Entangled Health with Thomas Ehmer | Quantum Biology, Consciousness & the Future of Medicine

So I got equipment.
I borrowed equipment on random

number generators based on
radioactive decay from one of my

colleagues who was doing
research on that.

I brought it back to Bell Labs,
and I started using myself and

my colleagues as subjects in an
experiment to see whether human

intention can influence the rate
of radioactive decay, which

should be possible.
Welcome to Entangled Health.

Everyone defines health
differently.

Nothing exists in isolation,
Body, mind, environment.

Everything is interconnected.
Everything is entangled.

My guests come from all walks of
life, Quantum physics, AI,

biotech, healing, arts and
creative fields.

Each brings a unique
perspective, and talks are

usually over one hour or longer.
My guest today is Dean Radin,

Chief Scientist at the Institute
of Noetic Sciences, a research

organization founded by
astronaut Edgar Mitchell, a 6th

man to walk on the Moon,
formerly at AT&T Bell Labs and

Princeton University.
Dean is also a professional

theoretic and senior paradigm
disruptor at the California

Institute of Integral Studies,
teaching students how to

question everything they thought
they knew about consciousness

and physics.
Dean is also author of hundreds

of scientific articles and four
popular books.

Yeah, thanks, Dean.
I'm really honoured to have you

today and your journey.
Dean stands from electric

engineering, Bell Labs, chief
scientist at IONS.

Can you just walk some pivotal
moments?

I've always been driven by
curiosity.

My my first career track is up
until is around 20 was being a

concert violinist because grew
up in an artistic household and

so it was kind of expected that
anything that we would do would

be supported, but it had to be
creative.

That was like the the main push.
So curiosity and creativity were

were central in our family.
So it was exposed to the

artistic, creative kind of
lifestyle, but I also was

interested in science and
mathematics.

So I, when I went into
engineering, a primary reason

for that is 'cause I like to
make, make stuff.

I, I made a, a radio and I made
ATV and, you know, made, made

all the usual things that you
start making.

And I was a little bit
disappointed all the way through

my master's degree program that
it was not about making things,

it was about theory.
And, and so in retrospect, I

kind of understand that you, you
learned underlying theory for

how things work, but it was
never quite satisfying because I

really preferred to essentially
be an empiricist to test the

world rather than just think
about it.

So I switched into, for my
doctoral program into psychology

because at that point I was
mainly interested in cybernetics

and artificial intelligence.
And this was before you could go

into AI as a career.
So I had my choice of artificial

intelligence from the point of
view of creating new hardware,

which would have been a
possibility because parallel

computing was starting to be a
thing, or to go into it from

more cognitive perspective,
software and simulation.

So I did the latter.
So my doctor is in psychology,

but my dissertation was an AI
application of a typing training

program.
And this though that quite

didn't quite feel satisfying
either.

And this, this like a repeating
theme here that after I kind of

understood something to to
imagine I would keep working in

that field for another 30 years.
It seemed just so boring I could

not even stand it.
So I happen to pay attention to

research in in anomalies because
as it's sometimes said, I I may

even have made this up.
That truth is revealed by

anomalies and not by conformance
or by conformity.

It's anomalies rather than
conformity or anomaly.

So it's attracted to things that
didn't quite fit.

And one of those things was
parapsychological claims.

And so just when I was preparing
to leave with my doctorate, I

noticed that there was a job
opening at Princeton University

for a group there that was doing
research on these kinds of

phenomena, mind matter
interaction phenomena.

So I applied and I basically
would have been given the job I

would like.
I was qualified for it,

qualified for it.
But I was told and recommended

that you don't want to do this
as your first job.

So don't start your doctoral
career with a controversial

topic because that will that
will taint you for the rest of

your life.
So I paid attention to that.

So I went to Bell Labs instead
and didn't conventional work,

but I still remember that this
was a very attractive topic

because it was conventional
science, or at least the

epistemology of conventional
science being applied to things

that were considered way out on
the fringe.

And so at Bell Labs, I started
doing those experiments.

I I took advantage of business
travel to visit laboratories

around the United States to talk
to people and see what they were

actually doing.
The few people who were actually

scientists doing this kind of
work.

And I became more and more
intrigued.

So I figured out a way to
actually incorporate this a

little bit into some of my Bell
Labs work by looking at the mind

machine interaction, because one
of the interests of the group

that I was in human factors
group, was figuring out why

machines fail.
Why, why do why do errors occur?

Most of the time it's traced to
to human error, but not always.

Sometimes machines like we have
triple redundant machines in the

telephone network at the time.
Sometimes they would fail.

Well, that's not supposed to
happen, right?

That's why you designed it as
being triple irredundant.

So I got equipment.
I borrowed equipment on random

number generators based on
radioactive decay from one of my

colleagues who was doing
research on that.

I brought it back to Bell Labs
and I started using myself and

my colleagues as subjects in an
experiment to see whether human

intention can influence the rate
of radioactive decay, which

should be impossible.
That seemed like an interesting

thing to do.
And so I I finished a series of

experiments.
I had a friend of mine who who

later was the president of the
American Statistical

Association.
So she was an up and coming

professor at the time to help me
on the statistics of that.

And we ended up with odds
against chance of 10,000 to 1.

So I thought, well, that that's
sort of interesting because this

is not supposed to be possible
and then the control conditions

you end up with chance.
So I, I more or less appeal to

my management there to let me
continue working in that area

because it was relevant to to
what we were doing.

Eventually got the approval to
use the Bell Labs imprimatur on

a presentation that he gave to
the annual meeting of the

Parapsychological Association
AAA S affiliate where so I gave

a, a talk on that from Bell Labs
at this conference and

afterwards I was approached by
people who said would you be

interested in, in working on a
special project?

What are you talking about?
Well, as it turned out, it was

the the US government Stargate
program which was using psychic

espionage or psychics for
espionage.

So when I learned that I, it was
an offer I couldn't refuse, so I

said, yes, Sir, I'm, I will do
that now.

And, and that's what really
convinced me that experience.

I took a year leave of absence
from Bell Labs.

I went to Sri International
where they were doing that and I

was able to see very talented
psychics doing things that were

just blatantly impossible, doing
it anyway.

And and not only interesting
significant results in

controlled labs, but operational
missions where their results are

actually quite useful in the
intelligence world.

So that convinced me that if
there was a way as a scientist

to work as a professional and be
paid to do that for a career,

that's what I wanted to do.
And somehow I figured out that a

way to do that.
So for post my doctorate about

45 years now, I would say about
40 of those years, I've been

working either full time or part
time doing this kind of

research.
Well, my, my motivation again is

curiosity.
I recognize the a lot of the

skepticism is actually nonsense.
It, it's, it's, it's imagining

that this can't be true,
therefore something else must be

happening.
Commonly it's impossible because

it violates what we know about
science and particularly

physics, which is none of that
is true.

But nevertheless, that that is a
common complaint.

And I understand where it comes
from it that people like to have

an explanation for something
before they're willing to accept

it.
And the history of science shows

that this is a major constraint
on advancement.

It, you know, and it really
comes down to are you more

concerned about a type one or a
type 2 error?

Well, both of them are errors,
so you need to be concerned

about both of them.
I'm more concerned about a type

2 error.
So a type 1 error is that you

accept something which turns out
to not to be true.

And the type 2 error, which is
the one that that I'm more

concerned about is you.
You reject something that turns

out to be true.
And so the history of science

shows that scientists tend to be
skeptical and conservative,

which is fine, but they, they
learn more towards concern about

type 1 than type 2.
I go in the other direction

because the, the, as again, you
look at the sociology and the

history of science, you find out
that there are many more

constraints about making
advances because people are just

obsessed about type 1 errors.
And so they don't want any, like

they don't want anything to
intrude upon what we know that

may not be true.
And I, I understand the, the

impulse there.
On the other hand, there are

people that have proposed things
which are squashed and remain

squashed for a very long time
until eventually the rest of

science catches up with them.
When you look at, at typically

government, sometimes foundation
requests for proposals for new

experiments, they almost always
say highly innovative, high

risk, high reward, and they
never mean it.

Never things we're not at, at
the end of science, we're at the

the infantile beginning of it.
So we have to be highly more

creative and take many more
risks.

So I'm happy to take risks.
I wanted to see that actually.

The same question a lot of
people do is, well, how does any

of this stuff work?
We're talking about telepathy

and clairvoyance and all all
these psychic things.

How does mind and matter
interact?

Well, there's a lot of it has to
do with neuroscience and the way

the brain works and our
perception and psychology.

But a big chunk of it is
definitely in the physics

domain.
There's something about physics

that needs to allow for these
things to occur.

So the very first thing I
usually point out is, well, in

quantum mechanics, you look at
the the correlation there

between what people report,
which are non local perceptions

and also something about agency
that we we that that the agency

component of consciousness,
meaning that we have free will,

we can do things, we have agency
that seems to be able to express

itself out into the world.
So we have two strange things

here.
We have something to do with

agency and consciousness and
something on non local

perception.
But what do we have in quantum

mechanics?
We have non locality and we have

observer effects.
Well, so is that a coincidence

or not?
Some people would immediately

dismiss it and say no, it's just
a coincidence.

You're you're using woo woo
stuff to explain weirdness and

it doesn't work.
I would say that is completely

backwards that the physical
world has the exact same

characteristics of what people's
experience is.

And more importantly is can be
tested in the laboratory and

turned out to be true.
So I think there is a

relationship.
The quantum mechanics that we

need though, is not what we have
today.

So the way that I've been
approaching this and in in the

laboratory is there's something
peculiar in quantum mechanics

because all it describes are
quantum potentials.

And yet our experience is
classical actuals.

Well, how does that transition
occur?

And so the answer that is given
that that they gave was, well,

there's something that
presumably has to be non

physical in this process because
quantum mechanics only describes

physical systems.
So von Neumann and others

suggested that maybe
consciousness, which seems non

physical, it's a subjective
thing.

Somehow we're rising that we
don't even comes from.

Maybe that is responsible.
It's the the observer effect

involves consciousness
collapsing the quantum wave

function.
So that turns out to be

testable.
So I've been using first the

Michelson interferometer and
then double slit

interferometers.
And so we, we ended up doing 17

or 18 experiments using those as
the target systems and then

asking people to imagine in
their mind's eye that they could

gain which path information they
could see where the photons were

going.
If you do that using classical

methods like using a photo
detector, you will very easily

see that you transition from
interference into classical

particles wave like to particle
like.

So we figured, OK, well, the
human mind is not going to act

like a photo detector, but maybe
you can see a probabilistic

shift very much in the same way
that weak measurement does in

quantum mechanics, except this
might be called ultra weak.

It's an ultra weak form of
measurement.

So in 2810 years later, I
started doing this, this whole

series of experiments, which
we're still doing.

And since then they're now
counting the first two labs.

There were six labs, so our lab
plus 4 addition or three

additional and five of the six
labs have reported at least two

tailed significant results.
So sometimes the result goes in

the direction you'd predict that
you're so-called collapsing the

wave function and sometimes it
goes in the other direction,

which is suggesting that there's
too much variance in the

results.
And so one of the ways that I

think about this is actually
quite simple of why we're

getting variance effects, that
you're asking somebody to do

something with their mind, any
kind of mind matter interaction

effect, you're focusing your
mind on something which is

usually pretty abstract.
Like in our initial experiments,

we didn't even give people
feedback.

We would just say put your mind
inside the sealed box and

imagine you could do this and
then and then using it as a kind

of ultra weak thing that is
happening and we would see

effects.
So the mind is not stable.

Even in meditators it's not all
that stable.

So because of mind wandering,
you figure, OK, let's imagine

that your mind interacting with
these photons is actually either

gaining information from the
system or it's influencing the

behavior of the photons in some
way.

They're being observed.
Well, you can do that for a

couple of seconds and then you
start thinking about

cheeseburgers.
And then the difference between

a good meditator or a practice
meditator and a non meditator is

that the meditator recognizes
the, the, the mind wandering and

comes back.
The, the non meditator may think

of cheeseburgers for the next 30
minutes.

They, they don't even remember
that they were supposed to have

a task.
So what does that do for the

experiment?
During the, during the

intentional focus period, you're
gonna see, maybe you're gonna

see an effect and then it goes
away 'cause the mind wandering

and then you see an effect and
then mind wandering.

So you're creating this kind of
a noisy Ripley signal, whereas

during a period where they're
specifically withdrawing from

the task and a relaxed period,
it's going to be stable.

So when you look at the
difference in variance between

those two conditions, you end up
with significant variance

effects.
And so one of the things we

discovered in doing these
experiments is, again, even with

with experienced meditators,
it's difficult to do tasks like

this because meditation is
mostly an inward focus of

attention.
And this is an outward focus of

attention, which has led to our
most recent experiments.

So we needed something that
would motivate people in a in a

pleasing game like fashion to
help them do the experiment,

like be engaged in it.
So we got a little rubber,

rubber Buddha statue and put
LEDs in it where the LED

illumination was linked back to
how well they're doing in the

task.
And this particular experiment

was a single photon, double SIT
apparatus.

I would.
I recall when I was visiting you

in Petaluma, there's this tree
somewhere up the hill where you

walk, and then there there was,
there was.

Is this actually the small
little Buddha?

Was this the right one?
Yeah, well, yeah, we had several

Buddhas and some of them
migrated out into the trees.

Now this makes sense.
Now my life makes sense.

But we, we, we, you can imagine
then there we've a lot of toys

and games and stuff that most of
which is to keep a light hearted

attitude in doing these
experiments, which I think is

also important.
And some of it is to get to

increase engagement, to make it
fun, rather than something where

you're trying to make your mind
do something that you might

think is impossible.
Right.

But let's let's shift a bit
gears.

You also have other stuff.
So first of all, your book, your

new book, I will be keen.
But before we go into the new

book, you were starting to work
more into let's say bio, GNA,

whatever topics and trying to
identify potential markers for

people who are psychic.
Can you tell more how this

stands or what what came out of
it or another new startup or

where we are standing with your
stuff?

Yeah.
So partly based on my experience

working on the government
program and then afterwards, we

we've worked with a number of
people that are quite talented,

psychics, mediums, that sort of
thing.

And often times they would say
that we would ask, well, are you

the only one in your family
who's ever reported this?

And usually the answer is no,
that there are other people in

the family who either have the
same experiences or have the

same stories or something.
It seemed like, in other words,

it looks like a genetic trait
that there's something that's

being shared within families.
And the the course in the old

days, the nature nurture problem
was difficult to resolve because

we didn't have genetic methods
to be able to specifically look

at the genes.
So a couple years ago we

decided, well, let's, let's see,
let's find people who are say

that they're psychically
talented and we vet them in some

way for some talent and that
they come from families with

psychic with other psychics in
it, get their DNA and then

compare them against people who
never report any psychic

experiences, from families who
don't report any psychic

experiences.
So we did that.

We had got a small amount of
money.

So it was a very small case
control study for genetics and

we found a difference in the
intron sequence.

Not what we originally expected.
We expected that the psychics

would essentially be mutants and
have some kind of strange

genetic pattern.
It turned about that it was in

the other direction that it was
the controls who had this, this

strange intron sequence.
So the, the intron being an

intron sequence means it's not
the coding, it's not protein

coding, it's it's the epigenetic
switches essentially.

So it looks as though something
in these controls metaphorically

had been turned off.
So they were, they were not

psychic.
They no one in their family was.

And one of the people on our,
our authors of our paper was

specialized in the genetics of
sociology, the genetics of

regions in in the world.
And so it turned out that that

particular intron sequence
correlated with what, what

amounts to what we can say is
the Holy Roman Empire plus or

minus a couple of countries.
And so we're thinking, well,

that's strange.
Why would that be?

And then we suddenly realized,
well, OK, if you have been

executing people who claim
psychic ability for a few 100

years, because the church said
you need to do that, you, you

actually may have produced a, an
anti evolutionary trend where

you extract certain people from,
from the population.

We're talking about the
Inquisition, the Catholic.

So maybe that's the case.
We, I mean, all we see is a

correlation there.
Maybe that's true and maybe it

isn't.
We then followed that up more

recently.
We haven't published this yet,

but we, we asked people who had
done 23andMe and at least had

their, their exome sequence to
fill out a questionnaire asking

about different kinds of
experiences, some of which were

psychic experiences.
And then we correlated their DNA

with these experiences and we
found about 200 SNPs that that

that were significant after a
correction, one of which was

significant at 10 to the -6.
So we go into the access with.

No prize statistics.
Yeah.

So we're we're using, we use a
random forest method where where

where you know you're using a a
sub sample and then you check it

against others.
So, but a legitimate 10 to the

-6 probability that that SNP is
different.

So we go into the Atlas where it
says, well, what are these?

Where do these SNPs come from?
Whether it's, it's probably some

inside some gene, it does
something and the, the atlases

don't know.
So it's, it's something that has

not been thoroughly
investigated.

The, the government was very
interested in why are some

people talented?
Because it seemed like we

couldn't train people very much.
Could train them a little bit,

but it's a little it's you could
train them if they had some

talent to begin with.
If they didn't have talent to

begin with, you could train them
forever and they're just not

going to get very good.
That's true, just like teaching

a fish climbing a tree.
Likely so.

I mean.
Yeah, or actually any sports or

music and anything.
If you start out with with kids

who have a certain talent, you
can push them and they will.

They will do quite well if they
don't have talent either,

because their body won't allow
them to do it.

Like I'm not going to be a high
jumper no matter what I do

'cause I'm not tall enough and I
don't have the right kind of

musculature.
So you want to match talent.

So the question then was back
then, for the dozen or so people

who are highly talented that we
know they are, use every test

that you can think of,
psychological, physiological,

medical, whatever, to figure out
why they are different.

We could find no difference at
all.

What we did find is that often
times the ability ran in in

families, but we didn't have the
genetic tools at the time.

So thinking back on that and
thinking about this small case

study we did, we thought, well,
maybe we someday we're going to

figure out the constellation of
genes that will promote the same

kind of talents that we see in
these these naturally super

talented people.
Well, that would be interesting

because then we can make the
equivalent of a super psychic

pill or something, some kind of
genetic edit.

So we decided to form a company
not to focus on that because we

we didn't know what, what the
answer was.

It's probably horribly complex
polygenetic something.

So we decide this was right
around the time that CRISPR

became a thing.
And so we said, OK, let's see if

through CRISPR we can do
something which one of our, our

chief science officer suggested
at the time, we can make an

intranasal delivery of CRISPR in
order to address problems like

anxiety and depression and
memory and so on.

So we did that.
So, so our, our first attempt

was using CRISPR specifically
for as an angiolytic, as an

intranasal delivery and to, to
improve memory.

And we got highly significant
results in mice.

Can you share where you stand
knowing what normal healthcare

and pharma companies are
interested in?

Did you get forward with this
just starting about clinical

trials or what have you?
So we published that in the PNAS

journal proceeding to the
National Academy.

We followed it up with using
SHRNA because we we wanted to

move away from CRISPR because
the no drug in the world is

gonna allow you to do a CRISPR
permanent edit unless maybe it's

like extremely rare something or
fatal.

So we did SHRNA.
We published that in Nature

journal, Nature Translational
Psychiatry.

So we published this these
genetic tests on mice and rats,

highly significant results for
both anxiety and memory.

And then and we formed a company
to to move into the from

preclinical in the clinical work
and we couldn't get anywhere.

And part of the reason was that
there's still risks involved

like we had, we didn't raise
enough money to do it in non

human primates.
We don't, we couldn't raise

enough money to be able to see
where is it actually getting

into the brain.
We know in mice where it goes.

We knew it got in there.
It did the effects.

We did the electrophysiology,
all, all of everything you would

normally do to to get the
millions of dollars required in

order to get up to the point
where you have approval to do

clinical trials.
We could never get VCs to both

understand what we were doing
because we're doing something

like on the edge.
It was new or to even find

foundations that were willing to
fund this.

So so we we did a pivot about a
year ago and this is much more

successful.
The pivot was find a drug that

is already a 5 HD two a, which
is our primary receptor that we

look at find one that it's an
antagonist, which is because our

methods are down regulating
they're they're reducing the

population of 5 HD two a.
Find a drug that has a Ant, that

is an antagonist and has a
purpose, which is producing

money essentially in a crass way
and treating people.

So it turns out that there is
such a drug.

It's a drug that treats
Parkinson's psychosis.

Parkinson's disease psychosis is
treated by a drug that is

specifically and called a
specific a specific 5 HD two a

antagonist.
And so we're saying, OK, that's

now our indication.
In order to make that work, we

say we know the basic science
will work in mice and rats.

We need to go into non human
primates do all the rest of it.

We also need a partner who will
make it possible in humans to

deposit the this intranasal
delivery in like right into the

olfactory bulb so that they can
get through the blood brain

barrier.
Because you need a lot of the

substance there and you need it
right there because if you use

an ordinary spray bottle, it
just goes everywhere in the nose

and just, you know, goes in the
vascular system and disappears.

So we have a partner that had
created an intranasal method

that, that uses laminar flow
stream rather than than a spray.

And you can shoot it right up
into the little cleft, which is

right, right next to the, it's
in the olfactory bulb.

So it'll get through the
trigeminal nerve, it'll get

through the, the tribiform plate
and all of the things you needed

to do.
So that's one partner.

The other partner is, we're not
gonna use SHRNA because it'll

last too long.
So we're going to siRNA which,

which would be a pretty, it
might last a week or two, two

weeks maybe.
Well, you don't want to deliver

siRNA within with the AAV a
vector which is what we were

doing.
You want to use liquid

nanoparticles.
So we, we're, we're now looking

at partners who will be able to
create the nanoparticles that we

need.
We know the sequence that's

necessary for the siRNA to put
those two together to work with

our, our partner who has the
delivery system.

And so we're saying that, yes,
our indication is specifically

will in the clinic will be used
for Parkinson's psychosis

because there are markers for
that.

It's an easy test to do.
But we're, we're now saying that

basically what we're providing
is a platform because we, we can

do any receptor, we can do all,
I mean, anything in the brain

we'd be able to modulate and
there's a million psychiatric

indications that would be
useful.

So the platform then is the
combination of the secret sauce

that we've developed in order to
be able to create the, the

actual edit combined with the
intranasal delivery, combined

with the manufacturing for the
LMP particle.

That, that will be the, the type
specifically that is going to

attract it as a promoter to
neurons because like we don't

want it to go to glial cells
unless we do like, we want to be

able to target the LMP to a
specific cell.

And when you use that, when you
use an AAV to do it, it's much

easier.
You just put in a neural

promoter along with it.
It's more difficult with an LMP.

So that's why we're working with
partners now to, to develop this

as a as a delivery platform
where we're targeting first that

one particular indication
because that's much more likely

to get approval by the FDA.
If if you look for funding or

partners, so this is the
opportunity to express to the

universe.
We're definitely looking for

partners who recognize that the
this represents the future of

most psychiatric treatments
because it's easy to deliver.

It lasts a lot longer than
pills, so it means that patient

compliance, it's going to be a
lot easier.

And unlike a lot of the drugs
that say this is a precise drug

compared to what we're able to
do, those drugs are like a

sledgehammer.
The way we think of it is we're

using tweezers to only target
certain receptors and we know

that it only will go to those
receptors.

I did launch the machine, so it
did run.

It's still running.
I think it will be finished in a

few seconds.
Let's see, let's see how the key

works.
Do do we have some strategy that

that help you build bridges Also
in communicating between these?

What is fringe and mainstream?
When I was starting college, I

remember reading something from
Joseph Campbell.

But, and it was all about at
that level, you know, you don't

really know what you're doing,
you don't know what you're going

to do.
But I, I read something, I don't

even remember which book it was.
And his advice to young people

was follow your bliss, which
means find out what you're

passionate about and figure out
a way of doing that because then

you'll never work a day in your
life 'cause it won't feel like

work.
And, and I learned very early on

that, that if, if I, I get bored
easily by lots of topics, like,

like college to me was just the
ultimate in boredom because it,

it didn't take long.
I mean, you just read a book and

you say, OK, I got it.
OK, what's next?

And meanwhile, it's taking an
entire semester to get through

the same book.
So when I finally discovered

that there was a actual science
behind these super anomalies

psychic ability, I was not bored
so.

It was just like a magnet and.
I was not bored.

There is something you can do
that doesn't involve just pure

theory.
And I, I like to work with my

hands and make stuff.
So I said, OK, I can design

experiments to help push the
envelope on understanding these

things.
And I learned early on there are

real phenomena here.
It's, it's not simply anecdotes

and it can't be explained by all
the usual skeptical reasons.

There's good science here.
And I've, I've either worked in

or been in labs where they're
well trained people doing this

kind of work.
And there it is.

I mean that there's a result.
So, so part of it then is simply

being pulled by the nature of
the topic.

Part of it is being simply
temperamentally an iconoclast.

So when when I start hearing a
getting a lot of pushback and

skepticism, for me that's a
motivator because internally I'm

saying, I know that what they're
saying isn't correct and I give

a long list of reasons why it's
not correct.

And so part of me likes that,
that push.

It's like a challenge and.
So you're you're rather engaged

by the skeptics to think?
Two types of skeptics. 1 is a

constructive skeptic, somebody
who's who's doing the

appropriate doubt, like, you
know, how do you know that

that's real?
Is that really real?

You know, maybe it would be
better if you do this.

Well, that's extremely valuable.
The other kind of skeptic is a

denier.
So they're, they have some kind

of emotional reaction to what
you're talking about and they

will offer skepticisms and those
are the ones that I know are not

true.
So part of my motivation then is

figure out ways of basically
finessing this problem.

And so one of the ways of
writing an experiment, writing

the paper, doing an experiment
is to answer all of those

questions that I know are going
to come up right up front.

It is not this, it's not this
because of this reason.

It's not this because of this
reason.

On and on and on to you can you
can then defuse most of the

skepticism.
And that has been working over

the years.
And one way to to demonstrate

that is by looking at a paper
that a colleague published in

2018, an American psychologist
at the the flagship journal of

the American Psychological
Association, which presented 10

meta analysis showing that the
effects in parapsychological

studies are pretty much the same
as you'd see across the board.

In psychology, it's not any
different.

So two years later a skeptical
paper was published, which the

authors said, and these were one
of whom at least was very long

term skeptic about this and
never changed his tune, that we

don't need to look at the
evidence because we know a

priori this is impossible.
It's it's an anti science

position.
It's saying we, we won't even

allow new evidence.
I mean, they explicitly said in

their article that this you
might as well be arguing that

pigs can fly.
It's impossible.

It's not it doesn't happen.
There's no evidence.

No, not that there's no
evidence.

There is evidence, but we don't
need to look at it, which is

kind of a shocking thing to say
in an, in an article anyway,

that that's of an important
evolution in the, in skepticism,

because it means all the
previous one usual comments was

the this this experiment is
flawed or there's selective

reporting or there's one or
another questionable research

practices.
Those those can be demonstrated

as no longer true.
We, we know that and we've been

addressing that over the years
and the, the evidence just keeps

getting better and better and
the skepticism is getting worse

and worse.
Yeah.

So, so the, the the, the sense
of a, an ideological battle

essentially has been going on
for quite a long time.

And I'm reasonably sure that the
the battle is being won.

So I, I have, I have, I just
thought the random number

generator sound because to open
it, I would have had a backup

question actually from my wife
who sends best greetings, which

would have been #106 where it's
Hilbert space.

But we don't talk about this.
I give you another one.

OK, good intention, so and let.
Me, just open it.

So it is one here it is.
It's it's the machine just

finished.
It's IBM to Reno this time.

So I didn't even know I have
access to this one.

But it just picked #8 and it's
reading.

And it's also really fitting to
you.

Which historical figure would
you most like to interview about

the future of science?
Wow, That's a question for Dean.

I'll let you think.
Well, part of me would want to

talk to Newton, Isaac Newton,
partially because I know that he

had written more on alchemy than
he had on on his sexual physics.

And so I would like like to
explore what amounts to his

metaphysics.
But by the same token, people

like Max Planck, you are an
idealist and yet you're working

at the leading edge of physics.
How, how are you thinking?

How do you make this compatible
where you're imaginary

consciousness is the fundamental
of everything and yet you're

you're revolutionizing physics.
How, how, what does that feel

like inside?
So it would, it would probably

be the those kinds of figures
who people who had a

metaphysical bent.
And yet we're also advancing

physics because I see that in
myself in some ways that that

like from a, an intuitive sense,
I, I am attracted to things like

idealism, maybe not full blown
idealism because I don't know

how that would work, but dual
aspect monism, other kinds of,

of, of philosophies that would
allow physics to be perfectly

the same way that is today,
except it's a more comprehensive

way of thinking about how things
work.

And so there's, there's also a
sociological reason for being

interested in that.
In that case, can be made that

as science move more and more
past the Enlightenment towards

materialism as the only viable
form of philosophy, along with

that became nihilism, that
nihilism became a philosophy

like a personal philosophy that
nothing matters, everything is

pointless and that is very
destructive.

So even if it turned out to be
true, which I, you know who I,

I'm an agnostic on this.
I don't know what's really true.

But even if, if nihilism was a
true philosophy, it's extremely

destructive because it means
that people will grab everything

they can possibly get because
you're dead and you're gone.

No, nothing matters anymore.
So who knows if the universe has

some embedded purpose or meaning
or if we individually have

purpose or meaning.
I don't know.

But I think that having the
sense that I did, that I do, and

that civilization does, it would
mean that we would treat

ourselves.
Our our neighbors and our planet

quite differently than we have
been doing.

So, so that so so that's part of
my interest as well.

So the science is very
interesting, pushing the

envelope, something I like.
And it also has meaning in the

sense that if it turns out that
some of these ideas, these

leading edge ideas turn out to
be true, it could well change

the scientific paradigm in a way
that would be be beneficial for

everyone.
So the other part of this is you

look at what happens for people
who've had a transformational

experience in consciousness,
either through a mystical

experience or psychedelic
experience or whatever.

Almost always it turns out to be
pro social.

They transform into a better
person.

Well, that's really important
because now that they, their

previous concept of who and what
they are has been expanded, they

become better.
So that's the kind of

confirmation that if our
philosophy is wrong, our, our

idea ideology of who and what we
think we are is wrong or

constrained, that's no good
because we know what happens in

the other side.
So that's yet another reason for

really pushing hard to say,
well, we're we're not gonna a

priori say this is the way it
is, like from a religious

perspective, but say, OK, at the
leading edge of science now

there's some really, really
interesting things that are kind

of pointing in that direction.
So let's go there.

The guests can contribute also a
question to the pool.

So if you want to ask a question
and then sometimes answer it

yourself if you if you want to
do that.

I would ask the same a similar
question I've heard many times

before, which are at the leading
edge now, which is do we think

that AI is going to become
conscious, have something like

the same sort of consciousness
that humans have?

Well, so if panpsychism is true,
then the answer is probably yes

at some point because it'll
develop the similar amount of

complexity as the human brain to
be able to sustain consciousness

because of panpsychism says
everything is ultimately

conscious anyway.
So, so that would mean that the

in the science fiction where we
see robots with psycho

positronic brains, whatever that
is, that they're conscious like

humans.
Well, OK, yeah, they have

subjective experience.
If that, if panpsychism turned

out to not be such a viable
explanation, it might still be

true because maybe idealism is
correct, in which case

everything also comes from
consciousness, including a

robot.
So I think it is likely that at

some point we will will get
something like a Turing test

that will not be able to make
the distinction anymore between

human consciousness and a robot
consciousness.

Maybe if a if a robot could
demonstrate being psychic, being

like telepathic, like purely
subjective, maybe that would do

it.
So we've been in discussions

with a branch in Google DeepMind
which is interested in that very

topic.
Like, could we do some sort of

psychic experiment with an
advanced AI which would involve

require something psychic in it
as a way of testing?

So.
So that's yeah.

So I think that that's a very
interesting question.

And because AI is advancing so
fast now and I'm finding it very

useful in my own work, not only
writing, but in developing ideas

like a brainstorming thing that
I can imagine now when we, when

something reaches super
intelligence that that science

could take off in an exponential
curve if used well, at some

point you might have to
seriously start thinking about,

well, that well, what are these
things there?

Are these our next phase of
evolution or what's going on

here?
So we we need to do a next

series and that's why I guess
next half year or so I come

back, we can discuss this one.
So thanks, Dean, for being my

guest.
So it's it's fantastic to have

you as always.
So I say goodbye.

But before I let you say
goodbye, anything you want to

share?
Closing words?

Well, so some of what I've I've
talked about I've, I also

mentioned in my new book, which
is the the science of magic.

So the science of magic is about
1/3 on why I think there are

lots of signs that were on the
edge of a paradigm change very

significant 1 much more in the
direction of consciousness than

being important.
Then this, the second part of it

is bringing the evidence for
these psychic phenomena up to

date and showing how there's a
very close parallel with

esoteric magical practices.
So the there's differences in

language, differences in
culture, but it's exactly the

same phenomena.
It's just like a scientific

version of magic.
And then the last third I put in

because people kept asking me
how do I do magic?

Like, what do I do in order to
optimize my results?

So yeah.
So like I have things like you

could have a crystal, maybe
that'll help, or you could have

a magic.
I mean, yeah.

So there's a lot of traditional
methods, some of which have been

confirmed in laboratory tests,
that actually help a lot in

making these things happen.
Underneath.

All of it works much, much
better if you have talent that I

can't provide in a book.
But yeah, so there's there It

is.
Yeah, dear friends, we are now

intended.
Thanks for listening and for

being part of this experiment at
the intersection of quantum tech

and health.
If today's conversation sparked

an idea, a critique, or
triggered a question, please

share it.
And maybe your question is

selected in a future episode out
of the growing pool.

And you know the game.
If you like it, please

subscribe, leave a rating, and
then take it further by passing

this episode to someone you
think should join the gang.

Until next time, stay kind, stay
curious, and keep exploring the

unseen with untangled health.