17 Burst results for "Brian Josephson"

"brian josephson" Discussed on TechStuff

TechStuff

04:27 min | 3 months ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on TechStuff

"Free Kate, but there's plenty for everyone so just come in the same order that you walked into the room, and everyone obeys the rules, and they just smoothly exit. That's kind of the idea of superconductors. You've created this experience where everything's happening in a very a very. Right. Yeah, it's it's sort of like. If all those people were members of a dance troupe, and they just kind of fell into line and danced quietly out in fact that. Analogy I've seen several times when looking at superconductors now the the BCS that we had mentioned. Explains that the electrons travel in ever changing cooper pairs named after Leon in Cooper one of the three of that. Right and that. So. We have that leading electron pairs have a leading electronics following electron, and they're both going down this pathway keeping your mind, electrons do repel one another. Yes, so we avoid the ever. Changing comes in they. They kind of swap around a whole bunch right so you've got this pair going down swapping places occasionally. And the positively charged ions start to be attracted to that leading electron, which means that you have a growing positive charge, which starts pulling that second electron, even harder that creates this increased pressure. If you will of poll really right, it's pulling those electrons even harder than it normally would. Because the positive charge is growing, and all this, all of these different opposing forces essentially ended up. Each other out so that you don't end up with resistance right and this is opposite to the way that resistance normally works. So cool. Cool so interesting. Now keep in mind. This was the first working model of superconductivity, and then future study would end up kind of tweaking this and changing our understanding a little bit in fact in one, thousand, nine, hundred, eighty, two, we then had a Brian Josephson who predicted that electrical current would flow between two superconducting materials, even if they were separated by non superconductors or even insulators now that prediction that he made was later on confirmed, and he earned the Nobel Prize in physics in one, thousand, nine, hundred three, so one year after the BCS team won the Nobel Prize in physics so clearly superconductors big important thing in physics..

Nobel Prize Brian Josephson Kate Cooper Leon
"brian josephson" Discussed on Talk Is Jericho

Talk Is Jericho

04:02 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on Talk Is Jericho

"And and and to make it legitimate for people who don't know anything about this topic of basically, your ability to close your eyes in the magic something in the distance that may be hidden, and then be able to accurately draw that or or come up with some interpretation of that is that we need as many. Any first hand witnesses and testimonies to go with the data because Russell had been talking about data like you said on art bell and other places as much as he could. But there were still a lot of things that had just been more recently declassified, and there were a lot of people who were kind of like the missing links who who had not come forward yet. And we reached out to, you know, pretty much everybody that had been involved with the original programs, and we wound up getting you know, like people like Ken cress who was the undercover CIA physicist who was running the program at its inception and kit green who was the former director of life sciences for CI who was one of the original program monitors and a big boost of the program people like that who who brought an enormous amount of credibility to what had been done. And and then finally the last sort of deciding factor in making the film was we decided okay one impossible thing at a time. You know, we're gonna go find the. Very very best stories in the people that were actually involved, and then we're going to commit that to film, and we're not gonna fly off into the outer space and look at other things or or whatever we're we're going to just stay stay grounded with this and make this a really great document of the history, regardless of what you think of the operational work that was done for the government the evidence for ESP, you know, and and the remote viewing is overwhelming. And it's not even something that you can you have to judge your kind of look at it and go, gee, I don't know. I mean, you know, they had speaking of flying out in space. They had Ingo Swann looking at the rings of Jupiter ice rings, right? You've described months before even the first probe from earth got there. So let's not about judging. That's that's just about a phenomenon that science did not yet really have a handle on. And that was really the thing that attracted me most to make this film is that we're like parking about something that could really create. A paradigm shift, you know, in a lot of people, and I think in in the scientific community if this is taken seriously, you know, and it there been talked about this before. But I think the collective weight of all of the work being discussed in one place, you know, with a lot of people who were very well respected. You know, like Brian Josephson who was a Nobel prize winner appears in the film. Edgar Mitchell who was the six men who ought to walk on the moon appears on our film in. And I think that are are sort of gamble on this has paid off. Because now third I spies is, you know, trending in the top five on on the documentary charts on itunes, where it makes film unique is it is not just a documentary showing our mazing remote viewing. And redo that also. But the fact that we got the CIA operators on camera saying, yes, we were polygraphed we were with Phil project for a decade in retarget saying here, really happen. And and we were there. So the idea to get senior a operators on camera testifying that what you're saying is true is quite makes us into a unique event rather just are saying it. Well, let me just ask this. There's a lot of stuff there's a lot of ground that you guys covered there. And there's some interesting points for both you guys I mean, Lance when you made the movie and Russell when you started doing this in the early seventies. Did you get blowback from the CIA and from from the powers that because I thought it was very interesting in the documentary how seriously Ted Koppel was taking the whole concept of of remote viewing. And and you know, psychically being able to to solve mysteries and crimes and find out basically war data..

CIA Ingo Swann Russell Edgar Mitchell Ted Koppel Brian Josephson Ken cress Nobel prize Lance retarget physicist director Phil
"brian josephson" Discussed on 106.1 FM WTKK

106.1 FM WTKK

04:23 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on 106.1 FM WTKK

"But you can train them. How to use them? Breathing. Exactly. I mean, you know, as a talk show host. You know, the voice I have I developed it. But I had this voice. I mean, I could have been born like this interviewing. This is Jessica I'm not sure how long my career would last. You would definitely have a different day job. Probably and night job to. Jumped to what's going on today with research into remote viewing anything. Yeah. In fact, well, I don't know not so much remote viewing as I would more broadly defined kind of psychic phenomena. I think people who are serious about this field realize that the data's there that show that there's definitely something going on. So we don't need to do more proof oriented experiments, those really are there. Anybody who's willing to look at the data? I think would have to come to that conclusion. So what we need is is experiments to try to figure out what is going on. And to me, some of the most intriguing ones recently have been looking at pre cognition as possible unifying theme. So for example, I don't know if anyone on your show has talked about pre sentiment, but those. Yeah. Good. Okay. So that's where you're you show. Somebody a neutral or disturbing picture, and you look at their physiology just before the picture has even been selected as being disturbing or neutral, and their physiology seems to know ahead of time which type of picture is going to be presented tell us a little bit of noble, prizewinner physicist, Brian Josephson, and some of his work Brian Josephson as a physicist who has been very interested in consciousness fam- psychic abilities. And so on. And he and I wrote a paper at one point where let me just quote, something in the paper. If I may. Here's what he said about psychic phenomena. He said these phenomena seem mysterious, but no murmur serious perhaps than strange phenomena past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope, what ideas might be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account to such concepts are those of the observer and non locality observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics. If taken literally imply a universe constantly splitting separate branches only one of which corresponds property reality. A process of deco Herranz has been invoked to stop two branches interfering with each other. But this still does not answer. The question of why our experience is one particular branch and not the other perhaps despite the unpopularity of the idea the experience the experience of the reality are also the selectors. We are going to take calls with Jessica next hour on remote viewing. Would you say that remote viewing is also a hunch? You know, it's really interesting remote viewing per se. So the reason I keep coming back to a sort of broader definition is doing is a pretty specified. Action. I guess you would call it where you explicitly tried to get information about a target. So I would say hunters and other intuitions example, I explained earlier about my friends. Nephew's name. And so on those are the kind of anecdotes that have been reboarded reported over the centuries where people aren't even trying, you know, they just this information just comes to them. So do you have included hunters there? Do you have these kinds of abilities yourself? I mean you've been around for years. You would think it would have rub off on you. You would think so. But no, really how these experiences I just don't have the just like I can't sing just don't seem to have the innate talent, my guess is Jessica that you have that you over think these things, and maybe that's why you blocked. That's true. I mean, that's a statistician. I'm from highly cognitive. Yes. It's true. Now where does this kind of research goal later? I mean, we've got some great organizations that are still out. There are there's even though he's not affiliated. It's affiliated with Duke University. There's still a j b Rhine institute of the Monroe institute, there's some great places there that are keeping this going, aren't they?.

Brian Josephson Jessica I physicist Duke University Herranz j b Rhine institute Jessica Monroe institute
"brian josephson" Discussed on KNST AM 790

KNST AM 790

11:59 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on KNST AM 790

"And welcome back to coast to coast, George Noory with you along with Jessica as we talk about remote viewing. Jessica at a as a statistics professor when you looked at the Stargate program in put your numbers together. What did you conclude? I can that. There was definitely information being gained through remote viewing couldn't have come through the normal channels that we know that people use to gain information. So in other words, psychic abilities are real. There were some issues like, for example, we discussed it we discovered that not everybody could do it. But the people who could do it and could do it. Well, it's pretty striking remote viewing. What do you think remote view is kinda give us your definition of what it is? Okay. Yeah. My definition is it's that we get information that is distant either space or time or both in some unexplainable way. In other words, not through our usual channels of communication. If you lined up ten people at random, just line them all up and said practice remote viewing folks here. You know, this target tell us about this. How many do you think would get that? Right. Well, first of all it depends. What you mean by get it? Right. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you exactly what it was. And most people probably wouldn't even be able to give you a description that was good enough for you necessarily pick it out of a, you know, a minor Petar of possible targets, but what we found. We tested a lot of people and we found that about one percent of the population. Seems to have a really good ability to do remote viewing just one percent. Yeah. Just one percent. The superstars, you know. You've probably interviewed some of them like Joe McMonagle, but English one God rest his soul. He was one of the best exactly English one. That's right. Pat price Dame's he's still out there doing his thing. Yeah. I haven't we didn't use him in the in the scientific program. So I'm not sure I don't know. But yeah, those are the people so the rest of us seem to be able to do it to some small extent. But the training can only go so far anything bad about the training programs that are going on. But I don't want people to get their hopes up too much. Just like I could never go to Carnegie Hall playing the violin. You know, or I could never learn to sing like a good opera singer. So so I think we all have some ability to do this to do remote viewing. But but we can only be trained to the level of our ability. So we can learn how to do it. We can learn what not to do and what you do to to gain. Whatever information our level ability allows us to gain. I e superstars and I think one of the important aspects of remote viewing when people are concentrating on something. It's very difficult to try to ascertain whether what comes into your mind is part of that remote. Viewing process or your mind. Just doing what it does, you know, thinking of things, and you have to be able to distinguish the difference because I think with remote viewing. And this is what I've been told that if you concentrate too hard, it's not gonna work for you. You just have to let it flow. That's right. If you try to get to, you know, cognitive like think if you try to think too much as opposed to just relax and let the information come in that doesn't seem to work. So well, so whatever mechanism is going on. It's not the same as reading a book, or you know, whatever it's something like that. And then I also want to point out that there's two things that we need to explain really one is how does the information get to a person? And then how does the person get the information once it's there? So one is kind of a physics problem, right? How does information get from the future to now or from Australia to California or whatever? But then the other is that information is somehow available. Remote viewing. How does somebody then process it and be able to do them up viewing? So I think those are two problems that we need to work on is there a science behind remote viewing. Or is it more? Paranormal. Well, I think it should be treated as a science. In other words, I think there's a real clue here that there's something. We don't understand about space and time, and we shouldn't be ignoring that scientists should not be ignoring that. Because I think it could fundamentally change I understanding of the universe. And we ought to be going there is there. There's data to show that there is something going on. And I think if we knew what it was it would really help us understand other aspects of the universe. I think so too. I mean, there's something that is just. You know, it's out there were able to tap into it. Lyndyk Taggart calls it the force. Other people have called a different things. I've called it the wireless internet that's in the universe where we're all connected. It's there's something there in in. It's always been there hasn't it? Oh, yeah. I mean, anecdotally stories go back centuries, obviously. And I think it's only recently that people have been so skeptical about it. I think it was kind of accepted in the old days. Do you think we were all born with these abilities the psychic abilities, these remote viewing abilities, the ability to be able to tap into this that it's it's inherent in the human body? You know, I don't know just like other abilities. I mean, why can some of us saying, well and others not it might be something to do with the way, our brains are structured, but I do think we all have some ability just like we can all sing just not the way and training training helps. Yeah. I think training helps. That's right. I mean, I sing a lot at our live events in. I I realized over the years. That the breathing techniques. When you sing our is important as the tone coming out of your mouth. Right. Yeah. Really touched on something important. That's right. So you can train in technique. You can't get the ability whatever, it is people's brains. If it's not there. It's like you can't really restructure someone's vocal cords, right? But you can train them how to use. Breathing. Exactly. I mean, you know, as a talk show host. You know, the voice I have I developed it. But I had this voice. I mean, I could've been born like this interviewing. What kind of speed? With this is Jessica, I'm I'm not sure how long my career would last like that. You would definitely have a different day job. Probably end night job to. Down to what's going on today with research into remote viewing anything. Yeah. In fact, well, I don't know not so much remote viewing as I would more broadly defined kind of psychic phenomena. I think people who are serious about this field realize that the data's there that show that there's definitely something going on. So we don't need to do more proof oriented experiments, those really are there. Anybody who's willing to look at the data? I think would have to come to that conclusion. So what we need is is experiments to try to figure out what is going on. And to me, some of the most intriguing ones recently have been looking at pre cognition as possible unifying. So for example. I don't know if anyone on your show has talked about pre sentiment, but those. Yeah. Good. Okay. So that's where you're you show. Somebody a neutral or a disturbing picture, and you look at their physiology just before the picture has even been selected as being disturbing or neutral, and their physiology seems to know ahead of time which type of picture is going to be presented tell us a little bit of noble prizewinner physicist, Brian Josephson in some of his work Brian Josephson as a physicist to has been very interested in consciousness them psychic abilities. And so on. And he and I wrote a paper at one point where let me just quote, something in the paper. If I may. Yup. He said about psychic phenomena. He said these phenomena seem mysterious but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas may be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account to such concepts are those of the observer and non locality observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics taken literally imply a universe constantly splitting separate branches only one of which corresponds property reality. A process of deco Herranz has been invoked to stop two branches interfering with each other. But this still does not answer. The question of why our experience is one particular branch and not the other perhaps despite the unpopularity of the idea the experience the experience of the reality are also the selectors. We are going to take calls with Jessica next hour on remote viewing. Would you say that remote viewing is also a hunch? You know, it's really interesting remote viewing per se. So the reason I keep coming back to a broader definition is wrong viewing is a pretty specified. Action. I guess you would call it where you explicitly tried to get information about a target. So I would say hunches and other intuitions example, I explained earlier about my friends new nephew's name. And so on those are the kind of anecdotes that have been rewarded reported over the centuries. Where people aren't even trying, you know, they just this information just comes to them. So do you have include hunters there? Do you have these kinds of abilities yourself? I mean you've been around for years. You would think it would rub off on you. You would think so. But no, really how come you in these experiences? I just don't have the just like I can't sing just don't seem to have the innate talent, my guess is Jessica that you have that you over think these things, and maybe that's why you blocked. That's true. I mean, that's a statistician. I'm I'm highly cognitive. Yes. Now where does this kind of research go later? I mean, we've got some great organizations that are still out there. There's even though he's not affiliated the it's affiliated with Duke University. There's still a j b Rhine institute the Monroe institute, there's some great places there that are keeping this going, aren't they? Oh, yes. Indeed. I think you'll probably have dean Reagan on your soul force many times many times he's got quite a research team. They have I think twelve scientists. They're they're at the unit at universities in the United Kingdom. There's a lot more going on than any US. So they have most of their universe. Well, I shouldn't say most many of their universities have programs in parapsychology. So there is research going in various places around the run. I would suggest the guests that the Russians are probably still doing something. I don't think they stand. I don't have any evidence of that. But I would guess that to they probably wanted to Hillary's emails with remote viewing. They didn't have to hack. I wouldn't be surprised. Yeah. One of the things that infuriates me in the US is that there's a small group of people who call themselves skeptics, but they're not they're deniers just like the climate change deniers and they're out to make it. Sort of put a stigma on doing research in this area, which I think is really criminal. Because again, I think there's something of scientific importance here and the squash something that's a scientific importance and call yourself a scientist to me, that's pseudoscience..

Jessica scientist George Noory US Carnegie Hall Brian Josephson Stargate United Kingdom professor Joe McMonagle physicist Lyndyk Taggart dean Reagan Duke University Herranz Hillary Australia California
"brian josephson" Discussed on WRVA

WRVA

12:10 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on WRVA

"People at random just line them all up and said practice remote viewing folks period. You know, this target tell us about this. How do you think would get that? Right. Well, first of all it depends. What you mean by get it? Right. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you exactly what it was. And most people probably wouldn't even be able to give you a description that was good enough to necessarily pick it out of a of a minor Petar of possible targets, but what we found tested a lot of people and we found that about one percent of the population. Seems to have a really good ability to do remote viewing just one percent. Yeah. Just one percent. The superstars, you know. You've probably interviewed some of them like Joe, Monaco, but Ingo Swann God rest his soul. He was one of the best exactly one. That's right. Pat price Dame's he's still out there doing his thing. Yeah. I haven't we didn't use him in the in the scientific program. So I'm not sure I don't know. But yeah, those are the people so the rest of us seem to be able to do it to some small extent. But the training can only go so far anything bad about the training programs that are going on. But I don't want people to get their hopes up too much. Just like I could never go to Carnegie Hall playing the violin, you know, or could never learn to sing like a good opera singer. So so I think we all have some ability to do this to do remote viewing. But but we can only be trained to the level of our ability. So we can learn how to do it, and we can learn what not to do and what you do to to gain. Whatever information our level of building allows us to game. I at all to be superstars. And I think one of the important aspects of remote viewing when people are concentrating on something. It's very difficult to try to ascertain whether what comes into your mind is part of that remote. Viewing process or your mind. Just doing what it does, you know, thinking of things, and you have to be able to distinguish the difference because I think with remote viewing. And this is what I've been told that if you concentrate too hard, it's not gonna work for you. You just have to let it flow. That's right. If you try to get to, you know, cognitive like think if you try to think too much as opposed to just relax and let the information come in that doesn't seem to work too. Well, so whatever mechanism is going on. It's not the same as reading a book, or you know, whatever it's something like that. And then I also want to point out that there's two things that we need to explain really one is how does the information get to a person? And then how does the person get the information wants? It's there. So one is kind of a physics problem. Right. How does information get from the future to now or from Australia to California or whatever? Then the other is that information is somehow available remote viewing. How does somebody then process and and be able to do viewing? So I think those are two problems that we need to work on is there a science behind remote viewing. Or is it more paranormal? Well, I think it should be treated as a science. In other words, I think there's a real clue here that there's something. We don't understand about space and time, and we shouldn't be ignoring that scientists should not be ignoring that. Because I think it could fundamentally change our understanding of the universe. And we ought to be going. There is there is data to show that there is something going on. And I think if we knew what it was it would really help us understand other aspects of the universe. I think so too. I mean, there's something that is just you know, it's out there were able to tap into it. Lyndyk Taggart calls it the force. Other people have called a different things. I've called it the wireless internet that's in the universe where we're all connected. It's the there's something there in in. It's always been there hasn't it? Oh, yeah. I mean, anecdotally stories go back centuries, obviously. And I think it's only recently that people have been so skeptical about it. I think it was kind of accepted in the old days. Do you think we were all born with these abilities the psychic abilities, these remote viewing abilities, the ability to be able to tap into this that it's our it's inherent in the human body. You know, I don't know just like other abilities. I mean, why can some of us saying, well, and other is not it might be something to do with the way, our brains are structured, but I do think we all have some ability just like we can all sing that just not the way and training training helps. Yeah. Yeah. I think training helps. That's right. Yeah. I mean, I sing a lot at our live events in. I I realized over the years. That the breathing techniques. When you sing are as important as the tone coming out of your mouth. Right. Yeah. Really touched on something important. That's right. So you can train in technique. You can't get the ability whatever, it is people's brains. If it's not there. It's just like you can't really restructure some vocal cords. Right. But you can train them how to use. Exactly. I mean, you know, as a talk show host. You know, the voice I have I developed it. But I had this voice. I mean, I could have been born like this interviewing what? With this is Jessica, I'm I'm not sure how long my career would last like that. You would definitely have a different day job. Probably and night job to. Jumped to what's going on today with research into remote viewing anything. Yeah. In fact, well, I don't know not so much remote viewing as I would more broadly defined kind of psychic phenomena. I think people who are serious about this field realize that the data's there that show that there's definitely something going on. So we don't need to do more proof oriented experiments, those really are there. Anybody who's willing to look at the data? I would have to come to that conclusion. So what we need is as experiments to try to figure out what is going on. And to me, some of the most intriguing ones recently have been looking at pre cognition as possible unifying. So for example. I don't know if anyone on your show has talked about pre sentiment, but those. Yeah. Good. Okay. So that's where your show somebody a neutral or a disturbing picture, and you look at their physiology just before the picture has even been selected as being disturbing or neutral, and their physiology seems to know ahead of time which type of picture is going to be presented tell us a little bit about noble, prizewinner physicist, Brian Josephson in some of his work Brian Josephson as a physicist who has been very interested in consciousness fan psychic abilities. And so on. And he and I wrote a paper at one point where let me just quote, something from the paper if I may. Here's what he said about psychic phenomena. He said these phenomena seem mysterious, but no more mysterious perhaps been strange phenomena past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas may be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena Angela account to such concepts are those of the observer and non locality observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics. If taken literally imply a university, that's constantly splitting separate branches. Only one of which corresponds received reality process of deco Herranz has been invoked to stop two branches interfering me, but this still does not answer. The question of why our experience is one particular branch and not the other perhaps despite the unpopularity of the idea the experience the experience of the reality are also the selectors. We are going to take calls with Jessica next hour on remote viewing. Would you say that remote viewing is also a hunch? You know, it's really interesting remote viewing per se. So the reason I keep coming back to a broader definition is wrong doing is a pretty specified. Action. I guess you would call it where you explicitly tried to get information about a target. So I would say hunches and other intuitions example, I explained earlier about my friends new nephew's name. And so on those are the kind of anecdotes that have been reboarded reported over the centuries where people aren't even trying, you know, they just this information just comes to them. So do you have included hundreds there? Do you have these kinds of abilities yourself? I mean you've been around for years. You would think it would rub off on you. You would think so. But no, really how come you and these experiences? I just don't have the just like I can't sing just don't seem to have the unique talent mom, my guess is Jessica that you have that you over think these things, and maybe that's why you blocked. You know, what that's true? I mean as a statistician, I'm I'm highly cognitive. Yes. Now where does this kind of research goal later? I mean, we've got some great organizations that are still out there. There's even though he's not affiliated the it's affiliated with Duke University. There's still a j b Rhine institute of the Monroe institute, there's some great places there that are keeping this going, aren't they? Oh, yes. Indeed. I think you'll probably had dean rating on your show many times many times he's got quite a research team. They have I think twelve scientists. They're they're at universities in the United Kingdom. There's a lot more going on than any US. So they have most of their universe action say most many of their universities have programs in parapsychology. So there is research buying in various places around. I would suggest in guests that the Russians are probably still doing something. I don't think they disbanded. I don't have any evidence of that. But I would guess that to they probably wanted to Hillary's emails with remote viewing. They didn't have to hack. I wouldn't be surprised. Yeah. One of the things that infuriates me in the US is that there's a small group of people who call themselves skeptics, but they're not they're deniers just like the climate change deniers, and they're out to make it sort of. To put a stigma on doing research in this area, which I think is really criminal. Because again, I think there's something of importance here and to squash something that's a scientist importance in call yourself, a scientist to me, that's pseudoscience. So would these. Would these be the same people who do not believe let's say a divine creator? Actually, I think not necessarily in fact, some of them, I think are opposed to this research for me. They just reasons really don't think it should be done. Yeah. Do they are they believers in life after death were they skeptical about every? I know I think it's a combination of people who just have their own sense of how the world works, and this is not incorporated as part of it. For whatever reason whether it's religious freezing. Or there is somehow tied to what we already know about physics, and that's the full explanations. I don't know. But, but they they have strong beliefs that they don't want to be disturbed by hitting new data. What of your colleagues said Jessica about the some of the work you've done in this field. Actually, my statistical colleagues have been pretty interested. I give them out of talks at universities in statistics departments. And I show them the data because I think it's really interesting, and we discuss it, and you know, they don't necessarily have to believe it. But they're mostly open to it. It's funny. There's an area of statistics called daisy and statistics where you combine data with.

Jessica scientist US Ingo Swann Brian Josephson Carnegie Hall Joe physicist Pat Lyndyk Taggart Duke University Herranz United Kingdom Australia California Dame Angela Hillary
"brian josephson" Discussed on KTRH

KTRH

11:58 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on KTRH

"And welcome back to coast to coast, George Noory with you along with Jessica out says we talk about remote viewing Jessica as statistics professor when you looked at the Stargate program in put your numbers together. What did you conclude? I can get. There was definitely information being gained through remote viewing couldn't have come through the normal channels that we know that people use to gain information. So in other words, psychic abilities real there were some issues. Like, for example, we discussed it we discovered that not everybody could do it. But the people who could do it and could do it. Well, get some pretty striking remote viewing. What do you think remote view? It is kinda give us your definition of what it is. Okay. Yeah. My definition is that we get information that is distant in either space or time or both in some unexplainable way. In other words, not through our usual channels of communication. If you lined up ten people at random, just line them all up and said practice remote viewing folks here. You know, this target tell us about this. How many do you think would get that? Right. Well, I saw it depends. What you mean by get it? Right. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you exactly what it was. And most people probably wouldn't even be able to give you a description that was good enough to necessarily pick it out of the minor Petar of possible targets. But what we found? We tested a lot of people and we found that about one percent of the population. Seems to have a really good ability to do remote viewing just one percent. Yeah. Just one percent. The superstars, you know. You've probably interviewed some of them like Germany, Monaco, Ingo Swann, God, rest, his soul. He was one of the best exactly English one. That's right. Pat price Dame's he's still out there doing his thing. Yeah. I haven't we didn't use him in the in the scientific program. So I'm not sure I don't know. But yeah, those are the people so the rest of us seem to be able to do it to some small extent. But the training can only go so far anything bad about the training programs that are going on. But I don't want people to get their hopes up too much. Just like I could never go to Carnegie Hall playing the violin. You know, or I could never learn to sing like a good thing. So so I think we all have some ability to do this to do remote viewing. But but we count to be trained to the level of our ability. So we can learn how to do it. And we can learn what not to do and what you do to to gain. Whatever information our level of building to game. I gotta be superstars. And I think one of the important aspects of remote viewing when people are concentrating on something. It's very difficult to try to ascertain whether what comes into your mind is part of that remote. Viewing process or your mind. Just doing what it does, you know, thinking of things, and you have to be able to distinguish the difference because I think with remote viewing in this is what I've been told that if you concentrate too hard, it's not gonna work for you. You just have to let it flow. That's right. If you try to get to, you know, cognitive like think if you try to think too much as opposed to just relax and let the information come in that doesn't seem to work for a while. So whatever mechanism is going on. It's not the same as reading a book, or you know, whatever it's something like that. And then I also want to point out that there's two things we need to explain really one is how does the information get to a person? And then how does the person get the information wants it stare? So one is kind of a physics problem. Right. How does information get from the future to now or from Australia to California or whatever? But then the other is that information is somehow available. Remote viewing. How does somebody then process and and be able to do? So I think those are two albums we need to work on is there a science behind. We're viewing. Or is it more paranormal? I think it should be treated as a science. In other words, I think there's a real clue here that there's something. We don't understand about space and time, and we shouldn't be ignoring scientists should not be ignoring that. Because I think it could fundamentally change our understanding of the universe. And we ought to be going there there. There's data to show that there is something going on. And I think if we knew what it was it would really help us understand other aspects of the universe. I think so too. I mean, there's something that is just. You know, it's out there. We're able to tap into it. Lyndyk Taggart calls it the force. Other people have called it different things. I've called it the wireless internet. That's in the universe. We're we're all connected. It's there's something there. And and it's always been there hasn't it? Oh, yeah. I mean, anecdotally stories go back centuries, obviously. And I think it's only recently that people have been so skeptical about it. I think it was kind of accepted in the old days. Do you think we were all born with these abilities these psychic abilities, these remote viewing abilities, the ability to be able to tap into this that it's it's inherent in the human body. You know, I don't know just like other abilities. I mean, why can some of us saying, well and others not it might be something to do with the way, our brains are structured, but I do think we all have some ability just like we can all sing just not the way and training training helps. Yeah. Yeah. I think training helps. That's right. Yep. I mean, I sing a lot at our live events. And I I realized over the years. That the breathing techniques. When you sing are as important as the tone coming out of your mouth. Right. Yeah. Really touched on something important. That's right. So you can train in technique. You can't get the ability whatever, it is people's brains. If it's not there. It's just like you can't really restructure someone's vocal cords. Right. But you can train them. Breathing. Exactly. I mean, you know, as a talk show host, you know, the voice I have I developed it. But I had this Royce. I mean, I could have been born like this interviewing. With this is Jessica, I'm not sure how long my career would last like that. You would definitely have a different day job. Probably end night job to. Jumped to what's going on today with research into remote viewing anything. Yeah. In fact, well, I don't know not so much viewing as I would more broadly defined kind of psychic phenomena. I think people who are serious about this deal realize that the data's there that show that there's definitely something going on. So we don't need to do more proof or antics tournaments. Those really are there. Anybody who's willing to look at the data? I think would have to come to that conclusion. So what we need is as experiments to try to figure out what is going on. And to me, some of the most intriguing ones recently have been looking at pre cognition as possible unifying theme. So for example, I don't know if anyone on your show has talked about pre sentiment that those. Yeah. Good. Okay. So that's where you're you show. Somebody a neutral or a disturbing picture, and you look at their physiology just before the picture has even been selected as being disturbing or neutral, and their physiology seems to know ahead of time which type of picture is going to be presented tell us a little bit of noble prize winner physicist, Brian Josephson in some of his work Brian Josephson as a physicist who has been very interested in consciousness fan psychic abilities. And so on. And he and I wrote a paper at one point where let me just quote, something from the paper if I may. Yup. He's had about psychic phenomena. He said these phenomena seem mysterious but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas may be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account to such concepts are those of the observer and non locality observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics. If taken literally imply a universe constantly splitting separate branches corresponds perceived reality process of deco Herranz has been invoked to stop two branches interfering me he thought this still does not answer. The question of why are experience is one particular branch and not the other perhaps despite the unpopularity of the idea to experience the experiencers of the reality are also the selectors. We are going to take calls with Jessica next hour on remote viewing. Would you say that remote viewing is also a hunch? You know, it's really interesting remote viewing precise. So the reason I keep coming back to a broader definition is doing a pretty specified. Action. I guess you would call it where you explicitly tried to get information about a target. So I would say hunches and other intuitions example, I explained earlier about my friends. Nephew's name. And so on. Anecdotes that have been reboarded reported over the centuries where people aren't even trying, you know, they just this information just comes to them. So do you have in could hunters there? Do you have these kinds of abilities yourself? I mean you've been around for years. You would think it would rub off on you. You would think so. But no, really how these experiences I just don't have the just like I can't sing just don't seem to have unique talent, my guess is Jessica that you have that you over think these things, and maybe that's why you blocked. That's true. I mean, it's a statistician. I'm I'm highly cognitive. Yes. Now where does this kind of research goal later? I mean, we've got some great organizations that are still out there. There's even though he's not affiliated the it's affiliated with Duke University. There's still a j b Rhine institute of the Monroe institute, there's some great places there that are keeping this going, aren't they? Oh, yes. Indeed. I think you'll probably had dean Raden on your show many times many times he's got quite a research team. They have I think twelve scientists there at the union at universities in the United Kingdom. There's a lot more going on than any US. So they have most of their universe action say most many of their universities have programs in parapsychology. So there is research going on. In various places around the run. I would suggest the guests that the Russians are probably still doing something. I don't think they. I don't have any evidence of that. But I would guess that to they probably wanted to Hillary's emails with remote viewing. They didn't have to hack. I wouldn't be surprised when I thinks that infuriates me in the US is that there's a small group of people who call themselves skeptics, but they're not they're deniers just like the climate change deniers and they're out to make it. To put a stigma on doing research in this area, which I think is really criminal. Because again, I think there's something of scientific importance here and the squash something that's fine, Tiffany importance and call yourself a scientist to me, that's pseudoscience..

Jessica scientist US George Noory Carnegie Hall Brian Josephson Ingo Swann Germany Stargate Duke University United Kingdom professor Lyndyk Taggart physicist dean Raden Herranz Hillary Australia California
"brian josephson" Discussed on WTVN

WTVN

12:40 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on WTVN

"And welcome back to coast to coast, George Noory with you along with. Jessica says we talk about remote viewing. Jessica at a as a statistics professor when you looked at the Stargate program in put your numbers together. What did you conclude? I think that there was definitely information being gained two remote viewing couldn't have come through the normal channels that we know that people used to gain information. So in other words, psychic abilities real there were some issues. Like, for example, we discussed it we discovered that not everybody could do it. But the people who could do it and could do it. Well, get some pretty striking remote viewing. What do you think remote view? It is kinda give your definition of what it is. Okay. Yeah. My definition is it's that we get information that is distant in either space or time or both in some unexplainable way. In other words, not through our usual channels medication. If you line up ten people at random just line them all up and said practice remote viewing folks period this target. Tell us about this. How many do you think would get that? Right. Well, first of all it depends. What you mean by get it? Right. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you exactly what it was. And most people probably wouldn't even be able to give you a description that was good enough for you necessarily pick it out of the minor Petar of possible targets, but what we found. We tested a lot of people and we found that about one percent of the population. Seems to have a really good ability to do remote viewing just one percent. Yeah. Just one percent. The superstars, you know. You've probably interviewed some of them like Joe McMonagle, but English one God rest his soul. He was one of the best exactly English one. That's right. Pat price Dame's he's still out there doing his thing. Yeah. I haven't we didn't use him in the in the scientific program. So I'm not sure I don't know. But yeah, those are the people so the rest of us seem to be able to do it to some small extent. But the training can only go so far say anything bad about the training programs that are going on. But I don't want people to get their hopes up too much. Just like I could never go to Carnegie Hall playing the violin. You know, or I could never learn to sing like a good opera singer. So so I think we all have some ability to do this to do remote viewing. But but we can only be trained to the level of our ability. So we can learn how to do it. You know, we can learn what not to do and what you do to to gain. Whatever information our level of building allows us to gain. I oughta be superstars, and I think one of the important aspects of remote viewing when people are concentrating on something. It's very difficult to try to ascertain whether what comes into your mind is part of that remote. Viewing process or your mind. Just doing what it does, you know, thinking of things, and you have to be able to distinguish the difference because I think with remote viewing. And this is what I've been told that if you concentrate too hard, it's not gonna work for you. You just have to let it flow. That's right. If you try to get to, you know, cognitive like think if you try to think too much as opposed to just relax and let the information come in that doesn't seem to work. So well, so whatever mechanism is going on. It's not the same as reading a book, or you know, whatever it's something like that. And then I also want to point out that there's two things that we need to explain really one is how does the information get to a person? And then how does the person get the information once it's there? So one is kind of a physics problem, right? How does information get from the future to now or from Australia to California or whatever? Then the other is that information somehow available through remote viewing. How does somebody then process it, and and be able to go I think those are two problems that we need to work on is science behind remote viewing? Or is it more paranormal? Well, I think it should be treated as a science. In other words, I think there's a real clue here that there's something. We don't understand about space and time, and we shouldn't be ignoring that scientists should not be ignoring that. 'cause I think fundamentally change our understanding of the universe. And we ought to be going there is there. There's data to show that there is something going on. And I think if we knew what it was it would really help us understand other aspects of the universe. I think so too. I mean, there's something that is just. You know, it's out there were able to tap into it. Lyndyk Taggart calls it the force. Other people have called it different things. I've called it the wireless internet that's in the universe where we're all connected. It's the there's something there in in. It's always been there hasn't it? Oh, yeah. I mean, anecdotally stories go back centuries, obviously. And I think it's only recently that people have been so skeptical about it. I think it was kind of accepted in the old days. Do you think we were all born with these abilities these psychic abilities, these remote viewing abilities, the ability to be able to tap into this that it's it's inherent in the human body. You know, I don't know just like other abilities. I mean, why can some of us saying, well and others not it might be something to do with the way, our brains are structured, but I do think we all have some ability just like we can all sing. That's just not the way and training training helps. Yeah. Yeah. I think training helps. That's right. Yeah. I mean, I sing a lot at our live events. And I I realized over the years. That the breathing techniques. When you sing our is important as the tone coming out of your mouth. Right. Yeah. Really touched on something important. That's right. So you can train in technique. You can't get the ability whatever, it is people's brains. If it's not there. It's just like you can't really restructure someone's vocal cords. Right. But you can train. How to use them breathing? Exactly. I mean, you know, as a talk show host. You know, the voice I have I developed it. But I had this voice. I mean, I could have been born like this interviewing. Review with this is Jessica, I'm not sure how long my career would last like that. You would definitely have a different day job. And night job to and. Down to what's going on today with research into remote viewing anything. Yeah. In fact, well, I don't know not so much remote viewing as I would more broadly defined kind of psychic phenomena. I think people who are serious about this field realize that the data's there that show that there's definitely something going on. So we don't need to do more proof or experiments those really are there. Anybody who's willing to look at the data? I think would have to come to that conclusion. So what we need is is experiments to try to figure out what is going on. And to me, some of the most intriguing ones recently have been looking at pre cognition as possible unifying theme. So for example, I don't know anyone on your show is talked about presentment, but those. Yeah. Good. Okay. So that's where you're you show. Somebody a neutral or a disturbing picture, and you look at their physiology just before the picture has even been selected as being disturbing or neutral, and their physiology seems to know ahead of time, which type of picture is going to be presented tell us a little bit about noble, prizewinner physicist, Brian Josephson in some of his work, Brian Josephson as a physicist to has been very interested in consciousness, then psychic abilities and so on and he and I wrote a paper at one point where let me just quote, something from the paper if I may. Here's what he said about psychic phenomena. He said these phenomena seem mysterious but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas may be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these nominee Angela account to such concepts are those of the observer and nine locality observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics. If taken literally imply a university, it's constantly splitting separate branches only one of which corresponds perceive reality process of deco Herranz has been invoked to stop two branches interfering me decided, but this still does not answer. The question of why our experience is one particular branch and not the other perhaps despite the unpopularity of the idea the experience the experience of the reality are also the selectors. We are going to take calls with Jessica next hour on remote viewing. Would you say that remote viewing is also a hunch? You know, it's really interesting remote viewing per se. So the reason I keep coming back to a broader definition is wrong doing is a pretty specified. Action. I guess you would call it where you explicitly tried to get information about a target. So I would say hunches and other intuitions example, I explained earlier about my friends. New nephew's name. And so on those are the of anecdotes that have been reboarded reported over the centuries where people aren't even trying. This information just comes to them. So do you have included hunters there? Do you have these kinds of abilities yourself? I mean you've been around for years. You would think it would have rub off on you. You would think so. But no, really how these experiences I just don't have the just like I can't sing just don't seem to have the unique talent, my guess is Jessica that you have that you over think these things, and maybe that's why you blocked. You know, what that's true? I mean, that's a statistician. I'm I'm highly cognitive. Yes. It's true. Now where does this kind of research goal later? I mean, we've got some great organizations that are still out there. There's even though he's not affiliated. It's affiliated with Duke University. There's still a j b Rhine institute of the Monroe institute, there's some great places there that are keeping this going, aren't they? Oh, yes. Indeed. I think you'll probably had dean rating on your soul force many times many times he's got quite a research team. They have I think twelve scientists. They're they're at universities in the United Kingdom. There's a lot more going on than in the US. So they have most of their universe action say most many of their universities have programs in parapsychology. So there is research going on in various places around the run. I would suggest in guests that the Russians are probably still doing something. I don't think they disbanded. I don't have any evidence of that. But I would guess that to they probably wanted to Hillary's emails with remote viewing. They didn't have to hack. I wouldn't be surprised. Yeah. One of the things that curates me in the US is that there's a small group of people who call themselves skeptics, but they're not they're deniers just like the climate change deniers, and they're out to make it sort of it. Put a stigma on doing research in this area, which I think is really criminal. Because again, I think there's something of scientific importance here and to squash something that's a scientific importance and call yourself a scientist to me, that's pseudoscience. So would these be? Would these be the same people who do not believe let's say in a divine creator that they actually think not necessarily in fact, some of them, I think are opposed to this research for me. They'd just reasons really don't think it should be done. Yeah. Do they are they believers in life after death were they skeptical about every no, no? No, no. I think it's a combination of people who just have their own sense of how the world works, and this is not incorporated as part of it. For whatever reason whether it's freezing. Or there are somehow, you know, tied to the what we already know about physics, and that's the full explanations..

Jessica scientist George Noory Carnegie Hall US Brian Josephson Stargate professor Joe McMonagle physicist Lyndyk Taggart Duke University Herranz Hillary United Kingdom Australia California Pat
"brian josephson" Discussed on 710 WOR

710 WOR

11:53 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on 710 WOR

"And welcome back to coast to coast, George Noory with you along with Jessica out says we talk about remote viewing Jessica as a statistics. Professor when you looked at the Stargate program in put your numbers together. What did you conclude? I think that there was definitely information being gained through remote viewing. They couldn't have come through the normal channels that we know that people use to gain information. So in other words, psychic abilities real there were some issues. Like, for example, we discussed it we discovered that not everybody could do it. But the people who could do it and could do it. Well, get some pretty striking remote viewing. What do you think remote view? It is kinda give us your definition of what it is. Okay. Yeah. My definition is that we get information that is distant in either space or time or both and some unexplainable way. In other words, not through our usual channels of communication. If you lined up ten people at random, just line them all up and said practice remote viewing folks here. You know, this target tell us about this. How many do you think would get that? Right. Well, first of all it depends. What you mean by get it? Right. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you exactly what it was. And most people probably wouldn't even be able to give you a description that was good enough to necessarily pick it out of a lineup Petar of possible targets. But what we found? We tested a lot of people and we found that about one percent of the population. Seems to have a really good ability to do remote viewing just one percent. Yeah. Just one percent. The superstars, you know. You've probably interviewed some of them like Joe McMonagle, but Ingo Swann God rest his soul. He was one of the best exactly English one. That's right. Pat price Dame's he's still out there doing his thing. I haven't we didn't use him in the in the scientific program. So I'm not sure I don't know. But yeah, those are the people so the rest of us seem to be able to do it to some small extent. But the training can only go so far anything bad about the training programs that are going on. But I don't want people to get their hopes up too much. Just like I could never go to Carnegie Hall playing the violin. You know, or I could never learn to sing like a good opera singer. So so I think we all have some ability to do this to do remote viewing. But but we can only be trained to the level of our ability. So we can learn how to do it. We can learn what not to do and what you do to to gain. Whatever information our level of building allows us to gain. I talk be superstars. And I think one of the important aspects of remote viewing when people are concentrating on something. It's very difficult to try to ascertain whether what comes into your mind is part of that remote viewing process or your mind. Just doing what it does, you know, thinking of things, and you have to be able to distinguish the difference because I think with remote viewing. And this is what I've been told that if you concentrate too hard, it's not gonna work. For you. You just have to let it flow. That's right. If you're trying to get to, you know, cognitive like think if you try to think too much as opposed to just relax and let the information come in that doesn't seem to work. So well, so whatever mechanism is going on. It's not the same as reading a book, or you know, whatever it's something like that. And then I also want to point out that there's two things that we need to explain really one is how does the information get to a person? And then how does the person get the information once it's there? So one is kind of a physics problem, right? How does information get from the future to now or from Australia to California or whatever? And the other is that information is somehow available remote viewing. How does somebody then process it, and and be able to do them up viewing? So I think those are two problems that we need to work on is there a science behind remote viewing. Or is it more paranormal? Well, I think it should be treated as a science. In other words, I think there's a real clue here that there's something. We don't understand about space and time, and we shouldn't be ignoring that clue. Scientists should not be ignoring that. Because I think it could fundamentally change our understanding of the universe, and we ought to be going there 'cause there's data to show that there is something going on. And I think if we knew what it was it would really help us understand other aspects of the universe. I think so too. I mean, there's something that is just you know, it's out there were able to tap into it. Lyndyk Taggart calls it the force other people have called it different things. I've called it the wireless internet that's in the universe where we're all connected. It's there's something there in in. It's always been there hasn't it? Oh, yeah. I mean, anecdotally stories go back centuries, obviously. And I think it's only recently that people have been so skeptical about it. I think it was kind of accepted in the old days. Do you think we were all born with these abilities these psychic abilities, these remote viewing abilities, the ability to be able to tap into this that it's it's inherent in the human body. You know, I don't know just like other abilities. I mean, why can some of us saying, well and others not it might be something to do with the way, our brains are structured, but I do think we all have some ability just like we can all sing just not the way and training training helps. Yeah. Yeah. I think training helps. That's right. Yeah. I mean, I sing a lot at our live events. And I I realized over the years. That the breathing techniques. When you sing are as important as the tone coming out of your mouth. Right. Yeah. Really touched on something important. That's right. So you can train in technique. You can't get the ability whatever, it is people's brains. If it's not there. It's just like you can't really restructure someone's vocal cords. Right. But you can train them. How to use breathing? Exactly. I mean, you know, as a talk show host. You know, the voice I have I developed it. But I had this voice. I mean, I could have been born like this interviewing. With this is Jessica, I'm I'm not sure how long my career would last like that. You would definitely have a different day job. Probably and night job too. Up to what's going on today with research into remote viewing anything. Yeah. In fact, I don't know not so much remote viewing as I would more broadly defined kind of psychic phenomena. I think people who are serious about this field realize that the data's there that show that there's definitely something going on. So we don't need to do more proof oriented experiments, those really are there. Anybody who's willing to look at the data? I think would have to come to that conclusion. So what we need is is experiments to try to figure out what is going on. And to me, some of the most intriguing ones recently have been looking at pre cognition as possible unifying. So for example. I don't know if anyone on your show has talked about pre sentiment, but those. Yeah. Good. Okay. So that's where you're you show. Somebody a neutral or a disturbing picture, and you look at their physiology just before the picture has even been selected as being disturbing or neutral, and their physiology seems to know ahead of time which type of picture is going to be presented tell us a little bit about noble, prizewinner physicist, Brian Josephson in some of his work Brian Josephson as a physicist to has been very interested in consciousness and psychic abilities. And so on. And he and I wrote a paper at one point where let me just quote, something in the paper. If I may here's what he said about psychic phenomenon. He said these phenomena seem mysterious but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas may be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account to such concepts are those of the observer and non locality observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics. If taken literally imply a university, it's constantly splitting separate branches only one of which corresponds perceive reality process of deco Herranz has been invoked to stop two branches interfering me decided, but this still does not answer. The question of why our experience is one particular branch and not the other perhaps despite the unpopularity of the idea the experience the experience of the reality are also the. Selectors? We are going to take calls with Jessica next hour on remote viewing. Would you say that remote viewing is also a hunch? You know, it's really interesting remote viewing per se. So the reason I keep coming back to a broader definition is wrong doing is a pretty specified. Action. I guess you would call it where you explicitly tried to get information about a target. So I would say hunches and other intuitions example, I explained earlier about my friends. No nephew's name. And so on those are the of anecdotes that have been reboarded reported over the centuries where people aren't even trying, you know, just this information just comes to them. So do you have included hunters there? Do you have these kinds of abilities yourself? I mean you've been around it for years. You would think it would rub off on you. You would think so. But no, really how these experiences I just don't have the just like I can't sing just don't seem to have the innate talent, my guess is Jessica that you have that you over think these things, and maybe that's why you blocked. You know, what that's true? I mean, it's a statistician. I'm I'm highly cognitive. Yes. It's true. Now where does this kind of research goal later? I mean, we've got some great organizations that are still out there. There's even though he's not affiliated the it's affiliated with Duke University. They're still a j b Rhine institute of the Monroe institute. There's some great places there that are keeping this going, aren't they? Oh, yes. Indeed. I think you'll probably had dean rating on your soul force many times. Many times. He's he's got quite a research team. They have I think twelve scientists. They're they're at the unit at universities in the United Kingdom. There's a lot more going on than in the US. So they have most of their universe. Well, I shouldn't say most many of their universities have programs in parapsychology. So there is research going on in various places around the run. I would suggest in guests that the Russians are probably still doing something. I don't think they disbanded. I don't have any evidence that, but I would guess that too. They probably wanted to Hillary's emails with remote viewing. They didn't have to hack. I wouldn't be surprised. Yeah. One of the things in curates me in the US is that there's a small group of people who call themselves skeptics, but they're not they're deniers just like the climate change deniers, and they're out to make it sort of put a stigma on doing research in this area, which I think is really criminal. Because again, I think there's something of scientific importance here and to squash something that's fine..

Jessica George Noory US Carnegie Hall Brian Josephson Stargate Professor United Kingdom physicist Lyndyk Taggart Ingo Swann Herranz Duke University Joe McMonagle Hillary dean Australia California
"brian josephson" Discussed on KOA 850 AM

KOA 850 AM

12:13 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on KOA 850 AM

"People at random just line them all up and said practice remote viewing folks, you know, this target tell us about this. How many do you think would get that? Right. Well, first of all it depends. What you mean by get it? Right. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you exactly what it was. And most people probably wouldn't even be able to give you a description that was good enough for you to necessarily pick it out of a lineup Petar of possible targets. But what we found? We tested a lot of people and we found that about one percent of the population. Seems to have a really good ability to do remote viewing just one percent. Yeah. Just one percent. The superstars, you know. You've probably interviewed some of them like Joe McMonagle Ingo Swann God rest, he was one of the best exactly English one. That's right. Pat price Dame's he's still out there doing his thing. Yeah. I haven't we didn't use him in the in the scientific program. So I'm not sure I don't know. But yeah, those are the people so the rest of to be able to do it to some small extent. But the training can only go so far anything bad about the training programs that are going on. But I don't want people to get their hopes up too much. Just like I could never go to Carnegie Hall playing the violin. You know, or I could never learn to sing like a good opera singer. So so I think we all have some ability to do this to do remote viewing. But but we can only be trained to the level of our ability. So we can learn how to do it know we can learn what not to do and what you do to to gain. Whatever information our level of building allows us to gain. I gotta be superstars. And I think one of the important aspects of remote viewing when people are concentrating on something. It's very difficult to try to ascertain whether what comes into your mind is part of that remote. Viewing process or your mind. Just doing what it does, you know, thinking of things, and you have to be able to distinguish the difference because I think with remote viewing. And this is what I've been told that if you concentrate too hard, it's not gonna work for you. You just have to let it flow. That's right. If you're trying to get to, you know, cognitive like think if you try to think too much as opposed to just relax and let the information come in that doesn't seem to work. So well, so whatever mechanism is going on. It's not the same as reading a book, or you know, whatever it's something like that. And then I also want to point out that there's two things that we need to explain really one is how does the information get to a person? And then how does the person get the information once it's there? So one is kind of a physics problem, right? How does information get from the future to now or from Australia to California or whatever? Then the other is that information is somehow available remote viewing. How does somebody then process it, and and be able to go I think those are two problems that we need to work on. Is there a science behind remote viewing? Or is it more? Paranormal. Well, I think it should be treated as a science. In other words, I think there's a real clue here that there's something. We don't understand about space and time, and we shouldn't be ignoring that clue. Scientists should not be ignoring that. 'cause I think it could fundamentally change our understanding of the universe. And we ought to be going. There is there is data to show that there is something going on. And I think if we knew what it was it would really help us understand other aspects of the universe. I think so too. I mean, there's something that is just. You know, it's out there. We're able to tap into it. Lyndyk Taggart calls it the force. Other people have called a different things. I've called it the wireless internet that's in the universe where we're all connected. It's there's something there in in. It's always been there hasn't it? Oh, yeah. I mean, anecdotally stories go back centuries, obviously. And I think it's only recently that people have been so skeptical about it. I think it was kind of accepted in the old days. Do you think we were all born with these abilities these psychic abilities, these remote viewing abilities the ability to be able to tap into this? It's inherent in the human body. You know, I don't know just like other abilities. I mean, why can some of us saying, well and others not it might be something to do with the way, our brains are structured, but I do think we all have some ability. I'm just like we can all sing that just not the way and training training helps. Yeah. Yeah. I think training helps. That's right. Yup. I mean, I sing a lot at our live events. And I I realized over the years that the breathing techniques when you sing are as important as the tone coming out of your mouth. Right. Yeah. And really touched on something important. That's right. So you can train in technique. You can't get the ability whatever, it is people's brains. If it's not there. It's just like you can't really restructure someone's vocal cords. Right. But you can train them how to use. Breathing. Exactly. I mean, you know, as a talk show host. You know, the voice I have I developed it. But I had this voice. I mean, I could've been born like this interviewing. With this is Jessica, I'm I'm not sure how long my career would last like that. You would definitely have a different day job. Probably and night job to. To what's going on today with research into remote viewing anything. Yeah. In fact, well, not so much remote viewing as I would more broadly defined kind of psychic phenomena. I think people who are serious about this field realized that the data's there that show that there's definitely something going on. So we don't need to do more proof oriented experiments, those really are there. Anybody who's willing to look at the data? I think would have to come to that conclusion. So what we need is is experiments to try to figure out what is going on. And to me, some of the most intriguing ones recently have been looking at pre cognition as possible unifying theme. So for example, I don't know anyone on your show has talked about pre sentiment, but those. Yeah. Good. Okay. So that's where your you show, somebody a neutral or a disturbing picture, and you look at their physiology just before the picture has even been selected as being disturbing or neutral, and their physiology seems to know ahead of time, which type of picture is going to be presented tell us a little bit of I'll double prizewinner physicist, Brian Josephson in some of his work, Brian Josephson as a physicist who has been very interested in consciousness, then psychic abilities. And so on. And he and I wrote a paper at one point where let me just quote, something in the paper. If I may. Here's what he said about psychic phenomena. He said these phenomena seem mysterious but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena past which has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas may be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena Angela account to such concepts are those of the observer and non locality observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics have taken literally imply a universe constantly splitting separate branches only one of which corresponds property reality at process of deco here. Has been invoked to stop two branches interfering meetings other. But this still does not answer. The question of why our experience is one particular branch and not the other perhaps despite the unpopularity of the idea the experience the experience of the reality are also the selectors. We are going to take calls with Jessica next hour on remote viewing. Would you say that remote viewing is also a hunch? You know, it's really interesting remote viewing per se. So the reason I keep coming back to a broader definition is wrong doing is a pretty specified. Action. I guess you would call it where you explicitly tried to get information about a target. So I would say hunches and other intuitions example, I explained earlier about my friends. No nephew's name. And so on those anecdotes that have been reboarded reported over the centuries where people aren't even trying, you know, they just this information just comes to them. So do you have include hunters there? Do you have these kinds of abilities yourself? I mean you've been around it for years. You would think it would have rub off on you. You would think so. But no really how come experience. I just don't have the just like I can't sing just don't seem to have the unique talent, my guess is Jessica that you have that you over think these things, and maybe that's why you blocked. That's true. I mean, that's a statistician. I'm I'm highly cognitive. Yes. Now where does this kind of research goal later? I mean, we've got some great organizations that are still out there. There's even though he's not affiliated. It's affiliated with Duke University. There's still j b Rhine institute of the Monroe institute, there's some great places there that are keeping this going, aren't they? Oh, yes. Indeed. I think you'll probably had dean Raden on your soul force many times many times he's got quite a research team. Now, they have I think twelve scientists. They're they're at the unit at universities in the United Kingdom. There's a lot more going on than any US. So they have most of their universe. Well, I shouldn't say most many of their universities have programs in parapsychology. So there is research going on in various places around. I would suggest in guests that the Russians are probably still doing something. I don't think I don't have any evidence of that. But I would guess that to they probably wanted to Hillary's emails with remote viewing. They didn't have to hack. I wouldn't be surprised. Yeah. One of the things that infuriates me in the US is that there's a small group of people who call themselves skeptics, but they're not they're deniers just like the climate change deniers, and they're out to make it sort of put a stigma on doing research in this area, which I think is really criminal. Because again, I think there's something of scientific importance here and the squash something that's a scientific importance and call yourself a scientist to me, that's pseudoscience. So would these. Would these the same people who do not believe let's say in a divine creator? Actually, I think not necessarily in fact, some of them, I think are opposed to this research for me. They'd just reasons really don't think it should be done. Yeah. Do they are they believers in life after death were they skeptical about every? No, I think it's a combination of people who just have their own sense of how the world works, and this is not incorporated as part of it. For whatever reason, whether it's religious reason, or there are somehow tied to what we already know about physics, and that's the flexible nations, I don't know. But, but they they have strong beliefs that they don't want to be disturbed by heading new data. What of your colleagues said Jessica about the some of the work you've done in this field. Actually, my statistical colleagues have been pretty interested. I give a lot of talks at universities in statistics departments. When I show them the data because I think it's really interesting, and we discuss it, and you know, they don't necessarily have to believe it. But they're mostly open to it. I'm here. It's funny. There's an area of statistics called basins statistics where you combine data with your belief system. And.

Jessica US scientist Brian Josephson Joe McMonagle Carnegie Hall physicist Pat Lyndyk Taggart Duke University United Kingdom Australia California Dame Monroe institute Angela dean Raden
"brian josephson" Discussed on KTOK

KTOK

12:05 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on KTOK

"The conversation starts here. Newsradio one thousand K T. Okay. And welcome back to coast to coast, George Noory with you along with Jessica out says we talk about remote viewing. Jessica a as a statistics professor when you looked at the Stargate program in put your numbers together. What did you conclude? I think that there was definitely information being gained through remote viewing. They couldn't have come through the normal channels that we know that people use to gain information. So in other words, psychic abilities real there were some issues. Like, for example, we discussed it we discovered that not everybody could do it. But the people who could do it and could do it. Well, get some pretty striking remote viewing. What do you think remote view? It is kinda give us your definition of what it is. Okay. Yeah. My definition is it's that we get information that is distant in either space or time or both and some unexplainable way. In other words, not through our usual channels of communication. If you lined up ten people at random, just line them all up and said practice remote viewing folks here. You know, this target tell us about this. How many do you think would get that? Right. Well, first of all it depends. What you mean by get it? Right. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you exactly what it was. And most people probably wouldn't even be able to give you a description that was good enough to necessarily pick it out of a lineup Petar of possible targets. But what we found we test a lot of people and we found that about one percent of the population. Seems to have a really good ability to do remote viewing just one percent. Yeah. Just one percent. The superstars, you know. You've probably interviewed some of them like Joe McMonagle, but English one God rest his soul. He was one of the best exactly English one. That's right. Pat price Dame's he's still out there doing his thing. I haven't we didn't use him in the in the scientific program. So I'm not sure I don't know. But yeah, those are the people so the rest of us seem to be able to do it to some small extent. But the training can only go so far say anything bad about the training programs that are going on. But I don't want people to get their hopes up too much. Just like I could never go to Carnegie Hall playing the violin. You know, or I could never learn to sing like a good opera singer. So so I think we all have some ability to do this to do remote viewing. But but we can only be trained to the level of our ability. So we can learn how to do it. We can learn what not to do and what you do to to game. Whatever information our level building allows us to gain. I gotta be superstars. And I think one of the important aspects of remote viewing when people are concentrating on something. It's very difficult to try to ascertain whether what comes into your mind is part of that remote viewing process or your mind. Just doing what it does, you know, thinking of things, and you have to be able to distinguish the difference because I think with remote viewing in this is what I've been told that if you concentrate too hard, it's not gonna work. For you. You just have to let it flow. That's right. If you try to get to, you know, cognitive like think if you try to think too much as opposed to just relax and let the information come in that doesn't seem to work too. Well. So whatever mechanism is going on. It's not the same as reading a book, or you know, whatever it's something like that. And then I also want to point out that there's two things that we need to explain really one is how does the information get to a person? And then how does the person get the information once it's there? So one is kind of a physics problem, right? How does information get from the future to now or from Australia to California or whatever? But then the other is that information is somehow available. Remote viewing. How does somebody then process and and be able to do them up doing? So I think those are two problems that we need to work on is there a science behind remote viewing. Or is it more paranormal? Well, I think it should be treated as a science. In other words, I think there's a real clue here that there's something. We don't understand about state and time, and we shouldn't be ignoring scientists should not be ignoring that. Because I think it could fundamentally change our understanding of the universe, and we ought to be going there 'cause there's data to show that there is something going on. And I think if we knew what it was it would really help us understand other aspects of the universe. I think so too. I mean, there's something that is just. You know, it's out there. We're able to tap into it. Lyndyk Taggart calls it the force. Other people have called a different things. I've called it the wireless internet that's in the universe where we're all connected. It's the there's something there in. It's always been there hasn't it? Oh, yeah. I mean, anecdotally stories go back centuries, obviously. And I think it's only recently that people have been so skeptical about it. I think it was kind of accepted in the old days. Do you think we were all born with these abilities the psychic abilities, these remote viewing abilities, the ability to be able to tap into this that it's it's inherent in the human body? You know, I don't know just like other abilities. I mean, why can some of us saying, well and others not it might be something to do with the way, our brains are structured, but I do think we all have some ability just like we can all sing just not the way and training training helps. Yeah. Yeah. I think training helps. That's right. Yeah. I mean, I sing a lot at our live events. And I I realized over the years that the breathing techniques when you sing are as important as the tone coming out of your mouth. Right. Yeah. Really touched on something important. That's right. So you can train in technique. You can't get the ability whatever, it is people's brains. If it's not there. It's just like you can't really restructure some vocal cords. Right. But you can train them. How to use them? Breathing. Exactly. I mean, you know, as a talk show host, you know, the voice I have I developed it. But I had this voice. I mean, I could have been born like this interviewing you. What kind of interview with this is Jessica, I'm I'm not sure how long my career would last like that. You would definitely have a different day job. Probably and night job to. Jumped to what's going on today with research into remote viewing anything. Yeah. In fact, well, I don't know not so much remote viewing as I would more broadly defined kind of psychic phenomena. I think people who are serious about this field realize that the data's there that show that there's definitely something going on. So we don't need to do more proof oriented experiments, those really are there. Anybody who's willing to look at the data? I think would have to come to that conclusion. So what we need is is experiments to try to figure out what is going on. And to me, some most intriguing ones recently have been looking at pre cognition as possible unifying theme. So for example, I don't know if anyone on your show has talked about pre sentiment, but those. Yeah. Good. Okay. So that's where you're you show. Somebody a neutral or a disturbing picture, and you look at their physiology just before the picture has even been selected as being disturbing or neutral, and their physiology seems to know ahead of time which type of picture is going to be present. Tell us a little bit about Nobel prize winner physicist, Brian Josephson in some of his work, Brian Josephson as a physicist who has been very interested in consciousness, then psychic abilities and so on and he and I wrote a paper at one point where let me just quote, something from the paper if I may. Here's what he said about psychic phenomena. He said these phenomena seem mysterious but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas may be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these nominee into account to such concepts are those of the observer and nine locality observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics. If taken literally imply a university, it's constantly splitting separate branches only one of which corresponds property reality process of deco Herranz has been invoked to stop two branches interfering decided, but this still does not answer. The question of why our experience is one particular branch and not the other perhaps despite the unpopularity of the idea to experience the experiencers of the reality are also the selectors. We are going to take calls with Jessica next hour on remote viewing. Would you say that remote viewing is also a hunch? You know, it's really interesting remote viewing per se. So the reason I keep coming back to a broader definition is wrong doing is a pretty specified. Action. I guess you would call it where you explicitly tried to get information about a target. So I would say hunches and other intuitions example, I explained earlier about my friends. No nephew's name. And so on those anecdotes that have been rewarded reported over the centuries. Where people aren't even trying, you know, just this information just comes to them. So do you have included hunters there? Do you have these kinds of abilities yourself? I mean you've been around for years. You would think it would have rub off on you. You would think so. But no, really how come you and these experiences? I just don't have the just like I can't sing just don't seem to have the unique talent, my guess is Jessica that you have that you over think these things, and maybe that's why you blocked. That's true. I mean, it's a statistician. I'm I'm highly cognitive. Yes. It's true. Now where does this kind of research goal later? I mean, we've got some great organizations that are still out there. There's even though he's not affiliated the it's affiliated with Duke University. There's still a j b Rhine institute of the Monroe institute, there's some great places there that are keeping this going, aren't they? Oh, yes. Indeed. I think you'll probably had dean rating on your show many times many times he's got quite a research team. Now, they have I think twelve scientists. They're they're at the unit at universities in the United Kingdom. There's a lot more going on than any US. So they have most of their universe action say most many of their universities have programs in parapsychology. So there is research going on in various places around the run. I would suggest the guests that the Russians are probably still doing something. I don't think. I don't have any evidence of that. But I would guess that to they probably wanted to Hillary's emails with remote viewing. They didn't have to hack. I wouldn't be surprised. Yeah. One of the things that infuriates me in the US is that there's a small group of people who call themselves skeptics, but they're not they're deniers just like the climate change deniers, and they're out to make it sort of put a stigma on doing research in this area, which I think is really criminal. Because again, I think there's something of scientific importance here and the squash something that's fine..

Jessica George Noory US Carnegie Hall Newsradio Brian Josephson Stargate Duke University United Kingdom professor Joe McMonagle Lyndyk Taggart Nobel prize physicist Hillary dean Australia California
"brian josephson" Discussed on 600 WREC

600 WREC

01:30 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on 600 WREC

"But those. Yeah. Good. Okay. So that's where your you show, somebody a neutral or a disturbing picture, and you look at their physiology just before the picture has even been selected as being disturbing or and their physiology seems to know ahead of time, which type of picture is going to be presented tell us a little bit of I'll noble, prizewinner physicist. Brian Josephson in some of his work. Brian Josephson is a physicist who has been very interested in consciousness and psychic abilities. And so on. And he and I wrote a paper at one point where let me just quote, something from the paper if I may. Here's what he said about psychic phenomenon. He said these phenomena seem mysterious but no murmur serious perhaps than strange phenomena past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas may be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account to such concepts are those of the observer and nine locality observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics. If taken literally imply a university constantly splitting separate branches only one corresponds received reality process of deco Herranz has been invoked to stop two branches interfering me they thought this still does not answer. The question of why our experience is one particular branch and not the other perhaps despite the unpopularity of the idea the experience the experience.

Brian Josephson physicist Herranz
"brian josephson" Discussed on Mysterious Universe

Mysterious Universe

04:12 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on Mysterious Universe

"Since these programs of ended. So you know, what was your feeling with speaking to Jody Ann, how justified do you think he is in that attitude? It's not just an attitude that the Joe has I think it's an attitude that maybe some are better than hiding than others. But you know, these guys who have devoted their lives to studying a phenomenon that I mean, my own personal opinion. It's not scientific is probably the missing link in science, which is consciousness and the thing about that. Is that these are people with PHD's these are people who. Our image owes not a PHD. But he's a lifelong scientists, you know, his work and scientific laboratories doing experiments for decades and the stuff's not taken seriously. I it's belittled. I interviewed Brian Josephson who is the Nobel laureate for quantum physics for inventing quantum tunneling? Professor Morente said Cambridge. We went to Cambridge. And we interviewed him and he felt like he had been marginalized even though he had a Nobel prize simply because he'd been interested in studying psychic abilities. And as he says in in the film. It's like, you know, that's people are dealing the study without any proof that it doesn't work. It's a double edged sword. But you can't pin consciousness down. You can't just say we figured out that we flip the switch, and you get something like remote viewing to work. You know, like we anymore than you can figure out the UFO phenomenon. It's completely about the observer and the person involved in what's the mechanism? We don't. Well. I think the issue with. People that kind of very close minded about the possibilities is that once you ignore the existence of remote viewing Europe and adore the generally that won't happen. And you telling us before the show, you have a good friend who has got an atheist and doesn't believe in much. But you had this great result in you'll film, kind of changed his mind about remote viewing. But Scholley your friend now has to rethink a lot of things because if you are open to this possibility of this remote sensing this idea that the in fact, the consciousness is known local, non local and is not restrained by physics time. I mean, the dose is opens miraculously, everything changes. It does in one of his books. Jomon monocle wrote. It's one of my favorite quotes that you can't take away. Someone's worldview, we not giving them another one point. This film is going to completely rob people's worldview I've seen it. I've just seen people watch the film in walkout in this. Days of like, oh my God. I thought I knew about the world don't it's gonna I think shakeup things from that perspective. Because because I very intentionally tried not to make this film just about conspiracy about the there's so many wild things could have included in the film, which may be totally accurate. But is kinda like one unbelievable thing at a time. While also sharing the film with my mother because my mom's in town, and she would fall asleep during any kind of conspiracy Phil, but she was all over this. Phrase like really they really matched that target catch accurately. Choose the mazed. But I think that really opened my eyes to just how successful you've been with my king. This incredibly controversial subject accessible. She was blown away. Charlie tart, brilliant, author and psychologists who worked for our I, you know, told me in the interviews that he did with me that he was an enlightened skeptic in. He remains in enlightened skeptic. Everybody should be not not skeptical dogmatic way. But but skeptical in a way where you're you're open. And the ideas are out there in it's going to inform your your view of the world and make you actually a better person to look at the world in more open minded way. But so many of us is either black or white, you know, either either all real in. They're coming to get you. And you know, somebody's gonna kill you with a telepathic death rate Amaro, or it's all bunk. Well, you know what you're speaking about being? Controversial and talking about the possibility of this being real in on one person. You have come up in the film is Erie Gila, and you know, I've always had a view of him that the guy is genuine..

Charlie tart Professor Morente Jody Ann Phil Cambridge Brian Josephson Nobel prize Joe Erie Gila Amaro Europe
"brian josephson" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM

KLBJ 590AM

06:48 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM

"Todd and Don show, live and local in your home carphone and minds. No know, it just seems like just twenty four hours ago, we were sitting here looking at each other just like we're looking at each other right now saints keep happening. It's like groundhog da by thirty six. So glad you chose to join us here on the Totta, Don show, different shirts. That's all different quick programming note coming up at seven oh five mayor Steve Adler will join us. Hey, please. Please base. He's entitled to speak. Maybe we'll ask him about the political signs that say mayor Steve Adler for reelection being used for a homeless in candidate. You see that it's on our Facebook page. The Todd Don show further question homeless man using old campaign signs for mayor Adler. Yeah. To build a wall for his shelter under a bridge at one eighty three and Cameron road have never seen anything more appropriate in my life. Politicians are supposed to pick those things up, right? So maybe the mayor should make a trip under the bridge and pick it up. No, that's how the mayor's helping the homeless signs out political signs out. There is what we call affordable housing. That's how we house the homeless it done five one two eight three six zero five nine album. Saw the pictures on the title, Don show Facebook page topping the news this morning. President Trump has decided to delay. The state of the union address it until after the government is reopened rather than deliberate somewhere else. Speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi should a letter to the president to postpone our conduct the address in writing in which the president says is policies way of keeping the American people from the real truth out there. Here's the story shortly before midnight in Washington. The president tweeting shutdown was going on Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the state of the union address. I agreed. She's then changed her mind because of the shutdown suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative. I will do the address when the shutdown is over alternative sites may have been considered yet in the end. Mr. Trump decided there is no. Venues can compete with the history tradition. The importance of the house chamber. I look forward to giving your great state of the union address in the near future. Once she became speaker on January third Pelosi issued the invite though the partial shutdown was a day shy of two weeks old. But the dynamic has changed with Pelosi Democrats taking the majority unwilling to consider any specific border wall funding, let alone more than five billion the president still wants, but on January thirty it was also hard for much of political Washington to imagine the shutdown would still be going three weeks later. Now, a total of thirty four days. This is not likely to have any effect on competing cross purposes. Senate and house bills that would lead to reopening all of government Wednesday was full of back and forth as the two political leaders battled over a venue aside. Fight to the shutdown centering on border wall money that's left eight hundred thousand federal employees facing a second payday without the president had sent a letter to Pelosi first thing Wednesday. Saying he's still plans to be in the house chamber Tuesday night, though, she urged him to postpone serious unjustified concern that this president which down the government anytime. He does not get his way legislatively that is why we must hold the line on this shutdown in old-fashioned letters, but delivered instantly President Trump's morning note wasn't that within a couple of hours by a response from Pelosi saying the house would not vote on a resolution inviting him. It's really a shame. What's happening with the Democrats have become radicalized throwing in the towel. As far as the capital is concerned. The state of the union speech has been cancelled by Nancy Pelosi because she doesn't want to get the truth. She doesn't want the American public to hear what's going on. She's afraid of the truth though. Republicans control the Senate, no state of the union addresses ever been delivered there and a joint session would still require resolutions by both chambers. There have been occasional addresses to the Senate by presidents seeking favor though, the last one was Gerald Ford. Bob Costantini, Washington. It is five forty here on the Totta, Don show. Did you see the story about billionaire Michael Dell the CEO's Ron right based del technologies? Rejected a suggestion by US Representative Alexandria, Cossio Cortez of a seventy percent marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans. He says, no, I'm not supportive of that. That's what Michael Dell said he said this at the divorce panel in in Switzerland on making digital globalization inclusive. He says, I don't think will help grow the US economy. And then he said name a country where this is actually worked. Now, she may not be in divorced. But the congresswoman's influence is being felt on the slopes of the Swiss Alps a three weeks after all. Cossio cortez. The democrat from New York, she floated the idea and that sixty minutes interview to raise the top marginal tax rate Americans and their income to more than you know, if you have more than ten million dollars in income up to seventy percent, and it's a hot topic at that gathering at the global financial and political elite Dallas expanded his wealth to twelve billion dollars over the past half decade this according to Bloomberg news reshaping the company from a maker of inexpensive PC's to a very diverse. Tech powerhouse that sells products and services and software security and other things as you, no doubt. Who was now worth twenty six point five billion dollars on the Bloomberg billionaires index pulled his namesake technology empire from the public markets in two thousand thirteen engineer large acquisition and returned to you know, the stock market in December. And the shares have gained five point eight percent. All right since then now Michael Dell he goes on to say, my wife, and I set up a foundation twenty years ago, and we've contributed quite a bit more than that seventy percent tax rate of my annual income. Says I feel much more comfortable with our ability and private foundation to allocate those funds than just giving it to the government. There you go. Now on the other side of the issue was Eric Brian Josephson? He's a professor at Massachusetts Institute of technology who was on that panel with Dell suggests that the tax rates worked in the US after World War Two. So why not but other executives were opposed including well, just about every other executive was there in Switzerland for this this get together or she really thinks he's billionaires are the devil. Then she yes, she really does the top marginal tax rate thirty seven percent right now, which takes effect on income of more than five hundred and ten thousand dollars and individuals six hundred twelve thousand dollars for a married couple that according to the tax foundation k yeah, why don't you just let him do what he does and continue to create thousands of jobs and contribute all over the world box on the reason to keep going with your New Year's resolution to hit the gym a Taiwanese athletic company sports are. Art is selling gym equipment that will turn your effort into electricity..

Nancy Pelosi president President Trump Todd Don Michael Dell Steve Adler Senate US Facebook Cossio Cortez Switzerland Washington groundhog Eric Brian Josephson Don show Dell Swiss Alps carphone
"brian josephson" Discussed on ID10T with Chris Hardwick

ID10T with Chris Hardwick

03:22 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on ID10T with Chris Hardwick

"Navigate an increasingly insane world even fifty years ago. So I'm going to school fulltime, I'm working fulltime their Vietnam war riots outside my door, tanks parked outside my door. And I wasn't a druggie, and I wasn't a fanatic and a crazy person. I was just a guy wanted to make a better world. I was stressed. So there was a headed job at Swenson's ice cream part. Swanson's the best. I wanted I gave away more free ice cream. At swenson's. Actually, just sort of hearing all that like, okay, if I can't make laws I'm going to give away ice cream. I know anyway, so, but the the irony of how serendipitous nature the universe works. So I'm going to school fulltime, I'm working fulltime. And my dad wants me to work. So I'm and there was a guy there. Peter Stevens who was normal. Really good guy. Not crazy. And there was something about him. That was. Special. But you know, he was he was just there was something. We had hit an equanimity about him that I not seen in anybody else. And I I heard he transcendental meditation. It was not a word in my vocabulary. My first thought was I've enough issues with my own religion. Right. And then I talked about it. I went and her to talk the teachers that I could be one hundred percent skeptical. I thought learn it it's an hour day over four days if I don't like it a quick and one of my first experiences after I from my first meditation was, oh, this is what I'm going to teach kids. Oh, wow. So that was June twenty eighth nineteen sixty nine. So I went to finish my education and meditated. And then I heard that there was a actually I had one year left. I got credit college credit to spend five months on TM teacher, training course, sort of and with Maharishi who was great. He was a physicist by training and a great meditation teacher, and then it'd. Became a teacher. And I came back in one of the first things I did is I went to the schools in San Francisco is inner city schools, and I went to San Quentin prison I taught inmates on death row. And I also later on totted at Apple computer General Motors, but for and I just continued to teach. But always in the back of my mind was under bring this to kids so fourteen years ago, I was friends with David Lynch who's been meditating almost long as me forty plus years. I said let's start a foundation. Let's raise money. Let's bring this to kids who need it the most. And now, we got a million kids Medici when you're studying with the Maharishi, it is it because I'm sure a lot of people have this sort of very romantic idea and in their mind about what is he just a guy that you're hanging out with just having regular conversations? Great question. First of all, I was there with like thousand other people. It was like a big course from all over the world. Always there was a conference where they had. There was Maharishi and on his right? Was this fellow Brian Josephson who is a Nobel laureate in physics? Okay. And then next to him was fellow named Dr iliap regain who is a Nobel laureate in biochemistry, and then on his left was a top priest rabbi and any mom, and they were and Marsha was in the middle..

Maharishi Swenson physicist David Lynch Brian Josephson Swanson Peter Stevens General Motors San Quentin San Francisco Dr iliap Marsha one hundred percent fourteen years fifty years five months four days
"brian josephson" Discussed on KNST AM 790

KNST AM 790

03:18 min | 1 year ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on KNST AM 790

"Looks like is just like the NASA. Photograph of what was there, would you? Call remote viewing part of the ESP family. Oh, yes. The ESPN is like clairvoyance that of the when the Hindus talk about is in a Chakra. They say this is the shock grow clairvoyance. The allows you to experience what's going on in the future are in in the distance the other common part of. ESP would be precarious condition, which is seeing into the future, and telepathy, which is mind to mind connection. General basically remote viewing his clairvoyance the ability to experience and describe what's going on in a distant place. This is dramatic work. Russell it it. It truly is. And it's it's something that I think people can use in their everyday life. Isn't it? The ability to remote view to make things happen for themselves. We think you can definitely every time. You lose something. It's an opportunity to use your vote viewing or avoid an accident. And what we think is that people will have their lives changed by seeing this film because there's so many events occurring one after the other being testified to by our CIA contract monitors. Well, I may describe something, and then there's some other men in a white coat saying, yes, we were there. We were probably graft that miracle the tar describing actually happened. And and that's there's never been a film like that before where a person is sitting in the audience, as well, how do I know this is fiction answer is we have all we have. Astronaut Edgar Mitchell is there Brian Josephson, they Nobel physicist people for the NSA people from CIA, so we're very acute testimony that what we're saying really happened. And it happened the way we describe and there's never been a film like that. You're a physicist is that unusual for physicist to be a remote viewer. I I would say that's pretty unusual. What happened is that? I got to sit in the dark for ten years interviewing people about how to do remote viewing. That is I I was the man in the box with Ingo and path price or hell are whoever came through under secretary of defense came through whoever came through. I was the man who had provide the MO Jo to get the guy to feel comfortable, and then do something psychic. We're going to take a break. This is come back to talk about some of these stories and also we'll take phone calls with you in our final hour next on coast to coast AM to access the audio archives of coast to coast AM, log onto coast to coast AM dot com..

physicist CIA NASA Astronaut Edgar Mitchell ESPN under secretary of defense Ingo Russell Brian Josephson ten years
"brian josephson" Discussed on The Model Health Show

The Model Health Show

06:03 min | 2 years ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on The Model Health Show

"Here's an agreement whilst idea resonates. So all of a sudden I've got an agent who I think can really help and he's very philosophically line. He's been a huge part of this process. So I give him a lot of credit for it. So that's the real. That's the story behind it. And now the book comes out October ninth. Awesome. And I'm super happy for you and going through this process. And by the way, book deals in, this doesn't usually happy happy like this by the way which you know this now, but at the time you're saying, okay, just get leery agent. Now, a lot of these folks not even trying to talk to you, you know, but that just speaks to the that speaks volumes about the quality and content of what you wrote. Because as you mentioned, there's research from Princeton this. There's research research from the US government that is just like, when you start to look at this data, it just it starts to change of paradigm. And I can see why you have to learn kind of live again in the way that you're thinking perception. And by the way. Really quickly. You mentioned something and folks asking those different questions, and that's what is really about. And that's why I wanted to have you on because I want us to question everything. I want us to have the audacity to ask questions in and not to just accept assumptions that oftentimes are actually not correct, or if anything they have big gaps in them, you know? Yeah, totally. And that's the way I wrote the book. Hopefully it's just to expose people to the evidence, and people can take that evidence. However, they want it's just a matter of knowing that these things exist and then reconciling it with some worldview. What happened to me was after looking at this enough and talking to the scientists which I've done, I have my own podcast coming out where I interview people like dean raid, and Larry dossey Nobel prize winner, Brian Josephson who's into the stuff here enough of it, and I had to shift my worldview. So I'm hoping this podcast exposes people to new things. So with that said, let's kind of dive in and look at some of the signs and just the fundamental premise about what our science is based on is something called material. Mm-hmm. And so let's talk about the big issue just right out of the gate with materialism. Yeah. So materialism is the basic thinking that underlies most of modern thought, especially in the west. And the idea is this that thirteen point eight billion years ago. There was a big bang and it filled the universe with matter. And when I say matter, I mean like atoms physical stuff. When you have enough physical stuff in a big universe, you're bound to get interactions between those atoms. We call that chemistry. When you have enough random chemical interactions, you're bound to end up with a self replicating molecule after enough random, you know, you're, you're bound to get that like DNA and DNA as we know is is very critical to the evolution of human beings and human beings evolved to have brains and from the brain consciousness pops out. So materialism says, we start with matter, we end up with consciousness. This is the big kicker that I didn't know was a kicker at the time. We have no idea how. That chain of events happens, especially the step of the brain, creating consciousness. We don't know how that could happen. Science magazine had has called this question the number two question remaining in all of science, the way they put it is what is the biological basis of consciousness. So what does that mean in layman's terms? If I asked listeners right now to touch your arm, easy to do, you can touch your leg, easy, touch your head. Now, touch your mind. Where is it right? So this this is framing the question. How is it that a physical body that you can touch just proved it? How does it produce this non-physical consciousness or mind or awareness that we can't touch? That's the big question. We don't know what the biological basis for consciousness is. So that's what my book explores number one. And I think perhaps most importantly exposes to people that this is a question and a huge question that affects our existence. I mean, think about how many advances we haven't science sending people to the moon, genetically modifying biological organisms building smartphones, but we still don't know how a brain could produce our mind. In other words, we don't know where our own mind comes from. So this is the big question that I look at what I argue in my book. Oh, before you do that? I think a good exercise too, because I think a big thing as because our is our Senator in our heads, right? And we're taking this data through our eyes and also, you know, our ears and these other strong sense. Ses. We tend to think that we live up here, but what would happen if we move our is down. Right? That's a great point. We might have a different perspective on where are our perceptions are coming from what if our eyes were at our at our knees in our ears? And I talked about this had been chapter to my book. That's part of the reason we're anchored to thinking that the brain produces consciousness. There's another reason which is that we know there are strong correlations between brain activity and the nature of conscious experience. So let's say someone gets into a car accident and that person hurts the part of her brain responsible for vision and she has vision problems afterwards. We can say, oh, well, obviously the brain is causing her conscious experience because we affect the brain and her conscious experiences affected proportionately. The problem with that reasoning is we can't know just because two things are related. That one causes the other in statistics. We, it said, correlation does not imply causation. It's equally possible that there's another explanation. So if we think about before we get to the explanation. The problem with that reasoning. And I talked about this in my book from Dr Bernardo Castro. Imagine you have a large fire. You'll have lots of firefighters that show up and you haven't even larger fire and more firefighters show up strong correlation between the number of firefighters and the size of the fire. Do we conclude that the firefighters caused the fire just because they're both occurring at the same time so that just shows the potential air. I'm not saying it proves anything, but we just have to be mindful. We know there's a correlation between the brain and consciousness. Does the brain produce it. So that's, you know, there are reasons that we think that the brain could produce consciousness. But the problem

US Dr Bernardo Castro Princeton Science magazine Senator Brian Josephson dean Larry dossey Nobel eight billion years
"brian josephson" Discussed on WBSM 1420

WBSM 1420

02:24 min | 3 years ago

"brian josephson" Discussed on WBSM 1420

"But jerry which every summer oh my god what patrick see that there's been some people who have some plus use that some adjustments scientists who have gone behind this leka dr brian josephson over in the uk who has a nobel prizewinning physicist who has spent years researching at the normal you have guys like neil digress tyson who are pop culture scientists that now they're the ones that people listen to little he's kind of flipflopped a little bit about that in the past of briefly accepts the people are having these experiences on these other action ghosts are dead people slippery know enough of that window maybe it's enough to kind of get other people to believe that magnesium my my usual one of my usual colours who's not here tonight he's a chemist and he said that the biggest reason why science whenever recognize the enormous because the head of the money off at the picks legitimate what are the guys what scientist you left out was interpol's well i'm convinced that big exists good for him i want more people in a position to go out there try training people in the left that's where i write about things like that at a the repairable realm the real it his peruvian problem but i mean do we really need science to back it up if enough people have been experiencing enough is enough people that are having these these incidents are not reporting the people that we genuinely believe do we really need science to come down and say okay now we buy into it before we can say right this this is a legitimate phenomenon i mean look at an enormous political at all but just look at the way that the government is operating these days where it doesn't it no longer takes congress approving something for it to happen and no longer takes congress being behind something for it to become the new reality so maybe.

jerry patrick dr brian josephson uk physicist neil digress tyson interpol congress scientist