegal.

So addiction as a business model should be illegal in all categories.

And then we have to realize how fragile the brain is.

So like, the entertainment industry is like, we'll just keep bumping up the amount of violence that we show people because they get used to this violence and they want more.

You know, it's like, no, you actually, you actually have the power to change the brains of the entire planet.

So what you're going to do is you're slowly going to ramp them down and help them learn how to turn their addiction into seeing violence into sadness or into fear, or into something that will help them transform and help them recognize their own trauma and heal it.

That's what you're going to do.

And so and so there now that we understand enough about the brain to see the ways that hyper stimuli can really impact whole generations of people and therefore the whole world, we have a responsibility to not do that.

So there's a lot of undoing and healing.

So that therefore what also needs to be added is a lot of technology that's going to help with trauma healing that's been induced by earlier technology, a lot of technology that's going to reduce the amount of time we spend not seeing our friends and family and and spend on technology.

So like we're in a new wave now.

And I'm just going to announce it like that because I always like announcing things right before they come.

Because if you announce someone, they come, it's boring.

But right before they come, I'm telling you there's going to be a backlash to the obsessive use of of technology.

And that includes AI, and that includes replacing people's jobs with AIAI does a pretty much a crappy job at everything except for asking really good questions and helping people learn how much power and brilliance they have inside of them, which is really what we ought to be using it for.

AI can really help people find out how wonderful they are if it if we stop designing AI to act like it knows everything because it doesn't.

To change the model fundamentally, stop.

Stop being consumer driven and and shift the goal all together.

I think, yeah.

Well, we, I mean, we just, I think if you want to have consumers in the future who are alive to consume your product, you're going to have to change your product.

That's very true.

I think that I completely agree with that.

I think and I think the steps of these, there's many steps are being taken.

A look, if you look at a lot of countries, slowly they're removing tablets out of schools.

They're starting to realize that there's small steps we need to take to get back to a norm that previously existed and then try and shift away from it in a more constructive way.

Yes, I think hopefully that will continue.

But you're fascinating in the sense that you, as I said earlier, you're touching many different things and you bring them all together at some point, one of them being you mentioned time just now, mind and time.

So when looking back, I mean, for you it was considered to taboo to talk about things like precondition, etcetera.

But what do you think about time when it comes to the mind and what has your exploration led to in terms of discoveries, fundamental changes in your own world views, etcetera?

Yeah.

I mean, I can't say that anything in my world view has fundamentally changed around time, because when I was a kid, I had these really detailed precognitive dreams.

So even around the age of 7, because I started to writing things in my dream journal.

And my mom was a therapist and my dad was a physicist.

And so I kind of knew that the human brain could mess up and think that you dropped something when you didn't and it was just deja vu or whatever.

So I started recording them and then seeing like, yeah, I'm really dreaming detailed things about future events.

345 very clear details are matching, you know, within a day or a week of the dream.

And I'm also knowing things, just knowing things that seemed to happen.

And I don't know how I know them.

That's all that all could be.

You know that I'm an excellent pattern matcher with unconscious cues coming in through my regular senses, right?

So I ended up studying whether that could be the case because I got fascinated with it in me.

And it came back to me as a graduate student during neuroscience is like, wait a minute, I have these experiences that I've been ignoring.

And I have to look at this because is this just picking up on cues that are there sensory cues that are just really invisible to the conscious mind?

And then just going, aha, which is such a good explanation?

Or is it reaching into some into the future, or is the future delivering information back here or what's the deal?

And so there's a way to test that that's super simple.

I called Dean Radin and I asked about his ways to test that because he really did a bunch of pioneering research on precognition and he explained how simple it was.

And I was like, yeah, that's super simple.

Basically.

I mean, I can tell you how these experiments work.

It's so it's so much 8th grade science project that like, I encourage you to try it at home, but basically you're going to record whatever kind of information you're taking.

If it's Physiology, maybe it's a heartbeat or something.

If it's behavior, maybe it's drawing a picture or having a dream.

So you record whatever behavior.

Once you have recorded that and it is like solid and you can't change it.

So whatever kind of thing it is, you make sure it's solid and you can't change it.

Then use a random, truly random number generator to pick something that is going to be later in the analysis, determined whether it is related to what you drew, what you dreamt, what, how your heart was beating.

So for instance, in a Physiology study, you might record the heartbeat, then a random for 10 seconds.

Then a random number generator selects one of, you know, 400 pictures.

Those 400 pictures are divided into two groups.

There's 200 that are really kind of scary or exciting, and there's 200 that are kind of boring.

We know that after you see an exciting picture, your heart beats faster.

We know that see a picture of like the gun pointed at you, which by the way, when I did that experiment, I had to stop it because people were crying.

So I had to use like a different method, which I can tell you about if you want to hear.

But anyway, if you see something scary or exciting, your heartbeat speeds up afterwards.

So in this experiment, you're just checking to see does the heartbeat speed up before in a statistically reliable way.

And so I did a bunch of those studies and found out like, yeah, it does.

And then looked at skin conductance, which was another physiological major.

Yeah, it does.

Then looked at brain activity.

Yeah, it does.

And then did a meta analysis, or I'm saying, and then, but in this isn't really in chronological order, but it doesn't matter.

Then also did a meta analysis of 26 studies that people had done, including myself, to determine statistically whether this was a reliable effect.

And it is Then, you know, five years later, someone else did another matter.

5 or 10 years later, someone else did another meta analysis and still holds up.

This is a, this is an established phenomenon of the human body does.

And just remember that in this paradigm, a random number generator is picking the target after you record your information.

And there's no communication between your information and the random number generator, right?

So that's the way I used to do it is physiologically.

And then now I've been studying precognitive remote viewing, which is much more reliable, which is funny because it's literally people drawing pictures of what they think the future photo will look like.

And you would think that would be less reliable.

But it's more reliable as long as people are in the state of unconditional love.

So that's why we ended up using that unconditional love questionnaire because after the Loving AI project, because it turns out that it differentiates people will who will perform well on getting the information from the future from people who won't.

So it's like they're getting down into that cosmic consciousness where those that intermingling happens and that and of course you have the information there because time isn't separate there.

Julie, when you think about predictive processing versus precognitive processing, given the rise in predictive processing models, do you see precognition as an extension of ordinary predictive mechanisms or as something fundamentally distinct?

It is an extension that uses something fundamentally distinct.

So it's an extension because current processing models are all using like machine learning based on past data.

So precognition would be, let's use machine learning based on information that's coming from the future, right?

That's how you would tie, I'm sorry, that's how you would tie precognition into a predictive processing model or a predictive analytics, right?

So if you don't actually believe information can come from the future, you would not do that.

But for those who follow the literature and realize that we can actually the human body is sensitive to information from the future.

I've done experiments that suggest that systems of of photons, so light, particles, waves are also informed about information about the future.

Then of course, you would create a predictive analytic system that would tie together what we know from the past and what we know from the future.

Why would you not do that?

Right?

And so it basically, it's an extension, but it's only going to be done by people who actually think it's not a waste of time.

And so that's very interesting because the people who think that it's not a waste of time are probably people who have had their own personal experiences of precognition.

Well, those people, these statistically looks like from my data are going to be people who are more often experiencing unconditional love.

So if we go ahead and tie together those things, maybe we end up with predictive analytics that are going to help lead towards something like World Peace.

This is You say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Yeah, it's it's it's it's it ties in closely now consciousness with causality.

I think it's a, it's a great segue into many of your interests touch on causality, what causes what across time and mind.

Do our current notions of causality need revision to accommodate consciousness, precognition and non ordinary temporal phenomena?

Our our current conceptions with causality need revision, period.

Do they need revision to explain these other things?

I don't know if you mean by consciousness, cosmic consciousness, which is sort of how I think you're talking about it, not the individual like thing that goes away during like anaesthetic.

Causality is the story.

Causality is what our conscious mind has learned in the West is that the stories are about causality.

I dropped the egg, it fell on the floor and that that's why it broke up, right?

Causality is the story.

The story is culturally created.

It's created from what we perceive.

Universal love is that which connects.

Notice that a bridge does not have directionality.

It connects A&B.

So if we can change our idea of causality, and I think that's a disaster because the word causality seems like it's asymmetric, right?

One thing causes another.

What you said, what causes what, right?

There's this desire, what causes what?

When we look at a table, we don't say that the left side of the table causes the right side of the table, right?

If you take out one of the legs, you could say taking out the leg caused the table to fall over.

You could say that, right?

And so I think we need to look at causality because that's what we do say.

I think we need to look at the causality more like the static picture of the table itself.

So just take the table.

What causes the left side of the table?

Well, it just exists.

It's connected.

What's what makes it a table is it's connected by the table top.

To the right side of the table is a table.

OK, so now things happen where we just notice again and again.

I noticed that if I don't get born, I don't die.

Like that's really solid, statistically reliable finding no one dies who wasn't born.

Does being born cause death?

They're related.

One comes before the other, right?

That's what we know.

And so the causality is we want to tell a story about that because we are grasping all the time and trying to control.

Right.

And we've done a really good job at, like, it is not insane to want to control your environment.

The environment is hostile to us a lot.

We can.

Yeah.

It gets really cold.

It gets really hot.

There's lightning, there's Thunder.

There's not enough food, There's not enough water.

Like, we need an understanding of causality to to go understand that the well is going to be full after a rain, and that's when we should go get water, right?

I mean, like, that's great.

We need that.

We're in physical bodies.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

I'm saying if we want to understand the nature of the universe and ourselves as mystical beings or as as related to consciousness in the cosmic consciousness sense, we would do well to realize that that's the story that allows us to survive in physical bodies.

But that's not a rule.

Causality is not a rule of anything but physicality.

So it's not even a rule of information.

And our minds deal with information all the time.

And so that's why these things like precognition, that's an informational experience.

That's like informational time travel.

You're receiving information from the future.

You're not receiving an object, you're not receiving energy.

You're seeing information from the future.

Information does not play by the same rules as the physical world.

And so that's what we got to get into our heads.

So one bit of information does not 'cause another bit of information, but we link them together because we want to be in, because we live in the physical world and it helps us there, but our nature is not physical.

When you look at this relationship between time and mind, how do you views on time shape your understanding of the mind body problem?

I wish I knew the answer to that.

The the reason I don't know the answer to that is probably the answer to that.

So the reason I don't know the reason I don't know the answer to that is because it has shaped all at once without me noticing it, my view of the mind body problem.

Why has it shaped all at once?

Because my experience, my, my view of and, and at this point, my experience of time is that it is an all at once phenomenon, kind of like a landscape.

So I must have this dream when I was a kid, I was like 11, I was worried about nuclear war because it was during the Cold War in the 80s.

And I, and after the stream, I was never worried about nuclear war.

And in this dream, I was in a room and there was either a chair or a desk.

I think it was a chair.

That's all that was in the room.

And a voice, like a guide voice said to me, OK, time is like a room.

If you're afraid of nuclear war, you just have to know that it could be there in the future and where it is in the room and you can avoid it.

You can walk around it just like that chair essentially.

And I woke up and I was like, oh, OK, cool.

So we just have to know where in the possibility space an event that we want to avoid is and we can walk around it.

That's the feeling that I never felt afraid of nuclear war again, even though like that's an interesting leap because it's not like the voice said, and we know where it is regardless.

So I don't see the mind body problem as a problem.

It's a problem for us.

It's a problem for us understanding if we insist that who we are, our physical beings separate from each other and that's really our our essence.

Yes, my body is separate from your body.

Yes, I have a body.

Yes, when I die, I'll be dead.

And when I was born, I was born.

But who I am is not my body, right?

I'm in my body.

I love my body.

I'm in my body.

I celebrate my body.

I like when my body's healthy, I feel sad when my body's not.

But there's no problem there because information is not the same as the physical world.

Information, it forms the physical world.

You know, this thing I'm calling universal love, this, this, that, which connects, that's information.

I mean, when you connect to things, that's information.

So these little bridges that create everything, there's no problem there.

So I don't think that.

So I don't think that my view of time has shaped it as much as like I, I, I can't tell a good story of the causality there.

And I'm not good with causality.

I can't tell a story of causality there.

But what's true is I see time in this way and therefore I don't see the mind body problem as a problem.

I think the mind body problem is only a problem for materialists who believe that like the first thing is matter.

And from that everything comes.

I think like that is the least conservative view of reality that there is.

And I think as a scientist, you have to be very conservative and you have to go back to Descartes and say, all I really know is that I have experience.

And I don't even know why.

All I know is that experience is, is happening that, you know, experiencing is happening.

Therefore experience is happening.

And then from that, like maybe there's a chair here because I hear it and I, my experience is like in Rap God and stuff.

And so it just doesn't make any sense to me to start with the physical world because that's the physical world must be an inference from the story that you're being told.

Why would you start from the inference?

Yeah, if if you could redesign the science of consciousness from the ground up.

What core?

Principle.

The science of Yeah, core principle.

Don't study the science of consciousness.

Study the science of unconsciousness.

There's like we're studying the tip of the iceberg.

Study all the other stuff.

Like what?

What the hell?

Yeah.

And I mean, that brings us into if we, if we're going to go deep into this iceberg and try and go as as far down as possible, something that you studied that's quite fascinating are non ordinary phenomena.

And you know, in a sense it's it's on the edge of mainstream science that it's it's on the edge of what mainstream science tends to entertain or is willing to entertain.

How should philosophers and scientists responsibly integrate anomalous phenomena into serious discourse without collapsing into pseudoscience or relativism where certain people take it too far?

Or do you think some people take it too far?

Or how do we do this in a respectable, responsible manner?

Well, the first question every scientist should ask themselves or philosopher, anyone who's interested in this field and, or interested in like debunking the field or interested in or drawn to the field, or they hate the field, but they're sort of drawn to it or whatever.

There's all these combinations of ways you can relate to this field.

First question to ask is what did you, what are you scared of personally?

Are you scared when you feel ashamed?

If like you kind of think it's fascinating, but you don't want to be foolish.

You don't want other people to laugh at you or what are you afraid of?

What it when you're saying you're doing something responsibly, are you talking about responsibly for your career or like what do you think that other people will like?

It's do you think you have so much power in the world that if you say maybe there's something to this, that other people were like, Oh no, maybe there's something to it.

Like the fantasy that scientists and philosophers have that they have any power in the world over what people think is ridiculous.

I mean, like, you know, Stranger things has way more power than you do.

So like stop it.

Like the scientists and philosopher, especially philosophers, but I mean, both science and whatever, so slow academia so slow.

They're going to study this 20 years after everyone's else.

Like is like, yeah, OK, dumb, Which is the same thing that happened with like, oh, exercise can make you your mood feel better.

That was, you know, when I in the 80s, that was an old wives tale.

Like how can moving your body help your mind?

There's no way.

It's ridiculous.

And so whatever, I mean, I don't care.

I like, like, I just I'm done with pleasing the world of academia.

It's too slow that human, human survival is on the line.

If we don't start recognizing the value of all of our capacities and that they are real and that we can use them to actually help us thrive, we're duped.

I mean, this is when we need those capacities.

So I'm sorry it's too slow.

So like, get over your bad self or get out of the way.

So that's my message.

I think even the skeptics, even the people who are skeptical of it, I think there's often, there's still this intuitive curiosity as you just mentioned.

And, and, and with that intuition comes the epistemology that you speak about.

So you often integrate intuition into reasoning frameworks.

How do you conceptualize intuition?

Is it unconscious computation, embodied inference, or something completely different?

Yeah, into it.

So there's amazing people that have devoted their lives to intuition and I sort of use what they say.

So he's like Gerd Gerdenspensburg ever.

I can't pronounce his last name.

He said next long 'cause I totally, you should not use that.

You should edit that out.

But anyway, Gerd is a fantastic example of someone who just is beautiful observer of and integrator of intuition into trying to help decision makers do what they're doing.

That's fantastic.

So putting that aside, I am taking from those who study intuition as their discipline.

I'm taking intuition as an umbrella category for what this what this unconscious processing does to help us solve solve problems.

And then the the solution to the problem appears in our minds.

And then we're like, oh, OK, we'll do this.

And then we can have expert intuition, which is a form of intuition.

You do something long enough and now you can solve problems much easier and you can point in directions much more easily and accurately because you just have all this unconscious information that's supporting, supporting you.

Now you can have creative intuition, the way to sort of put yourself in a place where you'll get the song lyrics or you'll get the result of this.

There's almost like expert intuition.

I'm just kind of expanding on that.

And you could have intuition that comes from other sources like precognition, telepathy, clairvoyance, mediumship.

The mainstream world thinks that that's scary to talk about, or that's not OK to talk about, or you're being irresponsible, But like, whatever.

There's plenty of evidence that it's real by other scientists who are not considered part of the mainstream world simply because they do rigorous research in this other area.

So I consider all of these human capacities exceptional, exceptional capacities, but some of them exceptional performer.

They're using whatever they can to solve a problem.

When you have special forces folks learning how to use remote viewing to try to figure out where someone might be in a building that they have to invade tomorrow and they've got no intelligence on, maybe they're using their unconscious and expert intuition.

Maybe they're using psychic information.

Who cares?

Because guess what?

It works, right?

And so it's like, like embracing what is scary to people about embracing all of who we are and what we can do and asking the question of what that really is.

What is scary about just asking the question.

Like I've had people say, don't even ask the question.

It'll ruin your career.

And I'm like, so like the deal with science is you get to ask questions, even if they're unpopular, even if you're scared that it's going to give you some spooky answer, like ask it rigorously, use all your training, ask it rigorously, learn about the field and and find out what you find out.

So when I started studying, can I give you an example or did you have another question?

I got excited example.

OK, when I started, when the Kai Dickens from the Telepathy Tapes called me up and said, look, I know you study exceptional experiences.

We're really interested in talking with you about.

Could we introduce you to some non speaking autistic people?

Find out like, is this telepathy thing real?

Like, you know, she's always trying to find out as a documentarian, she's always trying to find out what's the real story here, right?

She was already working with Diane Hennessy Powell.

So but she wanted a different read on it.

And so I looked at that and I thought, well, I would do this differently.

You know, I would, I would do a protocol differently.

Every scientist has their like, oh, I'm going to do it this way, I'm going to do it that way.

So I would do it differently.

I would try to make sure there's no what's called sensory leakage.

So if you want to really prove that something's telepathic, ideally the best way to do that is you have people in separate rooms or separate buildings.

In other words, you don't want to worry about like, did they, did someone breathe differently and that gave someone a cue or did someone see something or like under their breath?

They said, yeah, who knows?

Like you just don't want to worry about that.

You want to just get people far enough away where that's just not going to happen.

Right.

And so we ended up having the experience, myself and my Co investigator, Jeff Tarrant.

Doctor Jeff Tarrant, we were working on Zoom with a student getting ready for our in person trials.

And the person who's really working with a student, Maria Welch, was the one who's actually sitting with the students.

And I don't know if you're familiar with autistic non speakers from the telephony tapes, but they use letter boards often to communicate.

So this student was old enough to actually use a a keyboard, had graduated to a keyboard.

So he's keying in, you know, his responses.

And so we asked him, would you like to try to read the mind of one of the researchers?

And he's like, yes, which one?

He said, Jeff, Jeff is in Oregon.

He didn't know this, but Jeff is in Oregon at the time.

And so he reads the mind of Jeff.

And I don't want to go into any more details because it's probably going to end up, maybe it's going to end up in the movie or something.

And I'm going to keep that surprise for the movie, but that's just one example of how telepathic these students are.

And yet we have to be so careful.

And I, and then this points back to my question, what are you afraid of?

So I'm just going to answer my own question.

We have to be so careful because there is a very real fear there.

Once you realize, oh, something has been unmasked, like the filter has been removed.

These students have some of these students with whom we've worked have this clear capacity to receive that information that other people apparently are suppressing or not getting or whatever.

And you kind of can't believe it.

And you and you kind of like at first it's just like, OK, it's not real.

And then you think about all the ways that this could be fraudulent and and that eventually when you see it enough and you have enough controls, you go, OK, this is real.

And, you know, I'm a person who works in this field and I'm like, still like, OK, I still have to go through all the things, right?

Oh, right.

So this is really real because I'm trained in this very mainstream way that says like, I can't be real.

So but that's good, you know, keeps up the rigor.

And then I realized why the fear exists is because it is real.

And some part of us knows that this is real, that there's this connection between each of us that we can't control, that is a little bit trickster like, and that's terrifying.

And so that's what people are scared of.

And so how we can do it responsibly and ethically is to point out that this is something anyone can do.

And, and the non speakers are showing us how, but we, we don't, we, we need to not fetishize non speakers or whatever we need to do is look at the nature of what information is and how it, how it can move in, in the mind as different from in physical reality.

So and then of course being very ethical about it.

Yes, yeah, of course.

You mentioned that with the Telepathy tapes and your link with that.

Was that story the way you guys got involved in the 1st place or was there more to it?

Or how did that relationship begin?

Oh.

Kai called up and I mean, she had read about my work online because I I'd probably very well known for my precognition work in the world of science.

And so I because I speak to mainstream scientists as well as non mainstream scientists, I sort of try to bridge those worlds.

And so that's probably why she called.

And I said, you know, I never thought of working with non speakers before, but I work with exceptional performers.

And from what I hear on her podcast, I had heard of her podcast and binged it.

These are exceptional performers.

And so yeah, I want to find out what's going on.

Yes, please.

And so I ended up because I said, she said, well, but what do you want your title?

Because I started, I first started as a contractor and then I'm like, I don't want to do this.

I want to volunteer because I want to do science and I want to get grants for it.

And that is a different thing.

And she's like, great.

And we'll document the science instead of, you know, paying you to help figure out where we should go.

And so, but I made-up the name Human potential Research Lead.

So that was cool.

But then what I did is on my own with with my nonprofit with some help, you know, in terms of introductions from Kai found funding for the research and we're continuing to seek funding for 2026.

We have a whole supporting non speakers campaign that I'd like to talk about.

We're doing this experiment with transcranial direct current stimulation to determine if that can help these students.

They have a lot of OCD motor issues.

Maybe we can we have some indications, early indications that maybe we can use very, very low current brain stimulation to reduce those motor movements and help increase their capacity to communicate.

So anyway, if anyone wants to give us money for that, you should.

So did that answer your?

Question.

Well, yeah, I think.

And it also opens up the door to your current passion and why you're in this at the moment, because it's something you're very passionate about.

What is and it's you've stayed and it's kept you there.

So anything about that you want to mention, anything about that you want to talk about and what keeps you?

Yes, yeah.

Well, the thing I haven't said so earlier when you said, you know, has anything changed your world view And I was like, no, that's not really true.

Obviously my world view has shifted with the data as I start to discover them, and my world view has shifted again since I've met non speakers Before that, it started working with non speakers.

Before that I thought, you know, the psychic ability stuff is powerful, but it's only so accurate.

It's really hard to get at.

There's no way to really get at it.

Unconditional love really helps.

That's true.

But you know, I was kind of thinking it, it's so far from what it if there's no way to be a healthy human being and also have this kind of access, I still think that it's really hard for non speakers to operate in the world.

They have difficulty, but they often have apraxia, which is an ability to which is an inability to to control your body in the way that you want it to be.

And that applies to their speech as well.

But they have this, the ones that I've been working with have this wisdom, they have this connection to wisdom.

And it just, to me, it just so highlights the connection to wisdom that we can all have and can move towards if we had a culture like the non speakers have this culture.

And that's what keeps me around.

And that's what actually made me want to.

I started writing my book the week after Kai called me to say, Hey, we want you to get involved with Telepathy Tapes.

And I had all I got in that book first was this.

And the book is called Have a Nice Disclosure.

And all I got was the table of contents, literally like the chapter titles and then the section titles.

And I was like, OK, good.

Now have to write the book and I still don't know what it's about.

So, so but I I sat down and started writing the the the book is what came out and it is my favorite book I've written.

It has the most of everything that I've wanted to say and the least of anything I didn't want to say.

I have any book that I've written and it's a very short book, but a lot of the wisdom in there, I think comes from the culture that I see with the non speakers and what they call the hill, which is their name for where they could they have the experience of connecting telepathically.

And now I have the experience of seeing them connect telepathically, which blew me away.

So this is where the roots are intermingled like they like they that's that's where that culture lives.

And if they, if we could create a culture that supported that and in each other, I feel like we would have, it's just like supported access, supported the experience of accessing universal love so that we're feeling more unconditional love.

That's where I think the non speakers are taking us if we listen to them like so, so there's a, there's a section in the, in the book called love revolution.

And I really think that's where the physics of love and, and where extraordinary capacities and all of these and even AI can actually take us into a love revolution where of course companies wouldn't create anything that harms people.

Once they realize something harms, harms people, obviously they would change it because they understand like making money isn't actually the goal that we have enough resources to to have a world in which people are loved and we have enough resources to solve the mental illness that creates autocracy.

And so that's the future.

So I do think that the non speakers are really taking us into the future.

And that's what has me hooked.

And that's really what wrote the book is that is that those learnings about that relationship as well as my own discovery and remembrance of my own disclosure of my own experience being in a gifted students class in 7th grade where I was clearly being tested for psychic capacities.

I was being followed tons of cognitive testing and weird sessions.

I don't remember with counselor that I dreaded and then follow up surveillance.

And so I write about that in the book too, as an example of this is what we do when we don't understand something.

We study it in kind of a messed up way because we're coming from fear.

And I do not blame any of the people who who did all that to me and my, my fellow students.

But there are people who are doing that to autistic non speakers, you know, as we speak to try to get AT, get AT and harness their capacities.

And that's not OK without, you know, consent, informed consent from their parents and from the students and a sense from the students.

It's not OK.

And so I really would like to be part of changing that and and realizing that we can learn from non speakers how to access these capacities.

We don't have to unfairly make their lives more traumatic than they already are by having these different bodies and these different capacities.

So.

Yeah, I think I, I haven't read the book yet.

I'm looking forward to reading it, but I read the Forward by Ross Coltart talking about that exact experience.

It must be quite fascinating because you've got a, a dad who's a physicist, a mom who's a therapist.

You go into neuroscience almost bridging these two gaps, kinda in a sense.

And then you're able to look back now with, with a very, very scientific slash philosophical mind and understand so many things that's happened in the past.

What about working at Telepathy tapes led to that exact moment where you're like, OK, have a nice disclosure.

What is the exact link?

And what, what really gave you this idea to name it that?

Oh, interesting.

I think, again, I'm not into causality, but I think I'm going to tell the story that that the first time that we worked, I worked with a student, I was so neurotic.

I was like, OK, I want to, I want to, I'm on, I was on Zoom.

I want to talk to the parent, get the parent on Zoom.

All right, is it OK if I record you talking to you about this?

OK, Matt, let's let's record us talking to your student about this, about what we're going to do, OK.

And then every time asking permission, even though we had consent forms, etcetera.

We went through all that making sure the student knew the information and gave a sense, but still, like, we're recording.

Is that OK?

We're recording.

This is what I'm thinking.

Just just incredible transparency.

And I was like, why am I so neurotic about this?

And that's I started thinking, well, yeah, of course.

Like here I am studying, essentially studying what was studied in me.

And I'm wanting to do it in a way that doesn't abuse or hurt or neglect and that in fact uplifts these students.

And then I was like, holy cow.

And then I started looking back at the things and just, and that's, you know, that happened.

Another moment that happened was before that when I before that when I applied for a federal job at in the US government and I was called by a recruiter several days after I had filed a FOIA Freedom of Information Act request for any files related to the gifted program I was in.

And the recruiter called me a few days later and told me they wanted me for this particular job.

And then after that very short period of time, all that the timeline is actually written in my journal.

So I put it in the book, but I forget it right now.

Very short period of time I hear from FOIA saying do you still want to Basically, do you still want us to process this request?

And I say maybe that's a maybe they want me not to have any outside standing FOIA request if I'm applying for a job with a final government.

OK, so I said no, fine, drop it.

3 minutes later I get a call from my recruiter at the final government who says, oh, maybe we'd like you for this job, but you passed the first interview that I'm like, I'm sorry.

So, so that also made me start looking like there is a relation, like, you know, even though I'm not one for causality, those things seem so related in time, uncharacteristically related in time.

So what's the deal?

And that was a moment.

It's it's, it's kind of freaky.

It's like, what is what is going on?

And.

Yeah, sorry.

No.

So you continue.

Oh, so have a nice disclosure comes from this idea that disclosure comes from inside.

Like I, I want to twist this on its head.

We have this idea that there's this big powerful government or a big powerful corporation or whatever that holds all the information and we just pray that they will release it at some point and disclose what I mean, it's just like gives them all the power.

It's like, guess what?

That's false.

We each have the power to disclose what's true in our lives and we can actually do it in a way that's nice.

We can do it in a way that's full of love.

We can do it in a way that loves ourselves and loves others.

We can do it in a responsible way is and this is what I experienced, you know, for me, I'm in a place where I don't place blame on anyone.

Everyone was doing the best they can always, even if they are intentions were evil.

For some reason, the universe had created evil intentions inside of them.

That's unfortunate.

It hurt a lot of people, but we can do better.

So if we're going to have disclosure, let's claim it in ourselves.

So have a nice disclosure is about that.

It's a, it's a, it's a beautiful title, I think.

Judy, when you look back, how old were you when this happened?

7th grade so I was 12.

OK.

And, and at this point, were you already making journals and were you documented as a?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

No.

So I had started, they, they, they started cognitive testing me in like kindergarten.

And when I, you know, was it like the eighth grade level and all the subjects, they were like, OK, we're going to watch this one.

I mean, very clearly they would pull me out, you know, I didn't have to go to recess if I didn't want to because I could computer code or whatever, you know.

So like all the, all that stuff they do when they're like this one, there's something going on, you know, I didn't mind that.

Like that was nice.

It's the other stuff.

It's like it's the surveillance and lack of information and having a drink, a pink drink and telling.

You very, it's very strange.

I mean, what, what really, what were they trying to do?

Do you think what I mean?

Obviously getting information, trying to understand, trying to harness.

What were they doing to test it?

Were they?

As a scientist today, when you look back, do you think it was actually good scientific techniques?

I think what I really think is that they were following children of people who had been exposed to radiation or children themselves who've been exposed to radiation, or they were exposing children to radiation.

I doubt the latter, that it's possible, like maybe very small doses.

I don't know.

I think they were trying to study the range of I know this sounds like a comic book, but there are reasons that I described in the book that I think this it sounds like a comic book like Peter was bitten by a radioactive spider and now he's Spider Man.

It's ridiculous.

But I do think there's evidence from what I've uncovered about the program that they were for some reason there was a lot of pressure to try to understand non non ionizing radiation and ionizing radiation and the effects on human cognition and performance.

I don't know why I give some theories in the book and they're all just complete speculation.

I think some of it was decent science for the day because I don't remember what they were doing with me in that room.

I can't speak to that science.

The follow up surveillance, some of it was really good.

Like I'm I'm impressed by it, freaked out by it, but impressed by it.

I think people just try to do something that they think is important and they think that they're, the consequences are too high for them to be transparent about it.

There must have been some really high consequences if they're transparent about it for them to keep it classified or to keep it, I don't know if it was classified by the government or, or just proprietarily by some contractor.

Yeah, I, I, people do all sorts of things for reasons where they.

This is part of the problem of causality actually, is people believe the story, like if we don't do this, then this will happen.

It's like actually, you don't know that, you know that you believe that.

You're afraid that if we don't do this, this other thing will happen.

But the universe plays all sorts of tricks with things that show up and change the way things go.

So when someone's telling you this is a really good like psyops resilience piece of advice at the end of our little podcast, but when people tell you if you don't do XY will happen, they're trying to manipulate you.

Now they may be trying to manipulate you in some positive direction, like a parent trying to tell you if you don't brush your teeth, you're going to get cavities.

But they're trying to control your behavior.

So 'cause that's the claims of causality are can be very manipulative.

And so one way to do it differently is to say, you know what?

There's a correlation between people who don't brush their teeth and people who have their teeth fall out.

And it's a high correlation.

Like you don't brush your teeth, like your teeth might fall out.

Like you could, you know, that you might get infected and fall out.

Then maybe that's a correlation.

Let's see what happens with your teeth.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, look, I think it's it's been a fascinating conversation.

Thank you so much for your time.

I think let's end off on a on a very human positive note.

Your work spans well-being AI, love, time, meaning so much.

What kind of future do you hope for humanity intellectually, spiritually, and technologically?

Oh, it's very simple.

I hope that we, more of us can access universal love so that we feel unconditional love, and then everything will fall out of that.

So better behavior will fall out of that naturally, even though magically nothing needs to change.

It changes everything.

Well, then I think that's a beautiful way to end.

Julia, Thank you so much, and I hope you have a nice disclosure.

We're getting all podcasts to say that.

Yes, have a nice disclosure.

Tenant, thank you so much for that.

But on a serious note, thank you very much.

It was a pleasure to host you and keep up the great work.

Very diverse, very unique and very intriguing.

I must say I've I've enjoyed reading your work and appreciate your time well.

Thank you.

You've really asked wonderful questions and you were so tolerant of my, of my, of my radical maneuvers.

Yeah, it was, it was wonderful.

I mean, I love doing this.

This is a pleasure for me and it's a privilege.

So thank you so much.

That's.

Awesome take.

Care, Julia.