"What the Bleep Do We Know!?" (2004)
| 1 | TEXT:
In the beginning was the Void
Teeming with infinite possibilities
Of which you
Are One... |
| 2 | SOUND MONTAGE:
supreme mind... neural net... emotional response... the brain does not know the difference between what it sees in its environment and what it remembers... we are running the holodeck... whatever way we observe the world around us... how can you continue to see the world as real, if the self that is determining it to be real is intangible? |
| 3 | Are all realities existing simultaneously? |
| 4 | Is there a possibility that all the futures exist side by side? |
| 5 | Have you ever seen yourself through the eyes of someone else that you have become? |
| 6 | And looked at yourself through the eyes of the ultimate observer? |
| 7 | Miceal Ledwith: Who are we? Where do we come from? What should we do? And where are we going? |
| 8 | Stuart Hameroff: Why are we here? Well, that is the ultimate question, isn't it? |
| 9 | Ramtha: What is reality? |
| 10 | Fred Alan Wolf: What I thought was unreal, now, for me, seems in some ways to be more real than what I think to be real; which seems now more to be unreal. |
| 11 | Jeffrey Satinover: You can't explain it...uh and anybody who gets too lost... anybody who spends too much time trying to explain it is likely to get lost forever down the rabbit hole of mysteriousness. |
| 12 | Stuart Hameroff: I think the more you look at quantum physics, the more mysterious and wondrous it becomes. |
| 13 | Amit Goswami: Quantum physics, very succinctly speaking, is a physics of possibilities. |
| 14 | David Albert: These are addressing questions of how the world feels to us. Of whether there's a difference between the way the world feels to us and the way it really is. |
| 15 | John Hagelin: Have you ever thought about what thoughts are made of? |
| 16 | Candace Pert: I think some of the things we're seeing with the children today is a sign that the culture is in the wrong paradigm, and not appreciating the power of thought. |
| 17 | John Hagelin: Every age, every generation, has its own built-in assumptions: that the world is flat; that the world is round; etc. There are hundreds of hidden assumptions, things we take for granted that may or may not be true. Of course in the vast majority of cases historically, these things *aren't* true. So presumably, if history's any guide, much about what we take for granted about the world simply isn't true. But we're locked into these precepts without even knowing it, oftentimes. That's a paradigm. |
| 18 | Jeffrey Satinover: Modern materialism strips people of the need to feel responsible. And often enough, so does religion. But I think if you take quantum mechanics seriously enough, it puts the responsibility squarely in your lap, and it doesn't give answers that are clear-cut, and... comforting. It says yes, the world is a very big place, it's very mysterious. Mechnanism is not the answer, but I'm not going to tell you what the answer is. Because you're old enough to decide for yourself. |
| 19 | Ramtha: Is everyone a mystery? Is everyone an enigma? They most certainly are. |
| 20 | Fred Alan Wolf: Asking yourself these deeper questions opens up new ways of being in the world; it brings in a breath of fresh air. It makes life more joyful. The real trick to life is not to be in the know, but be in the mystery. |
| 22 | Narr: Why do we keep recreating the same reality? Why do we keep having the same relationships? Why do we keep getting the same jobs over and over again? In this infinite sea of potentials that exists around us, how come we keep recreating the same realities? Isn't it amazing that we have options and potentials that exist, but we're unaware of them? Is it possible that we're so conditioned to our daily lives, so conditioned to the way we create our lives, that we buy the idea that we have no control at all. We've been conditioned to believe that the external world is more real than the internal world. This new model of science says just the opposite. It says what's happening within us will create what's happening outside of us. |
| 23 | Jeffrey Satinover: There's a physical reality that is absolutely rock-solid, and yet... it only comes into existence when it bumps up against some other piece of physical reality. That other piece may be us; and of course we're partial to those moments; but it doesn't have to be either. You know... It could be just some incidental... uh... rock, comes flying along and interacts with this fuzzy mass of stuff... and... sure enough, it provokes it into a particular state of existence. |
| 24 | Andrew B. Newberg: And there were philosophers in the past that said look, if I kick a rock, and I hurt my toe, that's real. You know, I feel that, it feels real, it's vivid, and that means it's reality. But it's still an experience, and it's still this person's perception of it being real. |
| 25 | Joe Dispenza: Scientific experiments have shown that if we take a person and hook their brains up to certain PET scans or computer technology, and ask them to look at a certain object. And they watched certain areas of the brain light up. And then they've asked them to close their eyes, and now imagine that same object. And when they imagined that same object, it produced the same areas of the brain to light up as if they were actually looking at it. So it caused scientists to back up and ask this question: So who sees, then? Does the brain see? Or do the eyes see? And what is reality? Is reality what we're seeing with our brain, or is reality what we're seeing with our eyes? And the truth is, is that the brain does not know the difference between what it sees in its environment, and what it remembers, because the same specific neural nets are then firing. So then it asks the question, what is reality? |
| 26 | ??: We're bombarded by huge amounts of information. And it's coming into our body and we're processing it; coming in through our sense organs; and it's percolating up and up, and at each step, we're eliminating information. And finally what is bubbling up to consciousness is the one that's the most self-serving. |
| 27 | ??: The brain processes 400 billion bits of information a second, but we're only aware of 2000 of those. But our awareness of those 2000 bits of information are just about the environment, our body, and about time. |
| 28 | Narr: We're living in a world where all we see is the tip of an iceberg. The classical tip of an immense quantum-mechanical iceberg. |
| 30 | ??: If the brain is processing 400 billion bits of information, and our awareness is only on 2000, that means reality is happening in the brain all the time; it's receiving that information, and yet we haven't integrated it. |
| 31 | Ramtha: The eyes are like the lens. But the tape that's really seeing is at the back of the brain. It's called the visual cortex; it's right back here, it's like this camera and its tape. Did you know that the brain imprints what it has the ability to see? This is important. For example, this camera is seeing a lot more around me than what is here. Because it has no objection and no judgment. |
| 32 | The only movie that's playing in the brain is what we have the ability to see. So is it possible our eyes, our cameras, see more than what our brain has the ability to consciously project? |
| 33 | Candace Pert: Well, the way our brain is wired up, we only see what we believe is possible. We match patterns that already exist within ourselves, through conditioning. So, a wonderful story that I believe is true, is that when the Indians -- the native American Indians -- on the Caribbean islands saw Columbus's ships approaching, they couldn't see them at all. Because it was so unlike anything they had ever seen before, they couldn't see it. |
| 34 | Narr: When Columbus's armada landed in the Caribbean, none of the natives were able to see the ships, even though they existed on the horizon. The reason that they never saw the ships was because they had no knowledge in their brains, or no experience, that clipper ships existed. So the shaman starts to notice that there's ripples out in the ocean but he sees no ship; but he starts to wonder what's causing the effect. So everyday, he goes out and looks, and looks, and looks and after a period of time, he's able to see the ships. And once he sees the ships, he tells everybody else that ships exist out there; and because everybody trusted and believed in him, they saw them also. |
| 35 | We create reality... we're reality producing machines. We create the effects of reality all the time. |
| 36 | Amit Goswami: We always perceive something after reflection in the middle of memory. |
| 37 | Andrew B. Newberg: As far as whether or not we're just living in a big holodeck or not, it's a question that we don't necessarily have a good answer to; I think this is a big philosophical problem that we have to deal with in terms of what science can say about our world, because we are always the observer in science. So we are still always constrained by what is ultimately coming in to the human brain, that allows us to see and perceive the things that we do. So it is conceivable that all of this really is just a great illusion that we have no way of really getting outside of, to see what is really out there. |
| 38 | Joe Dispenza: Your brain doesn't know the difference between what's taking place out there, and what's taking place in here. |
| 39 | Fred Alan Wolf: There is no "out there" out there, independent of what's going on in here. |
| 41 | ??: There actually are choices in the direction of how a life can go, that are contingent upon small-level quantum effects not being washed out. |
| 42 | Fred Alan Wolf: First of all, let's talk about the subatomic world; and then we'll talk about what it's telling us about reality. The first thing I wanna tell you about the subatomic world is it's totally a fantasy created by mad physicists trying to figure out what the heck is going on when they do these little experiments. By "little experiments" I mean big energy in little spaces, and little pieces of time. It gets pretty nutty at that realm of things -- and so subatomic physics was invented to try to figure that all out. We need a new science down there; it's called quantum physics, and it is subject to a whole range of debatable hypotheses, thoughts, feelings, intuitions as to what the heck is really going on. |
| 43 | Jeffrey Satinover: Matter is not what we have long thought it to be. To the scientist, matter has always been thought of as the ultimate in that which is static and predictable. |
| 44 | William Tiller: Within all the atoms and molecules... all the space within them, the particles take up an insignificant amount of the volume of an atom or molecule -- the fundamental particles -- the rest of it is vacuum. |
| 45 | Fred Alan Wolf: What seems to happen is that particles appear and disappear all the time -- but where do they go when they're not here. Now, that question is tricky. I'm gonna give you two answers. Answer #1: they go into an alternative universe, where the people in that universe are asking the same question about those particles when they come into our universe. They say, "where do they go?" |
| 46 | David Albert: There's a great mystery, called the mystery of the direction of time. There's a certain sense in which the fundamental laws of physics that we have don't make any interesting distinction between past and future. For example, it's a puzzle, from the standpoint of the fundamental laws of physics, why we should be able to remember the past, and not have the same kind of epistemic access to the future. It's a puzzle, from the standpoint of these laws, why we should think something like, "by acting now, we can affect the future but not the past". These things, that we have a different kind of epistemic access to the past than the future, that we have a different kind of control by acting now over the future than we do over the past -- these things are so fundamental to the way we experience the world, that it seems to me that to not be curious about them is to be three-quarters of the way to being dead. |
| 48 | Stuart Hameroff: In fact the universe is mostly empty. |
| 49 | Jeffrey Satinover: We like to think of space as empty and matter as solid. But in fact, there is essentially nothing to matter whatsoever -- it's completely insubstantial. Take a look at an atom. We think of it as a kind of hard ball. Then we say, oh well, no, not really, it's this little tiny point of really dense matter right at the center, surrounded by a kind of fluffy probability cloud of electrons popping in and out of existence. But then it turns out that that's not even right -- even the nucleus, which we think of as so dense, pops in and out of existence just as readily as the electrons do. The most solid thing you can say about all this insubstantial matter is that it's more like a thought, it's like a concentrated bit of information. |
| 50 | Fred Alan Wolf: What makes up things are not more things; but what makes up things are ideas, concepts, information. |
| 52 | Stuart Hameroff: It's only in conscious experience that it seems that we move forward in time. In quantum theory you can also go backwards in time. |
| 54 | Fred Alan Wolf: When you ain't looking, it's like a wave; when you are looking it's like a particle. |
| 55 | Amit Goswami: When you are not looking, there are waves of possibility. When we are looking, then there are particles of experience. |
| 56 | Jeffrey Satinover: A particle, which we think of as a solid thing, really exists in a so-called superposition: a spread-out wave of possible locations, and it's in all of those at once. The instant you check on it, it snaps into just one of those possible positions. |
| 57 | Stuart Hameroff: Quantum superposition implies that a particle could be in two or more places or states simultaneously. And this is a very bizarre concept, and one of the hallmarks of the quantum world. |
| 58 | [story: boy says, "The question is, how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?"] |
| 59 | Stuart Hameroff: How can a system, or an object, be in two or more states at the same time? |
| 60 | Amit Goswami: It's very interesting. Instead of thinking of things as things, we all have the habit of thinking that everything around us is already a thing, existing without my input, without my choice. You have to banish that kind of thinking -- instead, you really have to recognize that even the material world around us -- the chairs, the tables, the rooms, the carpet, camera included -- all of these are nothing but possible movements of consciousness. And I am choosing moment to moment, out of those movements, to bring my actual experience into manifestation. This is the only radical thinking that we need to do. But it is so radical, it's so difficult, because our tendency is that the world is already out there, independent of my experience. It is not; quantum physics has been so clear about it. Heisenberg himself, co-discoverer of quantum physics, said atoms are not things. They're only tendencies. So, instead of thinking of things, we have to think of possibilities. They're all possibilities of consciousness. |
| 61 | Jeffrey Satinover: You now can see, in numerous labs across the United States, objects that are large enough to be seen by the naked eye,... and they are in two places simultaneously. You can actually take a photograph of them. Now, I suppose if you showed a photograph, they'd say, oh -- great, here's this nice blob of colored light... so you've got a picture of two dots -- what's the big deal? And you say, well look -- look -- but look right in the chamber -- you can see it right there. And they're like, oh, you know I see two things there. You say, no, no, no -- that's not two things, that's one thing, it's the same thing in two places. I'm not sure that people's jaw would drop about it, because I think -- I don't think people really believe it. I don't mean that people say, oh, you're lying. Or, oh the scientists are confused. I think it is so mysterious that you can't even understand how amazing it is. And then furthermore, you know, you've seen Star Trek and whatnot -- "beam me up Scotty" -- so it all seems sort of, oh well, you know, what does that really mean? But you've gotta really stop and think about what that means, that it's the same object and it's in two places at once. People tinker in the lab, and they get angry about things, and they have lunch, and they go home, and they lead their lives, just as though nothing utterly astounding has happened, because of course, that's how you have to go about it. And yet there's this completely amazing magic sitting right in front of your eyes. |
| 62 | Amit Goswami: Quantum physics calculates only possibilities. But if we accept this, then the question immediately comes, who, what, chooses among these possibilities to bring the actual event of experience? So we directly, immediately, see that consciousness must be involved. The observer cannot be ignored. |
| 63 | Fred Alan Wolf: We know what an observer, from the point of view of quantum physics; but we don't know who or what the observer actually is. It doesn't mean we haven't tried to find an answer. We've looked; we've gone inside of your head, we've gone into every orifice you have, to find something called an observer. And there's nobody home -- there's nobody in the brain. There's nobody in the cortical regions of the brain. There's nobody in the sub-cortical regions or the limbic regions of the brain; there's nobody there called an observer. And yet we all have this experience of being something called an observer, observing the world out there. |
| 64 | Ramtha: Is this the observer, which is so intricate to understanding the wacky, weird world of quantum particles, and how they react? Is this, then, the observer? |
| 65 | William Tiller: In my modeling, the observer is the spirit inside the four-layered bio-body suit. And so, it's like the "ghost in the machine". It is the consciousness that's driving the vehicle. And it is observing the surround. The four layers of the bio-body suit have all kinds of sensory systems to pick up signatures from the surround. |
| 66 | John Hagelin: In Washington, D.C., the so-called "murder capital of the world", there was a big experiment in the summer of 1993, where 4000 voluteers came from 100 countries, to collectively meditate for long periods of time throughout the day. It was predicted in advance, that with such a sized group, you'd have a 25% drop in violent crime, as defined by the FBI, in Washington that summer. Well, the chief of police went on television saying that, look, it's gonna take two feet of snow to reduce crime in Washington D.C. by 25% this summer. But by the end, the police department became a collaborator, an author, of this study, because the results, in fact, showed a 25% drop in violent crime in Washington D.C. -- we could predict on the basis of 48 previous studies that had already been done on a smaller scale. |
| 67 | Fred Alan Wolf: This leads naturally to wonder, are people affecting the world of reality that they see? You betcha they are! Every single one of us affects the reality that we see, even if we try to hide from that and play victim. We all are doing it. |
| 68 | [story: tour guide:
Mr. Emoto became terribly interested in the molecular structure of water, and what affects it. Now water is the most receptive of the four elements. Mr. Emoto thought perhaps it would respond to non-physical events; so he set up a series of studies, applied mental stimuli, and photographed it with a dark-field microscope. This 1st picture is a picture of water from the Fujiwara dam. And this picture is the same water after receiving a blessing from a Zen Buddhist monk. Now in this next series of pictures, Mr. Emoto printed out words, taped them to bottles of distilled water, and left them out overnight. This first photograph is a picture of the pure distilled water, thus the essence of itself. These subsequent photographs, as you can see, are each different -- this is the "chi of love", and we move along here to "thank you" -- and you can see where he taped that to this bottle here. But if you read Japanese you already knew that. Now Mr. Emoto speaks of the thought or intent being the driving force in all of this. The science of how that actually affects the molecules is unknown -- except to the water molecules, of course. And it's really fascinating when you keep in mind that 90% of our bodies are water. |
| 69 | Man: Makes you wonder doesn't it? If thoughts could do that to water, imagine what our thoughts could do to us.] |
| 70 | Candace Pert: Absolutely, thought alone can completely change the body. |
| 71 | William Tiller: Most people don't affect reality in a consistent, substantial way, because they don't believe they can. They write an intention, and then they erase it because they think, that's silly -- I can't do that. And then they write it again, and then they erase it. So time-averaged, it's a very small effect. And, it really comes down to the fact that they believe they can't do it. |
| 72 | Miceal Ledwith: If you accept with every rudiment of your being that you will walk on water, will it happen? Yes, it will! But you know, it's like positive thinking -- it's a wonderful idea, positive thinking. But what it usually means is that I have a little smear of positive thinking, covering a whole mass of negative thinking. So thinking positive is not really thinking positive, it's just disguising the negative thinking that we have. |
| 73 | Amit Goswami: When we think of things, we make the reality more concrete than it is. And that's why we become stuck. We become stuck in the sameness of reality, because if reality is concrete, obviously I'm insignificant; I cannot really change it. But if reality is my possibility, the possibility of consciousness itself, then immediately comes the question of how can I change it, how can I make it better, how can I make it happier? You see how we are extending the image of ourselves? In the old thinking, I cannot change anything, because I don't have any role in reality; reality is already there. It's material objects moving in their own way from deterministic laws. And mathematics determines what they will do in a given situation. I, the experiencer, have no role at all. In the new view, yes, mathematics can give us something -- it gives us the possibilities that all these movements can assume -- but it cannot give us the actual experience that I'll be having in my consciousness. I choose that experience. And therefore, literally, I create my own reality. It may sound like a tremendous, bombastic claim by some New Agey without any understanding of physics whatsoever -- but really quantum physics is telling us that. |
| 75 | Man: It makes you wonder doesn't it? If thoughts could do that to water, imagine what our thoughts could do to us. |
| 76 | Ramtha: Are all realities in the quantum field existing simultaneously?] |
| 77 | John Hagelin: There are literally different worlds in which we live. There's the macroscopic world that we see; there's the world of our cells; there's the world of our atoms; the world of our nuclei. These are each totally different worlds: they have their own language; they have their own mathematics, they're not just [??] Each is totally different. But they're complementary. Because I am my atoms. But I am also my cells. I'm also my macroscopic physiology. It's all true -- they're just different levels of truth. The deepest level of truth uncovered by science, and by philosophy, is the fundamental truth of unity. At that deepest, sub-nuclear level of our reality, you and I are literally one. |
| 78 | Joe Dispenza: I wake up in the morning and I consciously create my day the way I want it to happen. Now sometimes, because my mind is examining all the things that I need to get done, it takes me a little bit to settle down and get to the point of where I'm actually intentionally creating my day. But here's the thing: When I create my day, and out of nowhere little things happen that are so unexplainable, I know that they are the process or the result of my creation. And the more I do that, the more I build a neural net in my brain that I accept that that's possible. (This) gives me the power and the incentive to do it the next day. |
| 79 | Ramtha: In addiction, we have a supreme, beautiful opportunity to decipher the difference between uh, intangibility of our nobleness of character, and the day-to-day business of how that character is revealed, in a three-dimensional world, through our bodies. And what we will learn is that addiction is the feeling of a chemical rush that has cascaded through the bodies through a whole assortment of glands and ductless glands, and through the spinal fluid. The feeling that some would call a sexual fantasy. It only takes one sexual fantasy for a man to have a hard-on. In other words it only takes one thought here [points at head] for a man to have an erection in his member. And yet, there was nothing outside of him that gave him that. It was what was within him that gave him that. |
| 81 | William Tiller: When I was younger, I had lots of ideas about what God was. And now I realize I'm not conscious enough to truly understand what that concept means. |
| 82 | Miceal Ledwith: That I am at one with the great Being that made me, and brought me here, and that formed the galaxies and the universes, etc. How did that get taken out of religion? It was not hard. Most of the problems that religion and various philosophical movements down through the centuries have produced have been errors because that's where they started -- that God is a distinct, separate being from us. To whom I must offer worship, whom I must cultivate, humor, please, and hope to attain a reward from at the very end of my life. That is not what God is; that is a blasphemy. |
| 83 | David Albert: God is such a broad thing. Most of the parts of which, that are associated with organized religion, is something that I sort of recoil at, something that I think has done a lot of harm to the world. Done harm to women; done harm to oppressed peoples; done harm to the World Trade Center. |
| 84 | Ramtha: And yet, at the same point, we have the epitome of a great science. The closest science has ever come to explaining Jesus's terpetition[?] that the mustard seed was larger than the kingdom of heaven. And the only science that can fit into that analogy is quantum physics. |
| 85 | Now, we have great technology, from antigravity magnets, and magnetic fields of zero point energy... we have all that, and we still have this ugly, superstitious, backwater concept of God. |
| 86 | Miceal Ledwith: People fall into line very readily when they're threatened by these cosmic sentences of everlasting punishment. But this is not how God is; and once you start to question the traditional images -- caricatures -- of God, people feel you're an agnostic or an atheist; or a subverter of the social order. |
| 87 | Ramtha: God must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses. And indeed, the greatness of human skill; the God must even transcend -- a most remarkable to emulate Nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such a greatness of mind? How can any one little carbon unit, on Earth, in the backwaters of, indeed, the Milky Way -- the boondocks -- betray God almighty? That is impossible. The height of arrogance is the height of control of those who create God in their own image. |
| 89 | Ramtha: The brain, when it fires its thoughts, is likened unto the landscape of a thundercloud. And the synaptic cleft is the sky between the storm and the earth -- the earth receptor site. And you see this foreboding, dark cloud boiling in the sky. And you see electrical impulses moving through it in veins of electric light. And then you see it hit the ground. The brain looks like a thunderstorm when it is presenting a coherent thought. So no one has ever seen the thought. What they do see in neural physics, is that they see a storm raging around different quadrants of the brain. Those are areas that are mapped in the body, and what the person must be responding to -- a holographic image. Rage, murder, hate, compassion, love. |
| 90 | Joe Dispenza: The brain does not know the difference between what it sees in its environment and what it remembers, because the same specific neural nets are then firing. |
| 91 | Narr: The brain is made up of tiny nerve cells called neurons. These neurons have tiny branches that reach out and connect to other neurons to form a neural net. Each place where they connect is incubated into a thought or a memory. Now the brain builds up all its concepts by the law of associative memory. For example, ideas, thoughts and feelings are all constructed and interconnected in this neural net, and all have a possible relationship with one another. The concept and the feeling of love, for instance, is stored in this vast neural net. But we build the concept of love from many other different ideas. Some people have love connected to disappointment. When they think about love, they experience the memory of pain, sorrow, anger and even rage. Rage may be linked to hurt, which may be linked to a specific person, which then is connected back to love. |
| 92 | Daniel Monti: We build up models of how we see the world outside of us. And the more information that we have, the more we refine our model one way or another. And, what we ultimately do is tell ourselves a story about what the outside world is. Any information that we process -- any information that we take in from the environment -- is always colored by the experiences that we've had, and an emotional response to that we're having to what we're bringing in. |
| 93 | Joe Dispenza: Who is in the driver's seat when we control our emotions, or when we respond to our emotions? We know physiologically that nerve cells that fire together, wire together. If you practice something over and over again, those nerve cells have a long term relationship. If you get angry on a daily basis, if you get frustrated on a daily basis, if you suffer on a daily basis, if you give reasons for the victimization in your life, you're rewiring and reintegrating that neural net on a daily basis. And that neural net now has a long-term relationship with all those other nerve cells -- called an identity. We also know that nerve cells that don't fire together no longer wire together. They lose their long-term relationship -- because every time we interrupt the thought process that produces a chemical response in the body -- every time we interrupt it, those nerve cells that are paired to each other start breaking the long-term relationship. When we start interrupting, and observing -- not by stimulus and response in that automatic reaction, but by observing the effects it takes -- then we are no longer the body-mind conscious emotional person that's responding to its environment as if it is automatic. |
| 94 | Does that mean that emotions are good, or emotions are bad? No, emotions are designed so that it reinforces chemically something in the long-term memory -- that's why we have them. |
| 95 | Ramtha: All emotion is, is holographically imprinted chemicals. |
| 96 | John Hagelin: The most sophisticated pharmacy in the universe is in here. |
| 97 | Joe Dispenza: There's a part of the brain called the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is like a little mini factory. And it is a place that assembles certain chemicals that matches certain emotions that we experience. Those particular chemicals are called peptides -- they're small-chain amino acid sequences. The body's basically a carbon unit that makes about 20 different amino acids -- all together to formulate its physical structure. The body is a protein producing machine. In the hypothalamus, we take small-chain proteins called peptides, and we assemble them into certain neuro-peptides, or neuro-hormones, that match the emotional states that we experience on a daily basis. So there's chemicals for anger, and there's chemicals for sadness, and there's chemicals for victimization. There's chemicals for lust. There's a chemical that matches every emotional state that we experience. And the moment that we experience that emotional state, in our body, or in our brain, that hypothalamus will immediately assemble the peptide. It then releases it through the pituitary into the bloodstream. The moment it makes it into the bloodstream, it finds its way into different centers or different parts of the body. Now, every single cell in the body has these receptors on the outside. |
| 98 | Candace Pert: One cell can have thousands of receptors, studding its surface, kind of opening up to the outside world. And when a peptide docks on a cell, it literally, like a key going into a lock, sits on the receptor's surface, and attaches to it, and kind of moves the receptor, kind of like a doorbell, buzzing. It sends a signal into the cell. |
| 99 | ??: What happens in adulthood is that most of us, who've had our glitches along the way, are operating in an emotionally detached place, or we're operating as if today were yesterday. In either the disconnected or the overly emotional reactive place, because they've gone to an earlier time in reality, the person is not operating as an integrated whole. |
| 100 | Joe Dispenza: Along the outside of the cell are these billions of receptor sites -- they're really just receivers of incoming information. |
| 101 | Candace Pert: A receptor that has a peptide sitting in it changes the cell in many ways. It sets off a whole cascade of biochemical events, some of which wind up with changes in the actual nucleus of the cell. |
| 102 | Each cell is definitely alive, and each cell has a consciousness, particularly if we define consciousness as the point of view of an observer. There is always the perspective of the cell. In fact, the cell is the smallest unit of consciousness in the body. |
| 103 | Joe Dispenza: Well my definition of an addiction is something really simple: something that you can't stop. |
| 104 | Narr: We bring to ourselves situations that will fulfill the biochemical craving of the cells of our body, by creating situations that meet our chemical need. |
| 105 | Joe Dispenza: An addict will always need a little bit more in order to get a rush or a high of what they're looking for chemically. So my definition really means that if you can't control your emotional state, you must be addicted to it. |
| 106 | Ramtha: So how can anyone really say they're in love -- with a specific person, for example? They're only "in love" with the anticipation of the emotions they're addicted to. Because the same person could fall out of favor the next week by not complying. My goodness, doesn't that change the landscape of our emotional outlook on personal needs and identities. |
| 108 | Candace Pert: We are emotions, and emotions are us. Again, I can't separate emotions. When you consider that every aspect of your digestion, every sphincter that opens and closes, every group of cells that come in for nourishment and then moves out, to heal something or repair something, those are all under the influence of the molecules of emotion. I mean, it's this total buzz. |
| 109 | So you ask if emotions are bad. Emotions are not bad, they're life. They color the richness of our experience. It's our addiction that's the problem. |
| 110 | The thing that most people don't realize is that when they understand that they are addicted to emotions, it's not just psychological; it's biochemical. Think about this; heroin uses the same receptor mechanisms on the cells that our emotional chemicals use. It's easy to see then that if we can be addicted to heroin, then we can be addicted to any neural peptide -- any emotion. |
| 111 | Candace Pert: The relevant search command that's going is related to finding a certain emotional state. I mean, we can't even direct our eyes without having an emotional aspect to it. |
| 112 | Ramtha: Well. What about people who are addicted to sex? |
| 114 | Candace Pert: Our mind literally creates our body. |
| 115 | Joe Dispenza: So it all starts in the cell. The cell is a protein-producing machine. But it gets its signal from the brain. |
| 116 | Candace Pert: One of the things about receptors is they change in their sensitivity. If a given receptor, for a given drug or internal juice, is being bombarded for a long time at a high intensity, it will literally shrink up; it will be less of them, or it will be hooked up in such a way that it is desensitized, or down-regulated. So the same amount of drug or internal juice will elicit a much smaller response. |
| 117 | Joe Dispenza: If they're bombarding the cell with the same attitude and the same chemistry, over and over again on a daily basis, when that cell finally decides to divide, when it produces a sister cell or a daughter cell, that next cell will have more receptor sites for those particular emotional neuro-peptides, and less receptor sites for vitamins, minerals, nutrients, fluid exchange, or even the release of waste products or toxins. Now all aging is the result of improper protein production. What happens when we age? Our skin gets... loses elasticity -- well elastin is a protein. What happens to our enzymes? We don't digest as well. What happens to our sinovial fluid? Those are proteins that become brittle and stiff. What happens to our bones? They become thin. So all aging is the result of improper protein production. So then the question arises, does it really matter what we eat? Does nutrition really have an effect, if the cell doesn't even have the receptor sites, after 20 years of emotional abuse, to even receive, or let in, the nutrients that are necessary for its health. |
| 118 | William Tiller: OK, guys, it's time for a course correction. On our trajectory along the path of our adventure. And that course correction is the movement to a new paradigm. It's just an expansion of the old. Just says the universe is larger than we thought it was, in our modeling. And it's always larger than we think it is. |
| 119 | Ramtha: No one has ever came along, and ever given you sufficient, intelligent knowledge about your beautiful self. How you work from the inside out. Why do you have addictions? Because you have nothing better. You have dreamt of nothing better; because no one has ever taught you how to dream better. Do you think that you're bad? I don't think you're bad. Do I think you're good? I don't think you're good either. I think you're God. |
| 120 | Jeffrey Satinover: In general, the field of psychiatry really doesn't allow for enough freedom of action on people's part, meaning an awful lot of problems -- not all of them, to be sure -- but there are an awful lot of problems that get labeled as psychological problems really amount to people making rotten choices. And they oughta be instructed to make different ones. |
| 121 | Joe Dispenza: When I talk about we disappearing, I don't mean that we physically disappear. What I mean is, is that we move out of the area of the brain that has to do with our personality, that has to do with our association to people, our association of places, our association to things, and times and events. We don't exist in the associative centers in our brain that reaffirms our identity; it reaffirms our personality. |
| 122 | For the average person in the world, who lives life and considers their life boring, or uninspiring, it's because they've made no attempt to gain knowledge and information that will inspire them. They're so hypnotized by their environment, through the media, through television, through people living and creating ideals that everybody struggles to become, that no one can actually become in terms of physical appearance and definitions of beauty and valor, that are all illusions, that most people surrender and live their life in mediocrisy. And they may live that life and the soul may never really... their desire may never really rise to the surface, so they may want to be something else. But if it does rise to the surface, and they ask themselves if there is something more, or why am I here? what is the purpose of life? where am I going? what happens when I die? When they start to ask those questions, they start to flirt and interact with the perception that they may be having a nervous breakdown. And in reality, what they're doing is that their old concepts of how they viewed their life in the world start to fall apart. |
| 123 | We're in completely new territory in our brain. And because we're in completely new territory, we're rewiring the brain -- literally reconnecting to a new concept. And ultimately, it changes us from the inside out. |
| 124 | If I change my mind will I change my choices? If I change my choices will my life change? Why can't I change -- what am I addicted to? What will I lose that I'm chemically attached to, and what person, place, thing, time or event that I'm chemically attached to, that I don't want to lose because I may have to experience the chemical withdrawal from that. Hence, the human drama. |
| 125 | Ramtha: It's the only planet in the Milky Way that has habitation, that is steeped in enormous subjugation of religion? You know why that is? It's because people have set up right and wrong. |
| 126 | Miceal Ledwith: If I do this, I'm going to get punished by God; if I do the other thing I'm going to get rewarded. This is a really poor description that tries to map out a path in life for us to follow; but with deplorable results. Because there really is no such thing as good or bad -- we're judging things far too superficially that way. Does that mean that you're in favor of sin and licentiousness and depravity? No; it simply means that you need to improve your expression and understanding of what you're dealing with here. There are things that I do; and I know they will evolve me. There are other things that will not evolve me. But it's not good or bad. There's no God waiting to punish you because you did one or the other. |
| 127 | Ramtha: There is no God, condemning people. Everyone is Gods. |
| 128 | David Albert: At the same time, God is the sort-of placeholder name for those parts of our experience of the world which are somehow transcendent, somehow sublime. |
| 129 | Fred Alan Wolf: I have no idea what God is. Yet I have an experience that God is -- there's something very real about this presence called God. Although I have no idea how to define God, to see God as a person or a thing -- I can't seem to do it. It's kind of like asking a human being to explain what God is, is similar to asking a fish to explain the water in which the fish swims. |
| 130 | William Tiller: God is the superposition of all the spirit from all things. |
| 131 | Ramtha: You are a God in the making. And you have to walk this path, but someday, you have to love the abstract as much as you love the condition of addiction. The only way that I will ever be great to myself is not what I do to my body, but what I do to my mind. |
| 132 | Joe Dispenza: So if we're consciously designing our destiny, and if we're consciously from a spiritual standpoint throwing in with the idea that our thoughts can affect our reality or affect our life -- because reality equals life -- then I have this little pact that I have when I create my day. I say, "I'm taking this time to create my day and I'm infecting the quantum field. Now if (it) is in fact the observer's watching me the whole time that I'm doing this and there is a spiritual aspect to myself, then show me a sign today that you paid attention to any one of these things that I created, and bring them in a way that I won't expect, so I'm as surprised at my ability to be able to experience these things. And make it so that I have no doubt that it's come from you." And so I live my life, in a sense, all day long thinking about being a genius or thinking about being the glory and the power of God or thinking about being unconditional love. |
| 133 | Andrew B. Newberg: The brain is capable of millions of different things that people just really should learn how incredible they actually are and how incredible their minds actually are. And that not only do they have this unbelievable thing in their head that can do so many things for them, and can help us learn, can actually change and adapt and make us something better than what we actually are and can actually help us to transcend ourselves. That there may be some way that it can actually take us to a higher level of our existence, where we can actually understand the world in a deeper way, where we can understand our relationship to things and people in a deeper way, and we can ultimately make more meaning for ourselves in our world. We can show that there's a spiritual part of our brain, but it's a part that we all can have access to, and it's something that we can all do. |
| 134 | Joe Dispenza: We have to formulate what we want. And be so concentrated on it, and so focused on it, and have so much of our awareness of it, that we lose track of ourselves. We lose track of time. We lose track of our identity. And the moment we become so involved in that experience, that we lose track of ourselves, we lose track of time, that picture is the only picture that's real. And everybody's had that experience, when they've made up their mind that they've wanted something. That's quantum physics in action. That's manifesting reality. That's the observer in full effect. |
| 135 | William Tiller: Your consciousness influences others around you; it influences material properties. It influences your future. You're co-creating your future. |
| 136 | [flashback: Joe Dispenza: "Show me a sign today that you paid attention to any one of these things that I created, and bring them in a way that I won't expect, so I'm as surprised at my ability to be able to experience these things. And make it so that I have no doubt that it's come from you."] |
| 137 | Ramtha: Have you ever seen yourself through the eyes of someone else that you have become? What an initiation! Have you ever stopped for a moment, and looked at yourself through the eyes of the ultimate observer? |
| 138 | William Tiller: I am much more than I think I am. I can be much more even than that. I can influence my environment, the people... I can influence space itself... I can influence the future. I am responsible for all those things. I and the surround are not separate; they're part of one. I'm connected to it all. I'm not alone. |
| 139 | Stuart Hameroff: Knowing that there's this interconnectedness of the universe, that we are all interconnected and that we are connected to the universe at its fundamental level, uh, I think is as good an explanation for spirituality as there is. |
| 140 | William Tiller: It is my belief that our purpose here is to develop our gifts of intentionality. And learn how to be effective creators. |
| 141 | Ramtha: We are here to be creators. We are here to infiltrate space with ideas and mansions of thought. We are here to make something of this life. |
| 142 | Amit Goswami: To acknowledge the quantum cells, to acknowledge the place where we really have choice, to acknowledge mind, when that shift of perspective takes place, we say that somebody has been enlightened. |
| 143 | Jeffrey Satinover: Quantum mechanics allows for the intangible phenomenon of freedom to be woven into human nature. |
| 144 | Amit Goswami: Quantum physics, very succinctly speaking, is a physics of possibilities. It opens fundamentally the question of, whose possibilities, and who chooses from these possibilities to give us the actual event of experience. And the only answer that is satisfactory, both logically and meaningfully, is the answer that consciousness is the ground of all being. |
| 145 | Ramtha: We must pursue knowledge without any interference of our addictions. And if we can do that, we will manifest knowledge in reality, and the body's experiences in new ways, in new chemistry, in new holograms; new elsewheres of thought. Beyond our wildest dreams. |
| 146 | William Tiller: All of us one day will reach the level of the avatars that we have read about in history -- the Buddhas, and the Jesus... |
| 147 | Ramtha: Welcome to the kingdom of heaven -- without judgment, without hate, without testing, without anything. That we simply are has allowed this reality we call real, from the power of intangibility, to pull out of inertness action, chaos, and hold it into its form. And we call it matter. |
| 148 | Joe Dispenza: How can we measure the effects? We get to live our life and see, then, if somewhere in our lives, something's changed. And then if it has changed, we become the scientist to our life. Which is the whole reason why we're here. |
| 149 | Jeffrey Satinover: Don't just take it at face value; test it out and see whether it's true. |
| 150 | [story: How far down the rabbit-hole do you want to go?] |
| 151 | Fred Alan Wolf: Ponder that for a while. |
Interviewees:
David Albert, Ph.D.
Professor & Director of Philosophical Foundations of Physics
Columbia University
Dr. Joe Dispenza, D.C.
Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine
Life University
Amit Goswami, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics, University of Oregon
Senior scholar in residence Institute of Noetic Sciences
John Hagelin, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy at Maharishi University
Stuart Hameroff, M.D.
Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Associate Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona
Dr. Miceal Ledwith
Formerly Professor of Systematic Theology at Maynooth College in Ireland
Daniel Monti, M.D.
Director of the Mind-Body Medicine Program
Thomas Jefferson University
Andrew B. Newberg, M.D.
Assistant Professor Department of Radiology, and staff physician in Nuclear Medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Candace Pert, Ph.D.
Holder of patents for modified peptides
Ramtha
Master Teacher - Ramtha School of Enlightenment
Channeled by JZ Knight
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. (Psychiatry), M.S. (Physics)
Past President of the C.G. Jung Foundation of New York, and William James Lecturer in the Psychology and Religion at Harvard University
William Tiller, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Material Science and Engineering
Stanford University
Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D.
Ph.D. in Physics from U.C.L.A.
Physicist, lecturer, and writer