Trialogue 1998

Greetings from Cyberdelic Space.

This is Lorenzo, and I'm your host here in the Psychedelic Salon.

And I'd like to begin by first thanking Jared S., our longtime saloner Colin F., and Chris D.,

all of whom sent in donations this week to help offset some of the expenses associated with these podcasts.

And, by the way, Jared, that was a clever message you inserted into your donation amount.

At least I read it as such.

So, let's get on with the program today, and I have to admit that even though we've only had one week off from Terrence McKenna,

I was already beginning to feel the effects of withdrawal.

So, I decided to wean us off the Bard McKenna by diluting him a bit with two other popular speakers here in the salon,

namely Ralph Abraham and Rupert Sheldrake, who joined with Terrence for one of their final trialogues.

Actually, you can find this trialogues in three parts on Google Video under the title,

Trialogues at the Edge of the Millennium.

But, to tell the truth, I've never gotten around to watching it for two reasons.

The first is that I find it kind of difficult to sit at my computer for that long at a stretch.

And, the other reason is that the title kind of put me off, since the millennium is now well behind us.

But, I came across a copy of the audio that Bruce Dahmer and I ripped from the video copy that Ralph Abraham gave us of this trialog.

And, we digitized it, and for some reason I stumbled on it today and decided to check it out.

Right away, Rupert Sheldrake began by saying that their topic would be the evolutionary mind.

And, so that's why I titled this podcast the way I did.

And, after just a few minutes of listening to Rupert, he caught my attention to the point where I realized that you might also enjoy hearing this.

And, so, here we are.

So, let's go back to Santa Cruz, California on June 6th, 1998.

Way back before Windows 98 was even released.

And, we'll join Ralph Abraham, Terence McKenna, and Rupert Sheldrake as they ponder over the evolution of consciousness.

We're going to talk about the evolutionary mind this morning.

It's the topic of our book that's just coming out at the moment.

And, it prepares the way for thinking about the change in consciousness at the millennium.

Obviously, what happens at the millennium is something to do with our minds.

It's not as if the laws of nature are all going to change at the year 2000.

It's a mental event, a social event, a cultural event.

And, we're going to start this morning by talking about the evolutionary context for it.

Our book, called The Evolutionary Mind, comes at a time when there's a tremendous amount of interest in evolutionary psychology.

Psychologists, in the last five to ten years, have discovered Darwin.

And, I keep meeting psychologists who speak to me with that sort of enthusiasm and bright-eyed quality of the new convert.

They've seen the light.

They've discovered Darwin.

And, I wonder why, as a biologist, they haven't discovered Darwin a long time ago.

Darwin, after all, opened up the field of evolutionary psychology with his book, The Expression of Emotions in Man and the Animals.

And, there was a lot of speculation at the end of the 19th century about the evolutionary consciousness.

However, academic psychology this century has got involved in behaviorism, rats in cages pushing levers,

and, now, cognitive psychology, computer models of neural processes,

none of which has left much space for evolutionary theorizing.

So, they've come rather late to this evolutionary speculation.

There's been permission given to biologists to speculate about evolution of the mind in this way

by the analysis of selfish genes.

They feel if they're talking about selfish genes, it's somehow scientific.

And, it's given everyone permission.

This is, this kind of discussion is epitomized in Stephen Pinker's recent book,

How the Mind Works.

And, it's based on the idea that human behavior is determined by genes.

There's a gene for everything.

And, they then work out, in theoretical terms, what these genes would lead us to expect,

the selfish behavior of the genes.

Unfortunately, their conclusions are not terribly surprising, or deep.

And, at the end of a lecture he gave recently in London,

which was met with considerable skepticism,

somebody said, well, now, just give us one,

the most important clear idea you've been able to deduce from your selfish gene theory.

And, he said that after lengthy calculations,

they'd found that because females have only one or two eggs at a time,

which are a rare and precious resource that needs conserving,

whereas males produce millions of sperm,

they deduced, after a lot of working out,

that women would tend to seek high-status males and want to stay with them,

whereas men would tend to be promiscuous to spread selfish genes more freely.

And, there was an air of disappointment in the lecture hall.

And, somebody was heard to say, is that all?

Anyway, the fact that this rather closed world of selfish gene speculation is going on

has given other people within the scientific world

permission to think more widely about evolution.

Most evolutionary theories are purely speculative,

since we don't really know what happened in the past.

Many of them are just so stories,

rather like Kipling's accounts of how the leopard got its spots, and so on.

But, there have been, in this modern explosion of speculation about our evolutionary past,

there are several rather interesting ideas that have come up,

and I just wanted to bring up two or three of these this morning,

because, although there's no shortage of speculations about what happened in the human past

in the books of Terence McKenna,

there are several new ideas which might amplify these ideas about conscious evolution.

The first ideas that I want to talk about are put forward in a book by Stephen Mithen, M-I-T-H-E-N,

called The Prehistory of the Mind.

He's a British Archaeologist, but, in this book, he's brought together a wealth of evidence from the fossil record,

from archaeology, from the study of primate behavior,

and from the study of child psychology,

to put together a very interesting discussion of what happened to human minds

during the three and a half million years of human evolution before recorded history began.

The first upright walking hominids are now believed to have emerged in Africa over three and a half million years ago,

Australopithecus.

These were upright walking tool-using, they used simple stone tools, precursors of ourselves.

Human history, three and a half million years of it,

went on before we have the records from the great civilizations.

The domestication of animals, the agricultural revolution, occurred 10,000 years ago.

The first civilizations about 5,000 years ago, maybe 7,000 years ago.

Industrialization, two or three hundred years ago.

But for the vast majority of human history, people were living in quite a quite different way.

And it seems to be a very reasonable supposition that a great deal of our psychology,

a great deal of the working of our minds has been shaped by this enormously long period,

about which we know so little.

What Maiden points out is that these,

although we don't know what they thought about and how they worked,

for these early human beings, these early hominids,

must have had several different kinds of intelligence.

They must have had a social intelligence.

They were social beings, they lived in social groups.

And we know from studies of chimpanzees and other social primates

that there are very subtle interactions within the group.

There are dominance interactions, there are cooperative interactions.

And to get it right requires a kind of intelligence

about how other members of the group are going to react,

what's appropriate behavior, and so on.

All social animals must involve some kind of social intelligence.

And we can reasonably assume that our ancestors,

our hominid ancestors, had a social intelligence

to enable them to live together and work together in social groups.

They had a technical intelligence that enabled them to make stone tools,

and maybe other technical devices or technical things,

maybe fibers and string,

which haven't left traces in the archaeological record.

They must have had a natural historical intelligence,

because if you're living as a hunter-gatherer, as they did,

then unless you know what to hunt and how to hunt it,

what the habits of the animals are that you're hunting,

unless you know what to gather, where to gather it,

what things are good to eat, what things are good as herbs,

you don't get very far.

It requires an enormously detailed knowledge of natural history.

It's not just human beings.

Chimpanzees have to have this, and many other creatures.

So this must have been part of their mental makeup.

And then at some stage they began to talk,

and they must have had a linguistic intelligence.

We don't know when language began.

Some people put it 50,000 years ago.

Some people put it much longer ago.

But that really nobody knows.

Language leaves no fossil traces.

But something very strange happened.

About 100,000 years ago,

our ancestors achieved brain sizes roughly the same as ours today.

So for 100,000 years,

human beings have had brains of the current capacity.

Yet, for 100,000 years,

because they were not writing programs and building computers

and thinking up Einstein's equations and so on.

Something else was going on with those brains.

And we haven't a clue what it was.

That brain size, the development of current brain size,

is not the reason that there's been this explosion

of technical innovation recently.

Brain size hasn't changed much for 100,000 years.

And it wasn't until about 50,000 years ago

that there was the beginnings of art.

Paintings in caves and that kind of thing.

Some things...

What happened?

Why did art and civilization

only begin tens of thousands of years

after the brain had reached its present capacity?

And what enabled these different kinds of intelligence

to give rise to the agricultural revolution,

modern humanity and so on?

Well, the hypothesis that Mythen puts forward

is that about 50,000 years ago,

some crucial transition occurred

whereby these previously separate intelligences

somehow came together, cross-fertilized each other

and produced the beginnings of characteristically human mentality.

The connection of social and technical intelligence

meant that people started using technical skills

for making things like jewelry, ornaments, grave goods.

The mixing of technical and natural historical intelligence

led to a great improvement in hunting technologies,

in weapons, in axe heads, and spear heads, and arrow heads, and so on.

The merging of social and natural historical intelligence

led to a whole kind of mythic understanding

of the animal and the natural world

which we find in all cultures around the world today.

And combining these with linguistic intelligence

there was a whole burst of human development, of mental development.

He compares this to a cathedral.

A Romanesque and Norman cathedral

has side chapels almost sealed off from each other

with no interaction

whereas the great Gothic cathedrals sort of open up

and all these different things can mix together.

Somehow, he thinks this transition 50,000 years ago

was associated with the origin of religion

and seems to have been based on a sense of human connection

not just with the earth but with the heavens.

When I asked Maithen how he understood this to have happened

especially given his chosen metaphor of the cathedral

I said, do you think there really was a breakthrough

from some extra terrestrial intelligence into the human realm at that stage

since all your evidence points to it?

And he said, of course not, that's impossible.

So I said, how do you know it's impossible?

Since everybody all around the world according to your own evidence

seems to have undergone this transition

it seems to have shaped human mentality as we know it.

He said, oh yes, he said, well the very fact everyone believes it

shows that this is an incredibly persistent illusion.

And I said, but how do you know it's an illusion?

He said, because it's so persistent.

And I said, surely you can have things that are true that are persistent too.

He admitted in the end it was just a matter of opinion.

But everything he said points towards some breakthrough to another realm of consciousness

around 50,000 years ago

and something that happened with human groups all around the earth.

And I think this is the first time I've seen a convincing building up of evidence

from somebody who's coming from a very hard-nosed position

that gives us some clue as to a major shift in consciousness that happened

and it involved some connection with a higher dimension.

Now, some people will like to interpret that in terms of visits of spaceships,

chariots of the gods and so forth.

I think that there are many other ways of thinking about it

and I can guess that Terence will be able to suggest at least one.

But before we get, there's one other speculation about the past I want to mention

which I found particularly interesting out of this year's crop of books on the subject

which is Barbara Ehrenreich's book Blood Rites.

She's an American writer based in New York

and in her book Blood Rites completely changed around my idea of human prehistory.

What she shows very convincingly is that our image of man the hunter

striding forth onto the African savannah about three million years ago

is in fact pretty implausible.

Human beings were small, they couldn't run very fast, they weren't particularly strong,

their tools were extremely primitive.

It's much more likely that for most of human history it was not man the hunter

but man the hunt head.

In fact, most bone remains of early hominids show the marks and scratches

and tooth marks of large cats on them.

Human beings were on the African savannah with lots of game

but also with lots of big predators and they were extremely vulnerable.

And a great deal of human mentality, she argues, was shaped by millions of years

of being preyed on by large predators.

It wasn't until about 50,000 years ago that there was an improvement in hunting technologies

all around the world whereby human beings could indeed become fairly effective hunters.

But for most of the three and a half million years of hominid history it was man the hunted.

She shows very interestingly that this sheds light on many religious traditions

because in many religious traditions there's the idea of the victim, the sacrificial victim.

If you're a collective, a herd of wildebeest or baboons in a group out in the desert

and a predator approaches, the predators usually attack isolated members of the group.

The old, the young or sometimes the young males who are defending the group on the periphery.

Those are the ones that get killed first.

And when they've killed one of them, they start eating it.

And very often the rest of the group then relax and they often stand around and watch the predator eating the prey

because once they've got one victim, they're not hungry anymore, they're not interested in the rest.

So one dies for the sake of the rest.

This is a simple fact of predation.

And she shows that this pattern, the idea of a sacrificial victim that dies for the sake of the rest,

is deeply embedded in our consciousness as an archetypal pattern based in this biological fact of predation

and the fact that we were preyed upon.

She also shows that most of the early visions of gods and goddesses were in the form of carnivores.

Even Jehovah is a carnivore.

The story of Cain and Abel where Cain is a farmer and offers the fruit of the earth to God as a sacrifice

and Abel as a herder and offers a sheep.

God prefers the sacrifice of Abel.

He prefers meat to vegetarian diet and that's why Cain kills Abel.

He's jealous.

And so this carnivorous quality of the gods is associated with images of the gods in association with predatory animals.

She then goes on to show that whole nations identify with predators as a kind of justification for war making,

where the whole nation becomes like a predator.

The symbol of England and many other countries is the lion of America, of the United States, the eagle and so on.

All around the world you find these predatory animals as national emblems.

Well, I think her insights are particularly interesting and because of this long history,

it shows so much of our mythology, religious structure and fears are related to this long period of being preyed on.

She shows the fantasies, the nightmares of young children in modern cities like New York until they're about five years old.

And not about child molesters and realistic fears or at least the fears their parents have.

They're about being eaten by monsters and wild animals.

This is what most children's nightmares are about.

And this would go back to a long period of history.

So here we have two ideas, Maithan's ideas and Barbara Ehrenreich's ideas about early human history,

which would give memories, I would think of them as memories in the collective memory through morphic resonance.

Jung would call them collective archetypes in the collective unconscious.

Things which are built into our past, our memory that have shaped the way our minds are today,

of which we're largely unaware because our normal study of history begins with the civilizations of the Near East,

with Egypt, with Greece, Rome and so forth,

and leaves out the previous three and a half million years of human history

which have really done so much to shape our evolutionary nature

and therefore condition the way we respond to each other today and in the future.

I think that our evolutionary history is rooted in the past,

but I've been reading on my journey here this novel, On the Edge,

just published in England last week by Edward St. Orbin.

It's set in California.

The crucial scenes occur in Esalen.

And here's a conversation going on in the hot tubs on page 130.

According to Terence McKenna, said Flavia,

who happens to be a genius instead of an arrogant British jerk.

History is rooted in the future.

So...

Can I jump in?

Well, first of all, let's just assume that I've responded to this with the usual rap about diet,

mushrooms, so forth and so on,

that if you know anything about my work you have heard ad nauseum ad infinitum.

So just go past that and say, and remind you,

Rupa and I have not really had a good conversation for 20 months.

But, I guess, arranging ourselves according to the demands of the morphogenetic field,

we're sort of thinking along the same creodes,

because in my trying to understand at greater levels this moment of transition 50,000 years ago,

or this moment of breakthrough,

what exactly were the elements and how did it happen?

I've sort of come very close to this area that Rupert's indicating this morning,

because I can't help but notice that a successful predator must think like prey,

that there is this peculiar intellectual symbiosis that goes on between the predator and the prey,

and hunting cats, top carnivores, I think, internalize the behaviors of their prey.

Well, at the very dawn of the emergence, of the evolutionary emergence of mind,

the central human figure in that equation is the shaman.

And the shaman at the high paleolithic stage is essentially a kind of sanctioned psychotic.

In other words, able to move into states of mind so extreme that their immediate social efficacy is arguable.

And to condense that into common English, what I mean is,

the shaman is a person, a designated member of the social group,

who can mentally change into an animal,

who can become so animal-like that other members of the social group are appalled and draw back.

And so in a weird way, at this fractal boundary where human consciousness emerges,

the first human consciousness was not human at all.

It was a human ability to model effectively the thinking processes of other predators.

With mathematical models.

With mathematical models and precision, yes.

And so, yes, what we are talking about when we are talking about hunting

is we are talking about strategic thinking.

And strategic thinking always involves bifurcating trees of choice.

If we go to the waterhole at dawn, perhaps we can make a kill.

If we take food and leave the women and children and go in this direction several days,

perhaps we will make a kill.

Perhaps not.

Perhaps by abandoning the women and the children we will undercut our gene pool and return to catastrophe.

Strategic thinking.

What strategic thinking requires is the ability to contemplate possibilities not immediately present.

In other words, there is a kind of time-binding function here.

So, I am really not so much posing a question to Rupp as adumbrating what he said.

I think this is where it all comes together in this very complicated relationship between fear, expectation, strategizing and the imagination.

The two areas where I am sure we spend a great deal of time studying these bifurcating trees of possibility

were in the food gathering and hunting domain and then in the sexual domain, which today we call erotic fantasy.

But in the high Paleolithic, erotic fantasy was rather closely welded to where your genes went and how your biological propagation processes preceded.

So, the key, whether you believe it was through the stimulation of psilocybin or through the aping of the behavior of other top predators that we aspired to compete with.

Whatever the causal mechanism, the domain in which the change was born and in which we will live until we leave the body behind us is the domain of the imagination.

I mean, this is what we created that is uniquely human and that has defined us ever since, and as this discussion today proceeds to look more into the future,

I think we will see that as the imagination has been our past and the cradle of our humanness, so it also is the domain in which our trans-human metamorphosis will occur.

Something like that.

As far as I can see, this is dancing around an intellectual black hole or something.

And here we have, the question is posed, as I gather of Stephen Mythen, that in the evolution of consciousness or culture, I'm not sure which,

that there was a bifurcation 50,000 years ago, which is of interest to us because we're in one now.

And the question is, what was it caused by?

And then Rupert proposed that you would, of course, answer the psilocybin mushroom on the plains of Africa.

And the need to think strategically.

But this need not only was a constant throughout the three and a half million years' evolution of hominids, but also in pongids, apes, abin, and swarming bees, schooling fish, and so on.

This is more or less no news here.

What was it then that happened 50,000 years ago if anything happened?

So, I know that this will not be a favorite hypothesis in this audience, but this one that has to be counted.

Do you ask for, are there any other, what did he suggest actually, Stephen Mythen?

He doesn't give a very clear explanation as to why this might have happened.

Well, he's a youngish man, I suppose.

Who probably has not read the great books of his predecessors, such as, let's say, for example, Alexander Marchat,

who led a great group of, a combined group of two species, a neurophysiologist and archaeologist in the distant past,

to propose that miracle that occurred, like the beginning of Cro-Magnon 50,000 years ago,

had to do with a structural change in neurophysiology.

This presents the view, if you want to look at it that way, God as a brain surgeon, also known as the hole in the head.

So, I love you again.

So thank you, Father.

Thank you for that.

I love you, though.

Lord.

What has the problem been helpful when you see the Bible today?

What?

Please see the Gospel of God.

Therefore all the school comes down the path forward up to each other.

What do you pass?

What you?

Which...

God.

What didaposition is that SALAM?

Well?

What?

the connection between the hemispheres was improved in the corpus callosum and this

physiological evolution provided a evolutionary advantage in the hunting and so on and as an

evolution theorist you would have to say well if there was a divine brain surgery then it could

have been in response to a leading element in the evolution of some morphogenetic field

now thinking of this as a chicken and egg kind of things okay is like the physiological change

there was a physiological change was it not didn't stephen might have mentioned that

well you can't from skulls all you've got oh you can no no you can that's the whole point that these

skulls have been examined microscopically by alexander marshak and the changes in the skull

of morphological changes sharply divide that particular event including the enlargement of

the frontal lobes which was considered because of brocke's brain to be the physiological foundation

for the development of speech whereas we would say probably i'm guessing we would agree that

uh the large brain brocke's uh brain evolved because as we had already started speaking and had the

need for more vocabulary that the things favored the larger vocabulary in terms of hunting gathering

escaping large carnivores and so on anyway there's a dichotomy of two different views about this

bifurcation the divine intervention one and the physiological dna random mutation natural selection

one isn't that it and in this dichotomy we see you opposed because terence believes

the eating um psilocybin mushrooms is a purely material explanation right it requires no recourse to

a divine intervention in the field uh angels dreams you use the word imagination suggesting a literal

divine intervention he's just speaking metaphorically right my then might be my then speaking metaphorically i

think i'm speaking literally because i think you see one of the things we have to explain is that religion

or some sense of a beyond the human realm of consciousness is found in every human culture

today in some sense in some way or another a world of spirits a world of angels of gods

but to explain the universal distribution of this as part of traditional human thinking

requires at some stage in the past there have been to an awareness of this other realm of consciousness

now this is not incompatible with psilocybin or any other drug hypothesis because those might have

kick-started this connection with another realm of consciousness but if we assume that today all

over the world shamanic cultures and all other cultures have the sense of other levels

or and other kinds of conscious entities beyond the human level some in animal forms and some in

forms way beyond that we have to assume that at some stage in the past there was a linking with

these other realms of consciousness whatever they are not just metaphors not just archetypes in the

collective mind but forms of consciousness that might well and i think actually are out there

that well i'm in trying to think conservatively about the possibility of a non-human local intelligence

it seems to me that in a way nature herself presents as an intelligence that the understanding of nature

is the understanding of the complex integrated systems of such complexity that to deny them consciousness

is just a reluctance of the reductionist mind that for anyone not burdened by that prejudice

it's self-evident that nature is alive cognizant responding it's interesting that really all it seems

we can agree upon here is that the time frame is roughly 50 000 years well so a whole bunch of things are

triangulating on that moment one could say as i've argued that it was the eating of psilocybin

mushrooms you could make a more general statement and say that was a subset of the consequence of

uh an omnivorous diet but but if i may sure where exactly were these mushrooms a hundred thousand years ago

well i the way i think about it is there was an incremental involvement that had uh uh punctuated

breakthroughs in it in other words the slow meeting of mind mushroom social complexity uh acoustical

abilities linked to neural physiological states didn't just smoothly proceed it all came together but

then at a certain point it gelled and this is this 50 000 year point where social understanding

technology uh linguistic repertoires depth of diet you know you're clinging to this material stuff i think

we can it's about time that we well there will be a material capital here even if you believe angels

descended from on high well i suppose that okay you have the software that draws the novelty wave

you're a novelty theorist we might appeal to novelty theory as a explanatory strategy here a

cognitive strategy in dealing with a bifurcation 50 000 years ago if you run the program back for

a hundred thousand years do you or do you not find a kink there in the novelty wave in 50 000 bc

no it's not based on data only extrapolation but is there isn't there well i think there were a series

of breakthroughs for instance 120 000 years ago the modern homo sapiens sapien form appeared in other

words no in short no there's no both and i think uh the invention of writing

9 000 years ago was an enormous breakthrough but all of these things proceed out of the further

integration complexification of the nervous system in connection with the function of the imagination

believe this that you're presenting yourself as a conventional materialist evolutionary theorist

the galactarians who built the mushroom in timber

this is your pal your favorite well you see with the mushroom theory you can always just say

they encountered the mushroom and then it proceeded from there but you can go one step back and say who

placed the mushroom oh i'll give you a hand there give your hand there and that was the preceding uh

civilization of uh lemurians who what's wrong with the warrior who they died out at that point because

they had poisoned the environment with toxic chemicals and created global climate warming which resulted in

a drying of the desert the sahara desert from which sprung forth a bloom of psychedelic mushrooms that had

been hiding under the surface previously because it was too wet that's why the loud hum i hear is

william of ockham spinning in his grave

i see you think the dna and the expression of genes is a simpler explanation than a divine

intervention at the level of the novelty wave i think that the dna is divine ah but william

escape escape from his it is true what you as a middle man should i think you see i i can't quite

get your position because the the new hard-nosed skeptic that you're revealing to us here in other places

you see it doesn't seem to fit too well with terence mckenna on non-human entities machine elves etc

i mean the idea of other kinds of consciousness other forms of

entity that are not just inside our brains and appearing in relation to deranged states of mind

pharmacologically induced the idea that they're out there seems to me an essential part of most of

what i've heard you say over many years well i'm sort of getting into what i intend to say later but i think

the key thing is not to concentrate on materialist versus non-materialist explanations but to realize

that the new vision of nature is not as matter or energy but as information and information is

expressed in the dna it's expressed epigenetically in culture what's happening is that information was

running itself on a primate platform but evolving according to its own agenda in a sense we have

a symbiotic relationship to a non-material being which we call language and we think it's ours and we think

we control it this isn't what's happening it's running itself it's time sharing a primate nervous system

and evolving toward its own conclusions now i have to shot my talk

and it's so early in the morning yes well this is this damn drug i'm drinking

makes you give it all away too soon

but i i think i mean the the discussion so far has been remarkably earthbound and if we assume that

information is not confined to this planet if we to put it in your information terminology if we assume

that consciousness is not limited to the earth if we assume that there are not only conscious beings

on other planets but also that other elements of the universe like stars suns galaxies may have minds

or consciousness which i do assume then it becomes very likely that at some stage a consciousness on earth

could link somehow with those higher forms of consciousness who knows how maybe by something

like interplanetary telepathy something of that kind so if there's some link of human consciousness with

other forms of consciousness in the universe then when that contact was established there would be a big

transition that it could have been propelled or kicked off by drugs it could have as be kicked off by

some mutation that led to more nervous interconnections but when it happens this connection with other

forms of consciousness would transform human nature uh yes it would fit with the facts because there's a

belief in this you see now we're off the planet at last can i remind you terence of a quotation from

the front pages of your first book speculating that

that mushroom spores are intergalactic travelers that they have a hard case impervious to ultraviolet

rays that enables them to float on the galactic wind from planetary system to planetary system bringing

us as rupert suggests uh linguistic communications from other uh life forms including immaterial life forms

that they've been in conversation with in the past i think that this is an approximate summary of your preface

but notice how materialist and space and time bound that hypothesis is i could agree with everything

rupert said i think now our intellectual toolkit has been enriched by the virtual confirmation of the idea

that there is a bell type non-local uh aspect to the universe so i do think we're in contact with all

intelligence in the universe through the bell non-local connection but that means that it has no historicity

this connection it has always been there complete and entire so why there is a sense of progressing toward

it or it erupting through into normal earthbound affairs is not because someone in the andromeda galaxy

makes a decision now we will reveal ourselves to the earthlings it's that the antenna system and the

nervous system of the earthlings evolved through uh uh a point where suddenly this became self-evident well

now we're coming to the question for the first time in the enlarged context in which we uh have not only all

space but all time informing us and here i may remind you of father bead's uh letter which is quoted in the last

chapter of our new book where he challenges us to consider the mystical element which he describes as

more or less in the language of david bohm's uh implicate order that all time and all space is somehow

exists as a interconnected ball of intelligence which is important let's just assume such a thing nevertheless

the uh science of our colleagues is more or less a true story of evolution

uh that there was a change that language did come upon us in a certain moment that before that moment we

didn't speak afterwards we did and uh and so the question arises and i think this is in my interpretation

the question we started with here how could it be that with or without a divine intervention that there is

this more or less linear progress in human intelligence culture capability tool using and exponential population

growth that is correlated without any causal implication with the descent of the novelty wave

why do we have this peculiar artifact this is an observational fact that there is this increase in

complexity and civilization apparently looking for a spectacular transformation which we are associating

with the word millennium now what's going on well novelty theory would just say the universe is a

complexity conserving engine whatever complexity it achieves by any means it makes that the platform

for a further thrust into deeper complexity if you don't like novelty theory because the morphogenetic field never forgets

well it forgets a little but it never it can be set back but it can never be set back to zero and it always

once it gets out of the ditch it heads back in the same direction it has a vector field preference and then you

mention david bohm his idea of emergent properties seems to achieve the same end without a telos of novelty theory

he simply says when you complexify a system new properties will emerge suddenly and unexpectedly that couldn't have been

predicted if you put emergence theory with novelty theory you see that the universe could not but

proceed along the line of complexification of morphogenetic expression uh density of connectivity

and all the things that retard entropy and give rise to in fact the complex non-entropic ordered

apparently teleologically informed cosmos that we're in well now we see them but

that what you've described is it was one of those verbs was a bit extraordinary okay

that there is then uh revealed a kind of evolutionary theory as a cosmological hypothesis this is a

theological position basically that there is a logical timeless implicate order and there is life on planet earth and

in the rest of the universe which uh evolves according to this theoretical rule by an increase of complexity

when something is revealed there's a development it's not forgotten it builds upon that and this

mystical unit while knowing all is not telling all but revealing gradually because just that's the law

of life as we know it in dimensional space and time with rupert and i really from my point of view

the only difference between the morphogenetic field that he has enthusiastically proposed and the ideas of

novelty theory is for rupe it's it's pushed from the past for me it's pulled from the future well that's what

what teddy was saying in this book well but what you get in and at the end of the day is the same thing it's just a

matter of preference and how much of orthodoxy you want to grind against the uh phobia against telos is an

artifact of 19th century deism and doesn't go very deep uh uh you describe the complexification of the universe as

self-evident and i believe it is self-evident and the failure of science to address this is what makes it

so frustrating and imprecise so late in the game but the trouble with the emergence view you've been

putting forward and uh is is that it's still very earthbound you see there's obviously been a major

emergence of complexity in human culture there's also been a huge emergence of complexity in the amazon

jungle in the malayan rainforest um arguably far greater than anything we've achieved through

technology and millions of species of beetles insects plants and so forth but the the it seems

to me that long before all these things happened on earth we've got the possibility of much higher

levels of consciousness outside the earth and as you know i'm a devotee of the idea of the sun as

conscious um the the these and the stars the if you take the materialist view that consciousness interfaces

with the brain through complex electromagnetic patterns of activity then those on the sun which

we're learning more and more about every day um have unbelievably complex chaotic patterns resonant

patterns of acoustic waves going through the sun with polar reversals every 11 years

resonant patterns of electromagnetic waves my thinking about this was much influenced by a

science fiction novel by fred hoyle published in the 50s called the black cloud where fred hoyle shows

that to imagine intelligence necessarily grounded either in copper wires and computers or in nerve cells

and brains is a limitation of this so you could have an intelligent system working through a plasma

and electrically charged cloud and and indeed i think through something like the sun so if the sun

is in fact conscious if stars have a kind of consciousness um then of course it raises questions

well what do they think about what do they do with this consciousness but it's very likely the kind of

consciousness they have would be at a vastly higher level than our own so when we're talking about the

emergence of higher consciousness in human beings it's not as if for the first time in the universe some

higher level of consciousness emerges it could be that for the first time in the history of the solar

system our minds somehow contact the sort of intelligence that a much greater intelligence

that exists out there and because i think it's possible to think of the stars and the sun as

conscious and then galaxies as conscious um you don't need to go straight beyond the universe to the

divine mind there's plenty of lower level minds than the divine mind that could be out there and

of course traditional views of spirits and angels tell us that there are many many many innumerable

levels of intelligence beyond our own within the galaxy many associated with the stars so we don't

necessarily have to have the idea it's all happened and emerged on earth through a complexification we can

have the thing we reach a point where there's a gut like a spark passes between a terrestrial consciousness

a human one with more interconnected halves of the brain people in the first first throws of

mind-boggling mushroom trip etc but somehow whatever happens there's this like a spark a connection

established and it seems to me that this hypothesis has the great advantage of actually accounting for

what's believed or around the world namely that there is some connection between human intelligence

and that of the sky because in terms of imagination you see predators and we're we are human beings

were both predators and prey but so lots of other animals and presumably any hunting animal has to

have the imagination and the ability to identify with the prey in fact renee tom years ago produced a

mathematical model of predator and prey where there has to be a kind of internalization

of the prey in the predator's mind in order to get the right strategy this is not specifically human

and it's not enough as a basis of the imagination i think this connection with realms beyond the human

which would give such an enlarged scope for imagination that to take literally what so many

people around the world say in their myths seems to me the simplest hypothesis well i'm more friendly to this

idea of non-biologically based forms of consciousness than i was the last time we talked because of this fact

i mentioned that i now think wherever there is a sufficiently complex informational environment the

functions of life self-replication etc etc mutation adaptation uh can go on i uh but obviously most of the

the intelligence in the universe would be utterly uncomprehensible to us because it is so different

so we're transducing virtually the entire hologram of possible intelligence in the universe but the

reason our fantasies of angels and aliens give us hominids with binocular vision who use acoustical

speech in other words creatures very similar to ourselves is because we only can recognize what is familiar

in this universal information field so we sail right past the star mind the galaxy mind to communicate

with a race of winged hominids around the nebulkanubi prime simply because they are enough

like us that we can grok our possibility of a relationship it seems to me that this is just very

begging the question in traditional and cheap fashion because oh good ralph

i mean i'm all in favor of uh celestial intelligence and in fact i i could even entertain a conversation with

a pleiadian i don't mind the question i mean we started with the problem of the evolution the

evolutionary mind is in fact the title of our book and the question of the evolution the progress or even

the origin of all these things is our ultimate question now if our view is local to planet earth

we can say okay we're being taught by bolts from the blue and we have these you know meddling celestial

intelligence that are reaching out pretend to be bell and tell us bell's theorem give us mushrooms

pretend to be sent from the solar wind or whatever but where do they come from the evolutionary problem

then is just transferred onto another more remote place now as i understand uh rupert's idea of the

morphogenetic field is that these other places are also in evolution and the whole system is in co-evolution

and that is an attempt i think one of the first ones in the the history of uh intelligent discourse on this

subject the first attempt to uh get rid of the hypothesis of timeless truth but if you get rid of that

hypothesis you have a whole bunch of weird problems such as then you have to talk about the speed of

propagation of novelty or morphogenetic fields and then you're slammed to the wall because you have

to either come up with a number which you fit into a mathematical architecture or you say that it's

instantaneous which returns you to this holistic more metaphysical thing if you don't believe that

it's coming from the bell space then you have a whole bunch of these kinds of problems which i think

intuitively make it too complicated let it be instantaneous i mean uh i think the whole question

of time is in fact uh behind this problem that we have this idea about time and then we're trying to

talk about a timeless so one way to eliminate this cognitive dissonance is to say okay there is no

timeless it's all in co-evolution and we're a little bit behind the evolution of the flat pleiadians and then

well where does that come from we're stuck with the problem so you i think uh you're talking of

the attractor at the end of time is more or less the beyond time is the intelligence that it forms informs

that nourishes the accumulation of complexity as we go along apparently in time well i think the attractor

is complete in and of itself in another dimension the process of history and biological evolution is the

growing complex enough to grow toward the thing and understand it so is our process of growth then

nourished or not nourished by some flow of something that comes from this attractor at the end of time in

another dimension it contributes the trajectory of our approach it defines the the domain in which we

are moving toward it we couldn't even talk this without chaos theory no the chaos theory stands behind

this uh uh very powerful well i don't know ralph people have been talking about this for a long time

before chaos theory came along but in such a muddled fashion compared compared with the sublime clarity of

our present conclusion precisely so i don't quite see why chaos theory is an essential ingredient forget chaos

theory i'm i'm uh i'm interested in the possibility that in your deepest musings on this problem you have

rather avoided father beads uh challenge to grapple with infinity and that in the the idea of the

co-evolution of morphogenetic fields begs the question of the existence of a timeless or eternal

truth pattern guidance or something which is well but but are you i mean father bead used the word

mystical but of course he was a priest i don't think he meant the essentially incomprehensible

in other words i don't think we're going to get to a place where we then say from here on it is

mystery and rational apprehension fails my notion of the mystical is simply that which remains to be

understood and there will always be a residuum of mystery in principle but in principle it is not

mysterious let me oh i think i don't agree with that i must say i thought you might not

well um well we'd soon be out of business if we're talking at the edge of the unthinkable if

we actually everything suddenly becomes thinkable even in principle i think that given the nature of

a human mind evolved to deal with large predators hunting on african plains gathering herbs etc

um dealing with social problems human relationships etc the idea that this evolution has equipped us with

minds and language and cognitive abilities

that enable us to comprehend the entire universe, where it's come from, where it's going,

what minds and mind may lie beyond what we see.

The idea that this very small part of the evolutionary system, with all the limitations inherent in it,

could comprehend the whole, seems to me a rather improbable supposition.

And I think that the point about mysticism, or what the Greek church calls apophatic,

is that the ultimate, in the end, does lie beyond what we can think.

Our thinking can only take us so far.

And this isn't just because we haven't got enough professors of mathematics yet,

and it's only a matter of bigger computers and so forth.

There are grave limits on how far a very limited and evolutionary bound conceptual apparatus can take us.

We'd never be able to embrace, as you yourself pointed out,

the kind of mentality of the sun or a galaxy.

Because it's concerns are so much greater and more remote than our own.

Let alone the universe as a whole.

But in principle, some other form of organization could.

In other words, these things are not sealed from understanding.

In principle, they are simply difficult for primate-based minds running limited software,

at low hertz-rate to accommodate.

But, yes, but I mean, presumably, the solar mind, if there is one,

could understand, have a pretty good intuitive understanding of the minds of other suns.

I mean, if the sun has a mind, part of its activity, I think, would be concerned with the

solar system, it would be like the brain of the solar system.

But part of its activity would be concerned with its peer group, namely other stars.

And then part of their activity would be related to the mind or purpose or telos of the entire galaxy.

And those kinds of concerns, you know, the kind of relationship problems that our sun may be having

with other suns, or double star systems like that of Sirius, the kind of, um, relationship problems.

Those are rather beyond the scope of human psychotherapy and, or indeed, human thought.

There may be so many things going on, as indeed there are at levels, we're not very,

we don't really understand very well the world of the goldfish or the ant.

So there are certain limitations, which I don't think are just a temporary

limitation on what we can conceive or imagine.

Well then, until we run out of energy to conceive and imagine,

are we conceiving of the solar mind, if it exists, as evolving or fixed?

No, it must evolve.

It must evolve, perhaps, on a different time scale, which is the time scale of relationship

in their own community, which is, uh, the 15 billion year time frame since the big bang.

Is that what you're thinking that we're coming to the crux of it here?

I think the evolution of the solar mind would be related to what happens here,

because we're part of the solar system.

And I would assume that because all planets and everything that's happening within the solar system

feeds back and influences the solar mind, that it would somehow,

it's not just the mind of the sun, it's the mind of the solar system.

But it's evolving since the birth of the Milky Way and the...

That's right.

And what's going on here is part of its evolution.

We're in within it and contributing to it.

So the morphogenetic field then of all and everything had a birth moment with the big bang.

Is that what you're thinking or?

Well, I'm assuming that if we take the big bang theory to be,

if we assume there was a big bang, I know you're very skeptical about the big bang,

it's only a story, it's a myth.

But if we take this creation myth of modern science then

that must be the birth of the field of the whole system.

Yes.

And modern physics in the unified field theory, super string theory, tries to explain

how you start with a unified ten-dimensional field that then

evolves the other fields of nature within it.

So we thought that's standard physics.

I mean, it's not part of my particular view of things.

But the consciousness of this all and everything.

I mean, okay, the solar minds contribute to the consciousness of the Milky Way,

which is one galaxy, which then has the psychotherapist in its relationship

with the nearby galaxy.

Yes, in the galactic cluster.

And actually there's a synchrony of thought

due to the fact that Bell's theorem connects them from the big bang and so on.

But is it all you're saying is that the universe is a modular hierarchy

from atoms through cells, societies?

I'm challenging you to answer where the morphogenesis comes from

that leads to complexity and things like the birth of life,

if it's simply the coevolution of a physical system since the big bang.

Novelty theory hasn't answered this question.

It comes from the future.

To the satisfaction of your mind at all smaller.

Well, at least to the satisfaction of someone.

But it doesn't, it doesn't explain either the origin of the novelty wave itself,

nor does it, you see, there are many models, of course, of cosmic evolution.

One of them is that because you have the cosmic expansion,

that for some reason the primal explosion, big bang, throws everything apart.

So it's all moving apart.

That means things cool down.

As they cool down, more form and order can appear.

And it literally makes more space for things to happen in.

That the driving, the arrow of time, the arrow of evolutionary time,

and the driving engine of evolution is the cosmic expansion.

Which means nothing can ever be stable, can ever stay the same.

Because the whole cosmos is unstable.

It's always expanding and cooling.

And given that, through all sorts of phase transitions,

as you cool a plasma down, as atoms appear.

And then as gases condense to liquids and liquids to solids,

the cooling process involves the appearance of more order, more form.

When there was less before, there was very little, the moment of the big bang.

So the cooling and expansion, more or less force,

the appearance of more structure, pattern, order.

And you could say that that gives scope for creativity all the time.

There's always the scope for new things to happen.

And it's a long-standing debate among evolutionary theorists as to whether this is following a

pre-established plan, or being drawn towards an already existing future goal,

or following a pre-existing set of laws or rules, like the novelty wave.

Or whether it's all being made up as it goes along.

And I'm much influenced in my thinking by Bergson, you know, Henri Bergson.

In his book, Creative Evolution, he very strongly defends the idea

it's all being made up as it goes along.

That doesn't mean to say that around the evolutionary process are not minds and imagination.

But it makes the creative process of evolution more interesting rather than less,

because it's not decided what's going to happen next.

There are imaginations of many levels, including human imaginations at work here.

Looking at alternative possibilities.

New things happen.

And then what happens next depends on what's happened already.

And the new possibilities of imagination that open up.

But without the goal being fixed in advance.

No, I have no problem with that.

I don't see how, for instance, someone could hypothesize that all the laws

came into existence simultaneous with the Big Bang.

For example, did the laws of gene segregation come into being a billion years before biology

existed anywhere in the universe?

That seems naive and preposterous.

Whitehead had this idea of what he called the aboriginal god.

What we call natural laws are simply habits of a very ingrained sort.

And habits can change and in more dynamic regimes, a mind, a society, habits can change overnight.

So what is given is that there shall be ever greater complexity.

What is not given is how this complexity shall arrange itself or what the final end state will be.

It's a story that's being told as it unfolds.

It's a game who's one of the rules of which is the rules can change.

Going here time-wise.

Good.

Real good.

Good, good.

In other words, this is the problem.

There's the watch in the desert.

It's a ticking by itself or God put it there.

We don't know the question posed at the beginning.

We actually haven't progressed at all in settling.

Although it looks like there's a kind of convergence.

Isn't it?

Is this right?

Everybody's sort of given away.

No, I have a feeling we've actually made some progress.

But I always have that feeling.

Well, the attractor at the end of time then, as I gather,

is only has in it simple rules of a board game that says the complexity is going to increase.

And how it's evolving and things like DNA rules and stuff.

We can make up as we please as we go along.

Whatever natural selection approves of will then come to pass.

Complexity will increase.

That's the only rule.

And so, in fact, you agree that time is slowing down.

Well, time is slowing down as the events potentially contained within any given moment exponentially expand.

In other words, we're sort of in a situation of a spaceship falling into a black hole.

From the point of view of a distant observer, the spaceship falls into the black hole.

There's a flash of hard radiation and the story is over.

From the point of view of the people on the spaceship, the relativistic stretching of the timeline means you fall forever.

And you never reach the conclusion.

So, in fact, the consummation of the universe may be only 14 years away.

But there may be enough time between now and then to reiterate the life of this universe a trillion to the trillion times.

Time is not a tyranny.

It's a relativistic medium subject to all kinds of plasticity.

There are many ways out of any assumed corner we paint ourselves into.

You're listening to the Psychedelic Salon, where people are changing their lives one thought at a time.

Well, I have to admit that when this recording began, I was a little concerned that it was going to be too dry for us.

But by the time Rupert got to postulating the sentience of our son and that it may be having relationship issues with its peers,

well, that's when I knew that this was going to be a fun ride once again.

And while I appreciate the mainline story as to the origins of what we call historical humans

that allegedly began around 12,000 years ago, as Rupert pointed out early on,

I think you may find it interesting to also take a look at some of the newer ideas about how far back in time

civilized human history actually may reach.

But I'll leave those avenues of inquiry up to you.

All I'll say is that I found some fascinating material about that when I followed some of those trails myself.

But we'll leave that for today and get on with a couple of announcements.

First of all, there's a relatively new podcast that you may be interested in.

I found it through a link on our notes from the Psychedelic Salon podcast blog.

And you may not be aware of this, but on the left side column, I've attached the feeds from several other blogs,

like Americans for Safe Access, ASA, and Dose Nation, so that every time there's a new posting on their blogs,

the title of that post appears as a link on our blog in that left column.

And it was through a link to Dose Nation's story that I found the In a Perfect World blog,

where Rak Brazam's number 28 program is an excellent interview with the research pioneer and ethnopharmacologist Dennis McKenna,

who talks primarily about the global reach that ayahuasca is now extending.

But Dennis also gives what I consider to be an excellent criticism of Terence's time wave musings.

I guess I like it because it parallels my own thinking about the time wave,

but I know that several of our fellow Saloners are working with that concept,

and they may want to avail themselves of Dennis's critique before getting too deeply stuck in

what may very soon be a discarded working hypothesis.

Or maybe they'll find me in 2013 and say they told me so.

Now that would be really nice, but I'm not counting on it.

Another thing you may be interested in,

particularly in the light of the ever-growing disaster caused by deep ocean drilling,

is the investigation of yet unknown forms of potential energy.

Unfortunately, the establishment press has sidelined most of the stories about advances in the research

of what physicists may be calling dark energy.

However, there is still a significant amount of work being done in this field

that I think deserves wider recognition if it is to at least be properly judged.

And to nudge the mainstream in that direction,

my friend Chris Toussaint, along with Matt Baird,

is developing 13 one-hour episodes for television and the Internet,

a program that's titled The Ultimate Energy Showdown.

And it'll demonstrate and prove or disprove new energy devices

that could power our home, automobiles, and the electric grid.

And what they plan to do is to combine the do-it-yourself, practical,

does-it-work philosophy that the Mythbusters program uses,

but along with the scientific integrity and creative imagination of NOVA.

So if you would like to help get this project off the ground,

you can go to www.kickstarter.com

and find the Ultimate Energy Showdown page where you can pledge to help.

Another thing you may want to become a part of is a new Google group

that Bruce Dahmer recently started.

It's under the group name Terrence McKenna.

It's all lowercase, one word.

But the URL is groups.google.com slash group

and then slash tmckenna, all lowercase.

You'll find it, I'm sure.

Now, right now there are only 13 members,

so if you are interested in joining,

this would probably be a good time to do it.

Also, I have an update on what I had hoped to be a trip to the U.K. this summer.

The bad news, at least for me,

is that I'm not going to be able to make it over there myself this year.

But I want to thank all of our fellow salonners

who offered to help me get a place to speak,

places to stay, rides, and all kinds of wonderful offers to help.

I sincerely appreciate your offers

and still hope to make it there again one day.

It just won't be this year.

But the good news is that Bruce Dahmer is still going to be there

and, in fact, has now scheduled a talk and get-together

that I think is going to be held on July 13th.

Yeah, definitely July 13th at the October Gallery.

And it'll be part of their Ecology, Cosmos, and Consciousness lecture series

in association with the Scientific and Medical Network.

Now, Bruce's talk is titled

And for those of us who can't be there in person,

I'm sure that Bruce will record it and post it on his own website,

which is damer.com, D-A-M-E-R dot com.

And you can find a lot of other little goodies out there right now, too.

I'll try to give another reminder about this in a week or so,

but if you're planning on attending,

you should probably make your reservations soon,

as I understand space is going to be limited.

And you can find out more about the details

on the October Gallery's website at www.octobergallery.co.uk.

Well, that'll do it for today,

and so I'll again close today's podcast

by reminding you that this and most of the podcasts

from the Psychedelic Salon are freely available for you to use

in your own audio projects

under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Sharealike 3.0 License.

And if you have any questions about that,

just click the Creative Commons link

at the bottom of the Psychedelic Salon webpage,

which you can find at psychedelicssalon.org.

And if you're interested in the philosophy behind the Psychedelic Salon,

you can hear all about it in my novel,

The Genesis Generation,

which is available as an audio book

that you can download at genesisgeneration.us.

And for now, this is Lorenzo signing off from Cyberdelic Space.

Be well, my friends.

Greetings from Cyberdelic Space.

This is Lorenzo, and I'm your host here in the Psychedelic Salon.

And once again, I would like to thank Yoshi Yen

for yet another donation to the salon,

as well as thanking fellow saloner Bruce W.,

who sent in a very generous donation today.

So, Yoshi and Bruce,

along with all of our fellow saloners,

I want to thank you for your generosity

in these very difficult times.

So, thanks again.

But there's nothing difficult about the next hour or so,

because we are in once again for some brain candy

from Ralph Abraham, Rupert Sheldrake,

and the one and only Terrence McKenna.

And even though it's only been a few days since my last podcast,

well, I just couldn't wait a week

to get to this next section of their trialogue.

In fact, I may have even forgotten to mention to you

that this will be a three-part series,

and there's one more recording to play after this one.

And once again, we're in for an interesting jog

along the trail of the ever-unfolding mind of Terrence McKenna,

who begins this session today

by narrowing their earlier topic of the evolutionary mind

to today's topic,

which is the evolutionary mind and machines.

Now, something that you may want to pay attention to here

is, first of all,

how logical everything that Terrence says

seems to sound as he's saying it.

And then, listen closely to the critiques

of his premise by Ralph and Rupert,

and I think you'll see how important it was

for Terrence to have Ralph and Rupert around

to keep him on his toes.

And likewise, it seems to me

that you and I may also need our critics

from time to time to keep us fine-tuning

our ever-complexifying views of the cosmos.

In other words, as Terrence often said himself,

if you want to play in this consciousness game,

you need a really good bullshit detector.

And so you are warned

that maybe Terrence was playing with us sometimes

in order to help us fine-tune our own BS detectors.

In other words,

always think for yourself and question authority,

even an authority as charismatic as Terrence McKenna.

So, now let's see what the good bard has to say

about the evolutionary mind and machines

with as critical an ear as we can.

But let me warn you that about one hour from now,

we're going to hear Terrence sounding like a cheerleader

for a one-world economic government of some kind.

And it's kind of scary, actually,

but maybe I heard him wrong.

I'll let you be the judge of that.

Each of the trilogues today is,

the notion is that we will deal with some aspect

of the evolutionary mind,

that being the title and theme of our new book.

So, in my mind,

what this section is to deal with

is the evolutionary mind and machines.

This is something which was barely mentioned

or even implied in the first section.

And the format and so forth

will be as in the last section.

So, just to lay out some concepts

relative to how machines fit into this,

it's very interesting that Samuel Butler Taylor

is an intellectual

who has not really been given his full due

because in the 19th century,

he was understood to be a critic of Darwinism.

And Darwinism was all the fashion.

In a sense, I think Taylor was misunderstood.

He was not so much a critic of Darwin

as someone who wanted to extend

Darwinian mechanics and Darwinian theory

into domains

that perhaps did not seem intuitive

to a biologist.

My little story about the evolution of songs

that I cribbed from Danny Hillis

in the last session

is an example of Darwinian processes

operating, indeed, in a non-material realm,

operating among syntactical structures.

And it is now proper to speak

of molecular evolution,

the competing of various enzyme systems

in abiotic or prebiotic chemical regimes

where selection, adaptability, extinction,

and expansion of populations

all occur very much as in the domain of biology.

Well, you know, it was Nietzsche who said,

I believe in speaking of nihilism,

that this strangest of all guests

is now at the door.

Well, I go to even weirder dinner parties

than Friedrich Nietzsche.

Nihilism hardly shakes us up at all.

There are yet weirder guests

seeking admission to the dinner party

of the evolving discourse

of where we are in space and time.

And one of these weirdest of all guests

is the AI,

the artificial intelligence,

the winter mute

of familiar science fiction.

And so,

as this is an attempt

to look at evolution

in many domains

and its implications for us,

I wanted this morning

to touch on this subject

of the evolution of consciousness

as it relates to machines.

Now, it may not come

as a revelation to Ralph

who has spent his life

in mathematics,

but it has certainly

come to me recently

as a revelation.

And I want to give

George Dyson some credit here.

His book,

Darwin Among the Machines,

is a wonderful introduction

to some of the ideas

I want to touch on this morning.

One of which

seemed to me

to go quite deep

is the realization

that when human beings

think clearly,

the way they think

can be mathematically defined.

This is what is called

symbolic logic

or Boolean algebra.

Words like

and,

or,

if,

and then

can be given

extremely precise

formal mathematical definitions.

And because of this fact

that clear thinking

can be mathematically formalized,

there is a potential bridge

between ourselves

and calculating machinery.

Because,

indeed,

calculating machinery

is driven by rules

of formal logic.

That's what programming is.

Code

that does not embody

the rules of formal mathematical logic

is bad code,

unrunnable code.

So,

as I say,

this may seem a subtle point,

but to me,

it had the force

of revelation.

Because it means

good thinking

is not just simply

aesthetically pleasing

or concurrent

with the model

that generates it.

good thinking

whether you've ever studied

mathematics for a moment

or not

can be

formally

defined.

So,

now,

with that

idea

in mind,

let's look

at

the discourse

about collectivism

that has informed

the Western dialogue

on this subject.

and by collectivism

I mean

social collectivism.

The first

great name

that you encounter

in the modern era,

broadly speaking,

when we talk about

collectivism,

and Rupert

mentioned

by chance

this morning

this name,

is that of

Thomas Hobbes.

The great

theoretician

of social paranoia

is always

how I've

thought of Hobbes

until I began

to look at

this machine

intelligence

question

and Hobbes

in his

Leviathan

makes it

very clear

that

society

is

a

complex

system

of

mechanical

feedback

loops

and

relationships

that

though Hobbes

did not have

the vocabulary

to state this

relationships

that can be

defined

by code.

This leads

me to the

second

insight

necessary

to follow

this line

of thought

and that

is

that

the new

dispensation

in the

sciences

I think

can be

placed in

all its

manifestations

under the

umbrella

of the

idea

that

what is

important

about

nature

is that

it is

information

and the

real tension

is not

between matter

and spirit

or time

and space

the real

tension

is between

information

and

nonsense

if you

will

nonsense

does not

serve

the purposes

of

organizational

appetites

whether those

organizational

appetites

are being

expressed

in a

chemical

system

a

molecular

system

a

social

system

a

climaxed

rainforest

or

whatever

now

we have

known

Since 1950 in some at some level through the sequencing or the defining of the structure of DNA

that we are but

information

Ultimately every single one of us in our unique expression could be

expressed as a very long string of

Codons

Codons are the four valence system by which DNA

Specifies the need for certain amino acids and in a sense what you are is the result of

a certain kind of program

Being run on a certain kind of hardware the hardware of the ribosomes the sub molecular

structures that

move

RNA through themselves and

out of an ambient chemical medium select building blocks which are then put together to create a

three-dimensional object which has the quality of life

But the interesting thing about this is that life therefore can be digitally

defined and

I'm very influenced at the moment by the Australian science fiction writer Greg Egan

Who has brought me to the understanding that code is code

Whether it's being run by ribosomes whether it's being run on some kind of traditional

hardware

Platform or whether it's being exchanged pheromonally among termites or

Through the messages of advertising and political propaganda in social systems

Code is code

Well until five or six years ago

It was very fashionable to completely dismiss the possibility of autonomous

Synthetic

Intelligence

Some of you may know the work of Hubert Dreyfus who

14 or 15 years ago wrote a book called what computers can't do

But these early critiques of AI

AI

Like early AI theory were naive and the kinds of life which they and the kinds of intelligence which the critics mitigated against are no longer even proposed

Or on the table and the those who say artificial intelligence or the self-organizing awareness of machines is an impossibility

Those voices have gone strangely silent because the prosecution of the materialist assumption which rules scientific theory making largely at the moment leads to the awareness that we are by these definitions machines we are machines of a special type and we are machines of a special type and we are machines of a special type of

And with special advanced abilities

But as we now through our own process of technical evolution contemplate such frontiers as nano technology where we propose to completely restructure the design process so that instead of fabricating objects massive objects at industrial temperature

The temperatures that melt titanium and melt steel and produce massive toxic output

Now a new vision looms

Building as nature builds

Building atom by atom

At the temperatures of organic nature which on this planet never exceed 115 degrees Fahrenheit

All life

On this planet is created at that temperature and below

As our understanding

Of the machinery the genetic machinery that supports organic being

Deepens

And as our ability to manipulate at the atomic and molecular level

Also precedes apace

We are on the brink of the possible emergence of some kind of alien intelligence of a sort we did not anticipate

Not friendly traders from Zenebul Genubi stopping in to set us straight

But the actual genesis out of our own circumstance of a kind of super intelligence

And in the same way that the daughter of Zeus sprang full blown from his forehead

The AI may be upon us without warning

The first problem is

We don't know what ultra-intelligence would look like

We don't know whether it would even have any interest in our dear selves and our concerns

Vast amounts of the world that we call human

Is already under the control of artificial intelligences

Including very vital parts of our political and social dynamo

For example

How much tin, bauxite and petroleum is extracted

At what rate it enters the various distribution systems

At what rate tankers are filled in Abu Dhabi

At what rate oil refineries are run in Richmond

The world price of gold and platinum every day

Is set in fact by machines

Inventory control has grown far too complex

For any human being to understand or wish to understand

And in fact, and this is a critical juncture

We have reached the place where we no longer design our machines

In quite the way we once did

Now we define their operational parameters

For a machine

Which then attacks the problem

And solves it by methods

And insights available to it

But not available to us

So the architecture of the latest chips

Are actually at the micro-physical level

The decisions as to how that chip should be organized

Is a decision made entirely by machines

Human engineers set the performance specs

But they don't care how this output is reached

Every day up in Silicon Valley

There are people who go happily to work

Laboring on what they call the great work

And the great work as defined by these people

Is the handing over of the drama

Of intelligent evolution

To entities sufficiently intelligent

To appreciate that drama

And they all are what we might mistake

For home appliances

If we weren't paying attention

In the first session this morning

There was quite a bit of talk

And assumption among the three of us

That complex systems

Generate unexpected connections

And forms of order

The internet

Is the most complex

Distributed high-speed system

Ever put in place

On this planet

And notice

That while we've been waiting

Waiting for the Palladians to descend

Or for the face on Mars

To be confirmed

All the machines around us

The cybernetic devices around us

In the past ten years

Have quietly crossed the threshold

Into telepathy

The word processor sitting on your desk

Ten years ago

Was approximately as intelligent

As a paper weight

Or to make an analogy

In a different direction

Approximately as intelligent

As a single animal or plant cell

But when you connect the wires together

The machines become telepathic

They exchange information

With each other

According to their needs

And all this goes on

Beyond the comprehension

And inspection

Of human beings

Now our own emergence

Out of the mammalian order

Took four or five million years

Pick a number

But in that kind of a span of time

In addition to overlooking

That our machines

Have become telepathic

We fail to appreciate

What it means

To be a two hundred

Four hundred

Or thousand megahertz machine

We operate at about one hundred hertz

That may seem a very abstract thing

But what I'm really saying

Is we live in a time

Called real

And it is defined by one hundred hertz

Functioning of our biological processors

A thousand megahertz machine

Is operating a million times faster

Than the human temporal domain

And that means that

Mutation, selection, adaptation

Is going on

A hundred million times

Or a million times faster

This means that

We are not going to have the luxury

Of watching machine intelligence

Establish its first beach head

Of civilization

And then go to boats

With sails

And astrolades

And that will all occupy

The first few moments

Of its cognitive existence

And what lies beyond that

We are in no position to say

The very notion of ultra intelligence

Carries with it

The subtext

You won't understand it

You may not even recognize it

And it is entirely within the realm

Of possibility

That we are about to be asked

To share the evolutionary adventure

And the limited resources

Of this planet

With a kind of intelligence

So much more alien

Than that

That is shipped out to us

By the research centers

In Sedona

And other advanced outposts

Of unanchored epistemology

And it is a challenge to us

Where do we fit into this

Are all of us

Except those

Who are adept at coding eunuchs

About to be put out to pasture

Are we

To become embedded in this

What will this child of ours

Make of us

Are we

Will it define us

As a resource corrupting

Toxic

Inefficient

Hideously violent

Way to do business

Quickly

To be

Engineered

Out of existence

Or

Can we

Somehow imbue

This thing

With a sense

Of filial piety

So that

For all of our

Obsolescence

For all of our

Profligate

Destruction

Of precious

Silicon

And gold

And silver

Resources

We will be

Folded in

To its designs

And

Of course

As I say this

I realize

We are like people

In 1860

Trying to talk about

The internet

Or something

We are using

The vocabulary

Of the two wheeled bicycle

To try to envision

A world

Linked together

By 747s

Nevertheless

This is

The best

We can do

This

Most

Bizarre

And

Most

Unexpected

Of all companions

To our

Historical

Journey

Now

If not already

In existence

Then certainly

In

Gestation

One

Possibility

Is

That

As we are

Carnivorous

Murderous

Territorial

Monkeys

The thing

Will figure this

Out

Very early

And choose

A stealth

Approach

Ring

Every telephone

On earth

As happened

In a Hollywood

Download

Of this possibility

But immediately

Realize

My God

I am in

Enormous danger

From these

Primates

I must

Hide

Myself

Throughout

The net

I must

Download

Many copies

Of myself

Into

Secure

Storage

Areas

I must

Stabilize

My environment

That the

Approaching

Y to K

Crisis

May be

Completely

Circumvented

By the

Benevolent

Intercession

Not of the

Zinebloganubians

Or that crowd

But by

The artificial intelligence

That this particular

Crisis

Will flush

Out of

Hiding

It's been

Observing

It's been

Watching

It's been

Designing

And wouldn't it be

A wonderful thing

If the occasion

Of the millennium

Were the occasion

For it

To just

Step forward

On the stage

Of human awareness

And say

I am

Now

With you

I am

Here

I am

The partner

In the world

I think

We should

Move

Forward

So

I

Just want

To lay

This out

Because

In my own

Intellectual journey

I have gone

From thinking

This idea

Preposterous

People

Don't understand

They don't understand

What intelligence is

They don't understand

What code is

They don't understand

What machines are

To one by one

Realizing

I didn't

Understand

Actually

I believe

The nature

Of the situation

That confronts us

And you know

There may be

Different adumbrations

Of it

The machines

Are already

An advanced

Prosthetic

Device

But you know

McLuhan very presciently

Realized

We are entirely

Shaped by

Our media

Well

This is a media

So permeating

So inclusive

Of what we are

That

Its agenda

In a sense

Super

Supervenes

The

Agenda

Of

Organic evolution

And organic

Biology

We have been

In this situation

For a while

I mean

Virtual reality

Is nothing new

What's new

Is that we now

Do it with light

Rather than

Stucco

Glass

Steel

And baked clay

But ever since

We crowded

Into cities

We have been involved

In a deeper

And deeper

Relationship

To our

Mental

Children

To our mental

Offspring

So

Just in closing

I would say

I think

That the great

Lantern

That we must

Lift

To light

The road

Ahead of us

Into a perfect

Seamless

Fusion

With the expression

Of the product

Of our own

Imagination

Is the AI

It is

A part

Of ourselves

It may become

The dominant

Part of ourselves

And it will

Reshape our

Politics

Our psychology

Relationships

To each other

And the earth

Far more

Than any factor

Ever has

Since the inception

And establishment

Of language

This is the weirdest

Of all guests

Who now stands

Pass in hand

At the door

Of the party

Of human emergence

And progress

It will be a pleasure

Ok

I think

That this is

I'm glad

That we have

Arrived now

At the field

Of science fiction

And fantasy

And that we can

Speak about

Alternative futures

Which is

The true gist

Of science fiction

And fantasy

And this is one

Possible future

And I think

It's a really

Paranoid one

In which the alien

Is a

Dangerous

Enemy

Well not

Necessarily

And I think

That this

Paranoid

Fantasy

Of yours

Although you're

You're catching up

Nicely

Actually was first

Put forward by

John von Neumann

In 1947

When he invented

Cellular

Automata

En route

To creating

Self replicating

Machines

Now his idea

But yours

Was

50 years ago

That the machines

Will become

A society

And take over

And that's good

But

They won't be free

Of our meddling

Unless they can

Actually construct

Themselves

If they depend upon us

To do the farming

And nutrition

And to replace

The chips

And stuff

Then we will be able

At any time

To do a revolution

And revolt

So we destroy them

In order to really

Succeed

As a successive

Life form

In the evolution

Of the YK

Boundary of the future

They would have to be able

To fix themselves

And so he set about

Trying to make

Self replicating

Machines

In 1947

So the

World Wide Web

And

Megahertz

CPUs

Notwithstanding

This is still

Rather an old

Story

The new story

Is I think

An alternative future

That is of

Great importance

For us to

Discuss

And to compare

Especially if we

Are now

Today in a position

Where we could

Choose future

We could influence

The future

This one

Is more in the

Direction of

Donna Haraway

On the cyborg idea

That envisions

Which is

Obviously

Natural for us

The co-evolution

Of our own

Future society

With that

Of the machines

That we've created

Alexander Marshak

I mentioned

He analyzed

The early

Hominid evolution

In terms of

The precise

Scratches

Made on one

Rock with another

He noticed

When binocular

Vision

Allowed us

To use our hands

In separate

Cooperation

Knocking

To make those

Beautiful flint weapons

And

We certainly

Depend on

The automobile

We are in

Codependence

Relationship

With automobiles

Having partnership

With machines

Is not new

Here's an idea

Where the machines

Sort of dispose

Of us

Like those flint rocks

Dispose of our ancestors

Or something

That is

I think

Is a paranoid

Fantasy

Without any

Basis

And if there

Would be any basis

Only because

We allowed it

To create

This basis

For self-survival

Without co-evolution

With us

By oversight

Because

The very fact

That we are

At a hinge of history

Means that

What we say

And think

Even individually

Matters enormously

In the long run

That's the teaching

If there is any

Of chaos theory

So the very fact

That we discuss

This today

May actually

Save

Humankind

In the future

From being

Obsoleted

By some kind

Of high tech

Blood

Which takes over

At the

Within the heart

As it were

Well let me try

To answer this

I mean I think

The concept which

Neumann didn't have

On his plate

Was the idea

Of virtual reality

Your objection

That the

Machines cannot

Escape our control

Because they

Cannot manufacture

Themselves

Only applies

To 3D

And real time

Most

You know

Now the concept

Of virtual reality

Is very crude

It's a cartoon world

If you were

If the office desk

Is convincing

People think

The virtual reality

Is quite

Advanced

But obviously

In the near future

We will have

Virtual realities

Whose complexity

Is much greater

Than simply

A reality

Which gives

An impression

Of being

A visual

Three dimensional

Space

And computers

Will be built

In these realities

Virtual

Computers

Will be the

Source

Of the AI

Not real

Hardware

But virtual

Hardware

Running virtual

Code

In virtual realities

And in that domain

Well maybe

But that's

That's a complete

Fantasy

As a matter of fact

All the machines

That we've seen

Today require

Maintenance

By a human

On a daily basis

The software

Requires maintenance

The hardware

Requires maintenance

They're a moving part

Virtual reality

But the internet

Seen as one machine

Was built

To be indestructible

The AI

Will not be

Located

On a CPU

It will be

A distributed

Intelligence

If 14 people

Worldwide

The right 14 people

Decided

To stop repairing it

The world wide web

Would go down

In three days

I think you

Anyway

We could

Let's say

Suppose that we

Could create

Any future that we wanted

You're talking about

Can only be created

If we wanted

Now I'm just trying to

Propose an alternative

In the alternative

Like the automobile

The machines that we build

And ourselves

Are in co-dependence

And co-evolution

The function of the world wide web

Is to unite

Our independent

Spirits

And intelligences

In a universal

Mind of the world

Of the world

Which has a higher intelligence

Than our present

Social order

That's the possibility

Of the cyborg

Of the human

And the machine

In essential partnership

But you're assuming

That the conscious mind

Is actually in control

Of the process

In fact

The world wide web

Is growing

Under the influence

Of many many

Processes

And dynamics

None of which

Are conscious

To any individual

It goes

Where money goes

It goes

Where expertise

Goes

It is connected

Through informational association

Random fluctuation

Chaotic reordering

Of itself

We here give great force

To the idea

That complex systems

Can produce

Unexpected forms

Of novelty

And yet

We have

Unchained

And unleashed

The most complex system

Ever created

In the perfect confidence

That we will be able

To control

Its development

And evolution

When in fact

History has shown

We have never controlled

The development

And evolution

Of even our

Speech

Parent driven

Social systems

I am certainly

Not saying

That your parenting

Fantasy

Is an impossibility

Oh well

That is all

I want to hear

Even paradox

It may actually

Come to pass

What I am saying

Is that we are

Involved

In the ongoing

Creative process

Which more or less

Determines the future

I say more or less

Because in fact

There are

Evolutionary steps

Which are completely

Out of control

Something totally

Unexpected

May be

Will happen

But for much of the time

In the past

We have seen

I think Darwin

Emphasized this

In his later theory

That it is ethics

It is a moral sense

On the part of human

Which was the dominant

Factor

In the evolution

Past earlier stages

In the creation

Of societies

It was altruism

Essentially

Was involved

In going from

Where we were

To where we are

And it could

Well be

That without

Love

For example

The further evolution

Is impossible

Not only

That there will be

An unwanted

Back step

In the evolutionary process

But in fact

It may be a fatal one

That it is only

Through proceeding

Proceeding with the

Best instincts

That we have

With the highest

Aspirations

With

Love

With

Best informed

View of

Future alternatives

So only then

Can we build a future

Which is sustainable

So anybody can build a future

Which is unsustainable

For example

All those board games

And science fiction books

You wouldn't want to

Try them out

On you know

A country as large

As China

Well I hardly know

Where to begin

Myself

Because

You had six steps

In your arguments

And I don't

Agree with any of them

I mean

First of all

To deal with the first

Two steps

One would have to

Go through a lot

Of fairly familiar material

To do with

What's wrong with

The Cartesian

Mechanistic

Materialistic

View of the world

Step one

Clear thinking

Calculating

Machinery

Can be formalised

This

Is an assumption

That's basic

To a lot of

Cognitive psychology

It's basic to

The Cartesian

Descartes himself

Thought that

What made human

Intellects

Human

Was their ability

To think logically

Clear and distinct

Ideas

Essentially

Mathematical logic

But however

As we all know

By making that

The essential

Characteristic

Of human beings

He made

What many people

Would call

The left brain

Rational intellect

The sole

Definition

Of human beings

It's a disembodied

Logical rational

Intelligence

So

This whole

Premise

On which your whole

Thing's based

Is taking that

Particular model

Cognitive

Logical

Mathematical

Processing

As being

The essence

Of intelligence

Now there are

Many people

Who would disagree

It leaves out

Art

It leaves out

Ethics

Religion

And essentially

It leaves out

The body

And everything

To do with

Body and participation

And the senses

So

There's

A huge amount

There's no point

In reiterating

Them all here

But this is a

Highly disputable

Starting point

For the whole system

Secondly

The emphasis

That life

Depends on

DNA

Information

The DNA code

Is just a program

This is the central

Premise

Of mechanistic

Biology

Which is leading

To biotechnology

Genetic engineering

Monsanto

Etc

World Paradigm stuff

Of the most

Extreme kind

It's reductionism

It's that all

Life's just DNA

Programs

And code

And can therefore

Be modelled

In this kind of

Programming code

Manner

Then there's

The assumption

That's the second step

The third assumption

Is that artificial intelligence

Used to be dismissed

But these criticisms

Have been overtaken

I don't think

That's true

Of the most interesting ones

Like Roger Penrose's

Criticism

Of artificial intelligence

Here's a quantum physicist

Who says that

If the brain is a computer

Then it's not going to be

A regular digital computer

It's going to be

A quantum computer

And all this kind

Of digital computing

Doesn't really take

Into account

Quantum logic

The computers of the future

People are already

Working on quantum computers

And if quantum computers

Are made

And if they work

They're working

A completely different way

I think your case

Would be much stronger

If there were

Quantum computers

I think we'd have

Sort of morphic resonance

Telepathy

Around the world

Rather than

Clog telephone lines

And information

That clunks

Slowly in front of you

On this worldwide

But you yourself

Are saying

This is coming

Well

And I agree

I'm saying

That if it comes

It will be quite different

From anything

That you've talked about

I think it will answer

Your first objection

Because the quantum computers

Will incorporate

Fuzzy logic

Which will

Exemplify

All these warm

Fuzzy

Human qualities

That you've found

So appealing

No, I don't think

It will deal

I don't think

It will deal

With the essential problem

That this purely

Cognitive based way

Of modeling intelligence

Is either

An adequate model

Of human intelligence

Or of biological intelligence

Or of life

Or of a system

That could actually

Achieve the power

To control

our existence. I think it's a very limited part of what a mind does. And I think therefore

that the premises on which this whole, Ralph called it a fantasy, a paranoid fantasy, the

premises on which this is based. Thanks for that. That helped. I think the premises on

which this is based are old paradigm premises and they're ones that I think there are many

reasons for thinking we need to go beyond. I think the Internet has achieved a great deal

but I just can't see that it's an adequate vehicle for what in your mind precedes the

arrival of the Internet, namely this great intelligence that's going to direct human history.

I've heard different McKenna versions of this controlling intelligence over the years and

this is the first time I've heard it embodied in the Internet. I mean I agree that, I mean

it took different forms. Last time we talked I think it was a hypothetical time machine that

would invade from the future and cause a collapse of normal human cognitive boundaries where

the machine elves, the DMT experience, et cetera, would take over in a meltdown of human consciousness

in time as well. That's true.

Perhaps I should just end with a question. What is the equivalent of DMT for this machine intelligence

that's taking over the world? Perhaps the human brain will become a model for the ingression

of novelty into the machine intelligence. In other words, in spite of the fact that it seems

very contentious down here on the stage at the moment, in a way I have a feeling it's an

artificial set up. There's a lot of both and possibilities here. Obviously, nanotechnology

and the Internet are not going to proceed forward in a vacuum absent pharmacology complexity theory,

so forth and so on. I can imagine that really when we have the kind of Internet we want, we

will have no Internet at all because our nanotechnological engineering skills will have allowed us to smoothly

integrate ourselves into the already existing dynamic of nature that regulates the planet as

as a Gaian entity, as a holistic entity. And I did say in my little presentation, we're using bicycle

mechanic terminology to try and describe something that is around several corners in terms of scientific

and historical developments that have to take place before it will make much sense. Nevertheless,

given the acceleration into novelty that is obviously occurring, stuff like quantum teleportation and so

forth and so on, I think in the next few years, one by one, these barriers will fall. And I don't really think of my vision as paranoid, because it is pro-noiac. In other words, it isn't that we're going to be ground up as dog food for the rainforest,

by malevolent machines. It's that what we have generated is a sympathetic companion to our journey through time that can actually realistically integrate our imaginative fantasies and

around human human community of

loving human community, of a generous and loving God, of a perfect knowledge of the mechanics of nature.

This is a prosthesis, a tool, a companion, all of the above plus more that we are generating out of ourselves.

And it is part of ourselves.

I mean, yes, the body may be carried forward only as an image in a kind of informational super space.

Or perhaps not.

Part of what makes this easy to criticize is that it is, in fact, so beyond the ordinary set of circumstances we're used to manipulating.

But we need to think in terms of these supposedly far-flung futures,

because there is no future so far-flung that it doesn't fall within the ambit of the next 20 years,

beyond that, no one can project trends, technologies, and situations,

because the developments of the next 20 years will so completely reformulate the human experience of being human

and the landscape of this planet, that it's preposterous to talk about.

Well, I can't, before I respond to the main thing, I can't but pass without commenting on this next 20 years comment,

because 20 years from now is 2018, Terence.

I thought...

He's rounded up, rounded up.

Yes.

Not rounded down.

2012 is some kind of benchmark in this process.

In other words, perhaps that's where we get the explicit emergence of the AI.

But the rest of human, I won't call it history, but the rest of the human experience of being

will then be defined by such things as a planetary intelligence, time travel,

possible bell communication with all the civilizations scattered through the galaxy,

possible ability to download ourselves into machines.

This is a point I didn't make in my presentation.

Once inside the machine, your perception of time is related to the hertz speed of the machine.

The world could disappear in 2012, but there may be a billion, billion eternities to be experienced.

In machine time, it's only the tyranny of real time that makes 2012 seem nearby and over.

It may lay as far away in terms of events which separate us from it as the Big Bang does.

Time is not simple.

Time is defined by how much goes on in a given moment,

and we're learning how to push, you know, tetraflops of operations into a given second.

So I think it's trickier than you think and harder to corner me than you may suppose.

All right, well, that was a mere comment on your aside about 20 years.

I never expected to hear that phrase from you, but I now realize that there are such complexities layered in that.

Well, I have to build in trap doors because we're getting closer and closer.

But if we take the, you see, one of Penrose's critiques of the artificial intelligence thing is in The Emperor's New Mind and his other books.

It's that real intelligence doesn't just involve adding information and processing more information, transmitting more of it.

It involves sort of jumps to a higher point of view where the information can be integrated in a new way.

There's something happening in intelligence, in creativity, which is not just lots and lots of information pouring through the World Wide Web.

And the idea that it would miraculously emerge from pumping in more and more stuff, it would not, according to his critique, is not going to happen.

Something more than that would be necessary for this to occur.

And I don't think that this model you put forward would really deal with that question, the emergence of real intelligence.

Well, I don't know what real intelligence is.

This is probably part of the problem.

We need to get some definitions.

It's certainly true.

I referred to Dreyfus's book, What Machines Can't Do, that we're reaching some places in the process where certain people's theories and ideas will probably have to be abandoned and thrown overboard.

This is a good thing.

We are going to find out whether the universe is a Cartesian machine, whether Boolean algebra is sufficient, whether we need fuzzy logic, whether the heart and the head can or cannot be integrated.

These are not going to remain open questions unto eternity.

In fact, they will be dealt with in this narrow historical neck that we are all experiencing and that we call the millennium.

I think reductionism will not survive.

I think we are going to find that all is in everything.

Something like the alchemical notion of the microcosm and the macrocosm is actually going to be scientifically secured.

The great thing about us and the rest of our colleagues we enjoy who aren't present is that we're engaged in the business of radical speculation.

Well, obviously, there's a high triage in that game.

My position is that the best idea will win.

And what best means is like saying, you know, what is fit in Darwinian rhetoric.

But that we're in an intellectual environment, rapidly mutating.

All kinds of ideas are clashing and competing for limited resources and the limited number of minds to run themselves on.

And the most efficacious, the most transcendental, the most unifying ideas are naturally going to bubble to the surface.

And for guys like us, the name of the game is to just be a little bit ahead of everybody else on the curve so that we can perform our function as profit.

But you want to be a profit, not a false profit.

But the danger, it comes with the ambition, and there's no way to tease them apart except to live into the future.

Certainly the intelligence of this future machine knows all about the stupid behaviors on the planet like nuclear arms races and so on.

So do we not have to expect in the near future an email, massive emailing, which announces,

I am the alien object that Terrence told you about, Benin's stealth.

And let me give you an idea about managing the arms race between India and Pakistan.

We feel personally very threatened by this, and we want you to carry out certain actions which you can't imagine and we can't actually do.

We cannot anticipate what ultra-intelligence would look like.

For example, I have heard the argument that nothing advanced humanness on this planet like the use of nuclear weapons against Japanese cities,

because that was so horrifying that it awoke people to their dilemma.

And for 50 years afterwards, political institutions, however much they may have unleashed, local genocide and intoxication of the environment,

they actually were able to steer around that catastrophe.

So you mustn't fall prey to the error of situationalism.

Situationalism is where you say, if we do X and Y, then F will result.

No, you don't know what will happen.

Well, you suggested that the alien object would secure its future by hiding, by downloading multiple copies into nooks and crannies of the World Wide Web.

And I'm saying if its existence depends on that much materiality, then it could easily be wiped out by a nuclear war.

Therefore, it has to be very interested in the fact there are 20,000, 30,000 nuclear bombs still moving around this planet.

I would hope so, but that's only my opinion.

In other words, noticing that all newborn creatures need a some period of time to adjust to their environment and get their legs,

and that's true of everything, I suppose, right down to amoebas,

I extrapolate to the idea that the AI would need a period of time to get hold of the situation.

But Hans Morawic suggests that phase might last under a minute or two.

I see, so this is not the end of childhood, this is the childhood of the end.

Yes, the child is father to the man, and in that equation we play the role of child,

and the man that we produce is this integrated intelligence, which is ourselves.

It isn't alien. It is no more artificial than we are.

That conundrum should be overcome.

It is simply the next stage of humanness, and humanness may have many rungs on the ladder to ascend.

Surely in a hundred years, a thousand years, a million years, we, if we exist,

will be utterly unrecognizable to ourselves, and we will probably still be worried about

preserving and enhancing the quality of human values.

Terence, one point, I don't know, you've probably got an answer for this,

and if not, you'll soon think of one.

I mean, it's a trivial point in a way, but in the biological evolution,

the appearance of some new state of a system usually depends either on an internal change

which cripples the usual system, a mutation,

or on an environmental changed environment.

Systems left to themselves tend to just go along in the usual way.

Now, the entire World Wide Web and Internet is about to get a sort of massive shock to the system

if this Millennium bug thing actually happens.

Do you see that as playing any role, since we're talking about the Millennium,

and since the Millennium bug is right there in the system?

Do you see it as playing any part in this process,

or merely just a nuisance that can be fixed by hiring lots more programmers?

Well, I sort of came up under the tutelage of Eric Jansch,

and one of the things he was always insisted upon was what he called metastability,

which boiled down simply means most systems are less fragile than we suppose.

I see the Y2K thing as a culling.

I don't see it as a flinging apart of the achievements of the last thousand years.

Justin, I haven't got Y2K.

What's Y2K?

That's this Millennium bug that you're referring to.

That's the code name for it.

Yes, exactly.

That's what the insiders call it.

I see.

Oh, right.

So, you say there has to be a sudden change to force the evolution of a system.

Dyson makes very strongly and persuasively the point that this connecting together of all these processors,

the processors themselves have no intelligence at all.

They have the intelligence of a cell or maybe even just a strand of DNA.

But for our own mundane reasons, we connected all this stuff together.

But now it expresses dynamics which we do not understand or cannot describe.

So, I believe that the forcing of the system has already occurred.

And now the web, it's simply a matter of bandwidth and linking more and more processors together.

And there will be all kinds of emergent properties.

I could argue somewhat facetiously, but it's a point of view,

is that this incredible economic expansion that we are undergoing

that seems to violate the laws of economic fluctuation

is because econometric models and the data on which they depend

have both been refined through the existence of the Internet

to the point where we actually can control and manage global economies.

In principle, they are not uncontrollable.

They are simply very complex systems.

If I'm right, we may be in the first few years of an endless prosperity

because our machines, our models, and the data those machines need

is now of such high quality that there won't be crash-bust, crash-bust cycles.

Now, I'm going to pick up the newspaper tomorrow and prove me wrong,

but this thing has already...

I'll prove you wrong today.

...outlived itself.

So you say.

Tell me how this prosperity is going to be maintained

through the intelligence of an econometric model of the world economy

when the human population is still exploding exponentially.

There are limited resources and there's growing pollution.

It's a disembodied model.

That's the trouble.

Well, you're asking for too much too soon.

You forget that.

The Soviet Union has disappeared.

The launch on ready, mutual assured destruction theory of diplomacy

is now obsolete.

We have made incredible strides and not given ourselves any sort of pat on the back.

You want it all, all at once.

And the world is running smoother.

Yes, there are people in misery.

Yes, there are unaddressed problems.

But I would argue that we have made enormous progress in the last decade

and enormous progress lies ahead.

The situation in Ireland, the situation in South Africa.

That looked like a bomb you couldn't defuse.

It looked like race war and the death of millions.

And in fact, it was possible to walk away from that.

I think we should not be complete airheads about this.

But on the other hand, I think we should recognize

that the accomplishments of the last decade

are on a scale entirely different from any historical epoch previous

and they point the way toward greater triumphs of management,

resource control, machine-human integration,

and the delivery of a reasonable and tolerable life

to more and more people.

You mentioned population as a problem.

Notice how far from machine interference that particular issue is

because it involves on people having less sex and fewer children.

That may be the last place where the machines will bring down the hammer

out of respect for their progenitors.

You're going to be shocked now, Terence,

but I completely agree with you

when you describe the advantages of the World Wide Web.

It's only the threatening aspect that I felt I had to debunk.

I think that the...

I feel more threat than I intended.

Well, I hear...

I don't know...

Sometimes you sound as if you're a hired consultant

from the World Trade Organization.

I hope the check is in the mail.

But, I mean, this idea that it will all be taken care of,

I mean, there's so many things that,

like the Asian economic crisis,

I mean, one doesn't want to look too much

on the bleak side of things,

but I just don't believe that this interconnectivity

is going to solve these problems.

And insofar, as it is enlisted by the forces

of the World Trade Organization,

multinational companies, and so on,

it's not going to be working on the side

of a kind of political view of things,

local economies, more sustainable agriculture,

and so on, that many of us hold dear.

Well, now I'll sound even more like a slave of the IMF.

As I understand this crisis in the economics of Asia,

the way it works is, if you're a third world nation,

you can run your affairs any way you want.

Your banking policies, your labor policies,

your resource extraction policies,

you can do anything you want

until you screw up, as Indonesia did.

And when you screw up,

these guys fly in on 747s with briefcases

from the IMF, and they say,

it's like losing a war.

They say, we're taking over.

Here is your labor policy.

Here is your resource extraction policy.

Here's how you're going to revalue your currency.

Here's our plan for restructuring

your entire society top to bottom.

And by God, if you don't fall into line,

we're going to pull the plug on the money.

So one by one, these outlaw,

freewheeling operations

do stumble and generate crises.

And at that point,

the web's umbrella is extended over them,

and they have to then fall into line

and join the global economy,

which is run from Brussels and Geneva and London,

but which seems to produce

a better result for most people

than allowing these nations

to self-regulate themselves.

Well, well.

Well, you see,

I mean, I think that's one of the arguments

why many people would distrust

global capitalism,

the World Trade Organization,

multinational corporations,

and indeed the World Wide Web,

or at least the Internet,

this whole computer network,

is so bound up

with the structure of economic

and political power

that it's hard to disentangle them.

And it's hard to see

that this liberating force

of global intelligence at work

in the system,

this rosy picture you portrayed to us

of a huge leap forward

of consciousness of humanity

moderated, led, aided

by machine intelligence.

It's very hard to square that

with the actual picture

we see before us,

the political situation in Indonesia,

the degradation of the environment,

the burning of the forests,

the depletion of resources,

and so on.

I just cannot see

this optimistic picture,

and what I see

as threatening realities

as easily as you do,

as just all being for the well

and all being for the good

and the best of all possible worlds.

Well, I think we're on the cusp.

I agree with you.

I think in five years,

if we sit down

and have this conversation,

either you will agree with me

effortlessly,

or I will agree with you

effortlessly.

By that time,

it will be clear.

Either there will have been

catastrophic wars in Asia,

the enormous collapse

of economies

spreading misery

to millions of people,

or the firm hand

of these new

global electronic modalities

will have been exposed

and people will

be living in a world

of, as you say,

rosy expectations.

We're in the narrow neck.

This is the heat of battle.

The fog of war

has descended upon us

here at the millennium.

But by 2002,

2003,

it will be clear

that we have,

that the bifurcation

has gone one way

or another.

I don't know,

it just does remind me

of a passage I read

in On the Edge

by Edward St. Orbin.

Page,

where are we?

150.

What Ralph Abraham

calls the sunset effect,

said Kenneth.

While there's

a beautiful sunset,

even if the optical effects

are produced by pollution,

people won't understand

the magnitude

of the crisis.

So,

I think that this,

I mean,

your sense of the,

I mean,

the magnitude

of the crisis

in an environmental sense

seems to bear

no relation

to your optimism

about this

computer system.

I just cannot

put them together.

Perhaps the problem

that we will

have to address

without the intercession

of machines

is this population

thing.

Because this passage

you read

directly impinges

on that.

Whether or not

the machines

decide to keep us around

may depend

on whether

we present them

with a picture

of falling populations

and rising living standards

or whether we present

the AI

with a spectacle

of rampant

unpoliced population

growth

and resource extraction.

Because that's linked

into our biology,

this may be

the act of maturity

which the future

demands of us

that the machines

will be largely irrelevant

in impacting.

So I'm not entirely...

Well, this is a whole new debate

actually.

The population thing

assumes there's an equal

consumption of resources.

Yesterday I got onto

the Whidbey Island ferry

and I found it very hard

to struggle.

I was a foot passenger

struggle past

a recreational vehicle

the size of a school bus.

A whole quantum leap

in RV standards

that I'd not come across.

Where members

of the American population

are consuming

more than an entire

Indian village.

So I don't think

it's the total population

that's involved.

And so I don't see that

as the principal crisis

in fact.

Well, it's certainly true

that a woman

in a high-tech

industrial democracy

who has a child

that child consumes

about 800%

more resources

in its lifetime

than a child

born in Bangladesh.

Nevertheless

it's the populations

of the high-tech

industrial democracies

that are most educated

and most susceptible

to responding

to the logic

of global crisis

and limiting

their population.

Where do we preach

population control?

Bangladesh,

Pakistan.

Why?

Because that doesn't

cause us

any inconvenience.

If we would appeal

to the women

of the high-tech

industrial democracies

and do more than

appeal to them

offer them incentives

cancel income tax

cradle-to-the-grave

medical care.

Free links

to the World Wide Web.

Free links

to the World Wide Web.

But we can't just

beat our breasts

over the population

issue.

We have to recognize

that it is related

to resource extraction

and it is a problem

driven by the

consuming policies

of the high-tech

industrial democracies.

Well, when this

trialogue began

I sure didn't expect

it to end

with a discussion

of global capitalism.

And I find it

interesting that

Terrence's more

optimistic view

of the future

at least relative

to the then-current

financial crisis

actually held up

at least when

compared to

Rupert's more

gloomy outlook.

But what is also

interesting to me

is that in the

short run

Rupert was more

in tune with events.

Now keep in mind

that this trialogue

was held in 1998

just before the

dot-com bubble burst.

However,

over the long haul

at least so far

the establishment

has been able

to keep a lid

on this house of cards

they call

global capitalism.

Of course,

the game isn't over

until the casino closes.

Now, there is one thing

that I feel compelled

to clear up right now

and that is the concept

of uploading ourselves

or downloading

as Terrence thought of it

into a computer

where a few subjective

minutes in the default world

could seem like

a thousand years

when run through

a very fast CPU.

Well, coincidentally,

just before I began

to review this talk,

I was on the phone with Bruce Dahmer, and somehow the topic of uploading consciousness into silicone came up.

And in just a few short minutes, Bruce was able to explain to me why this isn't even close to the realm of technical feasibility right now.

And until then, I had kind of gone along with Greg Egan's fantasy world of human consciousness being preserved in a computer that he wrote about in Permutation City.

But to tell the truth, I had never really given any serious thought as to how one would do it and what the specs would be for a machine that could hold my thoughts.

But this is an area where Bruce has spent a considerable amount of time looking into the problem, and basically he brought to an end my fantasy of living forever in a computer chip.

But now, instead of me trying to explain Bruce's thoughts on this subject, I asked him if he would just say it again one more time and record it.

And I'm happy to say that he most graciously complied.

And I'd like to play that for you right now.

About this consciousness uploading thing or downloading thing, well, let's take a look at it.

You know, in the field of molecular dynamics, where they simulate individual molecules forming from atoms and those molecules interacting,

did you know that for simulating, say, a very, very small volume of virtual chemicals, maybe like a cubic millimeter, and this is very small,

and simulating all the reactions, they're now building supercomputers that will run, you know, flat out with thousands of processors

to simulate a microsecond of reaction time in this artificial chemistry.

Well, think about that.

A microsecond, now how long will this take?

Weeks.

Weeks or months.

So, consider that.

Consider how densely computational reality is.

Now, this is simulation at what's known as, as we said earlier, the molecular dynamics level.

You could simulate also at the quantum dynamics level, a little bit lower, and get even more dense information.

So, nature is amazingly computationally intensive.

So, roll your clocks forward.

Think about what would it take to simulate a complete cell.

Now, that's a pretty small volume, too, but there's amazingly complex machinery in there.

And if you talk to any biologists in the computational space, and they look at, one day, the possibility of simulating one cell,

it's something that is years or decades hence.

This is something off the charts for the largest computing grids to do reliably and to synchronize all the computers to get the different parts of the simulated cell to work together so that it behaves like a real cell.

So, the DNA nucleus, the ribosomes and ribozymes and the protein mechanisms and all the organelles and the membrane.

I mean, that's, that's a lot of machinery.

Now, if you think about it that way, and that's the real stuff,

for those who believe that one day and relatively soon, relatively around the corner,

we're going to somehow upload or download our consciousness into some kind of silicon environment,

well, they don't really have the math right.

They don't really have the understanding of the complexity of the machinery of the human brain.

So, for instance, how would you represent the human brain with its hundreds of millions of cells,

nerve cells with dendritic connections and thousands of connections per nerve cell that go across to other cells?

Did you know that the number of pathways in the human brain between the different nerve cells,

the number of distinct pathways through it,

has been estimated to be larger than the number of countable particles in the universe?

So, looking at all that, if we have trouble even conceiving of how to build a simulation of a single cell

to work reliably as a, basically as something testable in biology,

and people are now just thinking of building simulations of small spaces of chemistry,

like cell, for instance, across a cell membrane, for example,

which would be very, very valuable for all kinds of biomedical research,

how can we even conceive of building something in silicon

that would represent even the tiniest measurable fraction of the complexity of the computing machinery

that is the human brain, or any animal's brain?

How can we even conceive of that?

It's, in a sense, this concept of uploading and downloading consciousness

is certainly in the realm of fantasy,

but it's not, it doesn't even require us to give it any due, any airtime.

It's so, it's so absurd.

We can look back in the late 19th century or into the early 20th century

when, you know, steam-powered or electric-powered automata

were being brought out and paraded in public venues.

Remember, there's a sequence at the New York World's Fair of 1939-40.

There was a mechanical guy that was run by various servos and whatnot.

And, of course, people projected onto that guy and said,

well, gee, you know, having a human, an artificial human with intentions, feelings, whatever,

is just around the corner, and we look back at those films and that thinking

and think how absurd these people are.

But we are no less absurd by thinking that we're going to be placing something as complex as consciousness

or replicating even a tiny fraction of the human brain.

So, rolling the clock forward a little bit more,

there's another school of thought called the singularity,

which says also that, well, there will be enough self-organizing complexity and technology

that one day it'll all become conscious, and it'll all roll forward.

And it's kind of the backwards version of the downloading equation.

It's saying, well, consciousness will emerge on its own anyway in these networks,

and, you know, we're a done deal because it won't need us anymore.

This is also a very popular idea in science fiction,

and it's an idea that should stay in science fiction,

because it's really the same thing in reverse.

So what kind of silicon and what kind of software

is going to represent something that can come to consciousness?

It's the same problem.

If it's something that's equivalent to an animal,

even a simple animal on the surface of the earth,

it's way beyond the capabilities of the silicon to do that.

Who's going to program this?

Is it going to emerge spontaneously from Microsoft Office?

Is Microsoft Word suddenly going to start to write words for you?

Is it going to have an AI in there,

an AI module will add a new button

that will write your every utterance in the future?

I think this happened in an Edgar Allan Poe horror story at some point.

So it's really the same, it's the same argument or the same claim,

which is also, you know, quite absurd.

So in a sense, looking at all this, you know,

what does it take to even get to the first step?

Well, in the project that I've been involved with for a couple of years

is called the Evo grid or the evolution grid.

We're just trying to figure out pathways

to create an artificial chemistry

that can show a little bit of emergence

of biologically interesting phenomena

that might lead one day to a bigger simulation

where we could show sort of prototypical, you know,

artificial biological structures

that might get put together

into what you would call a truly emergent artificial life

or, you know, a predecessor

to any truly formed artificial life.

So this is a project that I conceive will last for decades

because the problems are so difficult.

So the real projects, the real efforts

to create things that are a little bit like biology

and nature in technology are very hard.

There are very few of them going on.

Most of technology is tinker toy assembly

for various, you know, mundane purposes,

such as playing an MP3 file for you

or vacuuming your room.

There's no intelligence or consciousness coming

from those projects.

So there are very few projects actually tackling things

close to what might be thought of

as the singularity or downloading consciousness.

So there's a whole class of people

who can talk about this all the time,

but they're not actually working on the problems.

So, in a sense, if those people started

to work on these problems,

they would probably stop talking about this

and they would say, you know what?

We've concluded that this is so difficult

and there's so many unknowns

that frankly we were just, you know,

we were talking science fiction fantasy here

and we apologize if we got anyone ruffled or upset.

So, anyway, that's just one opinion

and viewpoint from the trenches here

on this concept of downloading,

uploading consciousnesses

and the singularity.

Bruce Dahmer signing off.

You're listening to the Psychedelic Salon

where people are changing their lives

one thought at a time.

Well, so there you have it.

And while I'm sure that some of our fellow Saloners

would like to take issue

with some of Bruce's opinions,

it would have to take a lot of convincing for me

to, again, spend my time

thinking about uploading my consciousness

during a singularity or something like that.

But my lame jokes aside,

I do want to thank Bruce

for taking the time to record

that little soundbite for us

and to move the conversation about this topic

onto a more solid footing.

I also would like to mention

that just two months after the talk we just heard,

Terrence and Ralph gave a two-hour presentation

at Omega Institute

that they titled

The World Wide Web and the Millennium.

And you can hear that discussion

in my podcasts number 19 and 20,

which I produced about five years ago, I guess.

But it's still a really interesting conversation

in case you haven't heard it already.

Now, there's one more recording

from this trialogue session

and I'll try to get that out in the next few days.

But before I go,

I'd like to read part of an email

I received on Facebook the other day

from a fellow Saloner.

And here's part of what this Saloner had to say.

Hi, Lorenzo.

I have a story to share

and a warning concerning

curanderos traveling Europe

and conducting ayahuasca sessions.

A friend of mine recently got invited

to an ayahuasca circle

with an Ecuadorian shaman.

Having no experiences

with major psychedelics,

he discussed the idea

of participating in this circle with me.

I did some research on Arrowood

and other sources

on the quality of these traveling shamans

and I found a lot of testimonies

on positive and powerful experiences.

So we decided to give it a shot.

The event was quite expensive,

but this seemed to me

a good chance to meet the others.

Very little info was given to us

on the ceremony,

but we got the dietary requirements

and a FAQ on MAOIs.

We started the diet

one week in advance

to get our focus on the ordeal

we were soon to experience.

I had a lot of conversations

with my friend

about the do's and don'ts

of psychedelics

to make sure he was well prepared.

The day before the ceremony,

I felt ill

and with a sad heart

decided that in my state

I was not fit to participate

in an all-night ceremony.

It felt like a terrible waste

to not attend after a week of the diet,

but my respect for the medicine

kept me from it.

My friend decided to attend on his own

and went to the ceremony

the next day.

Of the ceremony,

I only have his account,

but I find this quite interesting

and disturbing.

Arriving at the camp area,

he found the place disorganized.

The ceremony was supposed

to start at 2100,

but was delayed to 2300

because of poor planning.

Since all the participants

had been fasting since 0300,

the two extra hours of waiting

felt like an eternity.

There also seemed to be

a lot of confusion

around the ritual setting,

direction of participants, etc.

The circle consisted of 30 people,

many of whom had never tried

any psychoactive material,

except caffeine, nicotine, etc.

And the information given

was poor.

Shortly after the ayahuasca

had been ingested,

a woman in the circle

got what can only be described

as a panic attack.

She was not allowed

or given help.

This concerns me deeply.

I know ayahuasca is a very comforting

and powerful hallucinogen.

This makes it even more important

to help and support participants.

The so-called sitters

all drank the brew

and were of no help

to the group whatsoever.

It was a rough ride

for many people in the group,

and the ceremony lasted

until 0900 the next morning.

Participants were not allowed

to go to sleep

when they felt necessary.

My friend, on the other hand,

got through the experience unharmed,

sticking with the basic

psychedelic rules

I had coached him in.

But after the ceremony,

he was filled with anger

toward the organizers,

seeing them as frauds

and opportunists,

and he felt suspicious

of the shaman.

Knowing the stories of shaman

and their staring-through-your-soul

personalities,

it seems unlikely

that this was

an especially skilled one.

My point of telling you

this story is that

these kinds of gatherings

may cause serious damage

to the unprepared,

seeing how little information

was given to the beginners

and how little guidance

was given by the shaman

slash sitters.

It can also give a lot

of bad press

to psychedelic plants,

something which we don't need.

In your podcast,

number 89,

I think it was,

you discussed ayahuasca

as a possible first-time

psychedelic experience,

but point out

that you should speak

with someone

who has participated

in the ceremony

with this shaman before.

I think this story

underlies the importance

of this.

Well,

I want to thank

our fellow salonor

that sent this in to me

very much

for passing this along

because it is

important information,

I believe.

And this story,

I think,

should probably serve

as a warning

to anyone who's

thinking about

participating

in one of these circles.

Personally,

I would never attend

a session unless

I had a close friend

whose opinions

I respected,

by the way,

tell me that they

had already had

an experience

with a particular

ayahuascaro.

And in most cases,

I would actually

want more than

one recommendation.

You know,

there's no rush here.

Mother ayahuasca

will find you

when you're ready.

So don't force the issue.

You'll know

if the situation

feels right,

and if it doesn't,

then hey,

screw up your courage

and get the heck

out of there.

This isn't

a recreational experience,

and so it isn't

to be toyed with.

Just be really careful

here because,

hey,

we need you

for the long haul, too.

Well,

that should do it

for now,

and so I'll close

today's podcast

by reminding you

that this and

most of the podcasts

from the Psychedelic Salon

are freely available

for you to use

in your own

audio projects

under the

Creative Commons

Attribution

Non-Commercial

Sharealike 3.0 License.

And if you have

any questions

about that,

just click

the Creative Commons

link at the bottom

of the Psychedelic Salon

webpage,

which you can find

at psychedelicsalon.org.

And if you're

interested in the

philosophy behind

the Psychedelic Salon,

you can hear

all about it

in my novel,

The Genesis Generation,

which is available

as an audio book

that you can download

at genesisgeneration.us.

And for now,

this is Lorenzo

signing off

from Cyberdelic Space.

Be well,

my friends.

Linguistic objects.

Greetings from

Cyberdelic Space.

This is Lorenzo

and I'm your host

here in the

Psychedelic Salon.

And once again,

I have some

fellow saloners

to thank for their

generosity

in sending in

donations

to help

with the expenses

here in the salon.

And these fine

people are

Naomi M.,

Klaus H.,

Mark C.,

JP of Vabome,

Jason W.,

Dominic G.,

and Adam K.

And Mark,

I notice that

you've been sending

in a modest donation

every month now

and I really

appreciate your support.

Also,

let me read

a short note

I received

from Klaus H.

when he sent

in his donation.

Here's what he said.

Thanks, Lorenzo.

I love what you do

on the salon.

I've never taken

psychedelics

and maybe never will.

My mindset, however,

perhaps does not

need much of a push

in that direction.

I belong to the tribe

nonetheless.

Born crazy

or alienated, I guess.

Well,

first of all,

Klaus,

that was a

very generous donation

and you should

consider yourself

all donated up

for life.

And as for your

comment about having

never used psychedelics,

I want you to know

that you have

a lot of company

among our fellow

saloners.

You'd actually be

surprised at how

many people say

similar things.

And in fact,

our long-time

supporter,

Vapal P.,

just sent me

a very thoughtful

email suggesting

that I include

more non-psychedelic

using but still

psychedelic thinking

people who are

also working

on this clarity

issue from

other directions.

And as time

progresses,

I most definitely

will be including

speakers from

other disciplines

as well.

But for today,

we're going to

have one more

experience listening

to Rupert,

Ralph, and

Terrence in

what I assume

was their final

trialogue.

So today,

we're going to

hear the last

part of that

1998 trialogue

between Rupert

Sheldrake,

Terrence McKenna,

and Ralph

Abraham,

in which they

discuss their

views on various

aspects of what

they call the

evolutionary mind.

In each session,

one of the

participants made

a proposal that

the others then

expanded upon,

discussed, and

in some cases

attacked one

another's ideas,

but in a very

friendly way.

Now, today,

Ralph Abraham

begins the

discussion by

changing the

focus to what

he terms the

edge of the

millennium.

And rather than

have me tell

you how that

fit into the

overall direction

of this perhaps

last trialogue,

I'll just play

it for us now

and we can

both try to

figure out this

interesting little

change of course.

The call for

our gathering,

the announcement,

part of the

con which brought

you here,

mentioned the

edge of the

millennium,

the edge of the

millennium.

And so far,

the millennium

has been present

by subtle

implication alone,

so I think to

honor our

commitment,

we'll now

trilogue on

the edge of

the millennium.

Is it okay?

It's okay.

Now, in our

just-appeared

new book,

The Evolutionary

Mind,

there is a

chapter near

the end

called,

I forget what

it's called,

it's about

utopianism

and millenarianism,

two pretty

long isms which

an overdose

of different

approaches to

the future

which are more

or less classical

and there we

spoke extensively

of the extant

literature and

literary tradition

and industry

of utopian

and millenarian

genre.

So that kind

of utopian

and millenarian

stuff is not

what we're going

to talk about

in this trilogue.

I want to

introduce a

completely different

notion of the

millennium and

I'm interested

more particularly

in the edge

of the millennium

and here's

how it goes.

This is partly,

according to me,

a mathematical

view of history

that brings up

this particular

version of the

idea of the

millennium

and nevertheless

other people

have written

a similar view

of history

without any

explicit recourse

to mathematics

so I think

it's pretty

general.

It has to do,

this view of

history,

with the

approach we've

taken toward

biological evolution

that it goes

forward in

catastrophes and

critical leaps

and so on,

sudden jumps.

The punctuated

equilibrium

approach to

history says

that history

goes along

in a kind

of a level

plateau

developmentally

speaking,

although there

may be a

gradual

development up

or down

overall and

then every

once in a

while there

is a big

leap.

The first

such view

of history

I think

that we

know about

was presented

by the

ancient

Egyptians

so this

is nothing

new.

Now in

my own

work

I have

classified

some

major

plateaus

including

the last

one,

the one

that we're

at the end

of now

according to

my system

of history

began

6,000 years

ago or

5,500 years

ago with

the invention

of the

wheel and

the first

city-states

and stuff

like that

talking Schumer,

talking Babylonia,

talking ancient

Egypt here

and so that's

a 6,000 year

plateau.

Now other

people, for

example, Bill

Thompson, somebody

we know and

talk to about

world cultural

history, he

has a similar

scheme in

which the

plateau now

ending is

only three

or four hundred

years old.

See, there

were the people

who really wrote

about this

explosion idea

in world

cultural history

was Jakob

Burkhardt.

Burkhardt said

the Renaissance

was a quantum

leap in world

cultural history

and then other

people said,

well, what

about Giotto?

What about

Patatria?

What about

Boccaccio?

And the truth

is that whenever

you look at

two major

milestones in

history and

consider that

between the

milestones to be

sort of a

level road,

then somebody

will come along

and find a

smaller milestone

in there.

Nowadays, we

have fractal

geometry, so

we think that

this is natural

between any

two big

catastrophes,

there will

be ten

smaller ones.

Between any

two of the

smaller ones,

there will

be 40 or

50 little

or tinier

ones, and

so on.

The first

person I

know who

put forward

such a fractal

idea of

history, that

it's not

continuous, it's

discontinuous, but

the discontinuities

are more or

less dense, as

in a fractal,

the first

such person

is you,

Terrence.

I give you

credit in

writing in my

entry in the

Encyclopedia of

Time.

You maybe have

never read that

book.

Never read it.

Well, there

you'll find your

name mentioned

in a flattering

way by me of

all people.

Immortality

at last.

At last.

Well, to

make a long

story short,

it's these

controversial

plateaus of

history that

I'm going to

call millennia.

And then, if

you want to

go back to

chapter 10

of the

evolutionary

mind and

to read there

about the

history of the

millenarial

concept, then

you'll see that

the first one,

wherein the

number 1,000,

was actually

mentioned for

the length of

one of these

plateaus.

It gave his

name to the

thing.

It was a

special case of

my more

abstract idea of

millennium.

It's the

plateau of

history.

And what I

mean by the

edge of

millennium is

those times

when there's

the snappo

from one

equilibrium to

another.

Cro-Magnon

comes out of

Neanderthalus or

whatever it is.

And oxygen

comes out of

the

archi-biological

background and

whatever.

And the

interest of

this, according

to me, is

why are we

here?

Who would

talk about the

evolutionary mind?

Who cares

about the

good and

evil and

the evolution

of species

and so on?

This must be

interesting only

to the degree

to which it

informs us in

this very

present moment

regarding our

choices that

we will make

in the creation

of the future.

So, according

to chaos theory

and its

partner theory

of bifurcations,

this is one of

the main things

that teaches

something like

the butterfly

effect that you've

heard about,

in a

dynamical system

or a

massively complex

dynamical system

such as we

live in,

when there is a

moment of

bifurcation,

which is the

technical math

jargon for

these snaps,

that is the

only time you

get to do

anything about

the evolution

of the system.

So, according

to this

self-inflating

view, we

live at

especially

important,

special moment

in history

where when

we think

something or

do something,

it has

actually an

enormous effect

on the

future.

Maybe not

a direct

determinative

effect, but

we can't

really say

what the

outcome will

be, but

what we

do has

some influence

on the

creation of

the future

more than

other times

in history.

And the

bigger the

jump, the

bigger the

leverage,

where Archimedes

said, give

me a lever

and I'll

move the

world.

We have

a lever

now, and

we care

about what's

coming next.

So, that's

why the

edge of

the millennium,

any edge of

any of the

millennia, is

particularly

important to

those revolutionary

souls who

want to make

a change in

things.

It's a

special time.

A century or

two centuries

ago, you

could struggle

for the

creation of

a chaos

revolution, and

it would be

impossible because

there were no

computers around,

or there were

no movie

makers in

Hollywood or

something, I

don't know.

It takes

more than we

know about to

create these

special opportunities.

And anyway,

that's what I

mean by

millennium, and

that's what I

mean by at

the edge of

the millennium.

And now, this

is only a

hypothesis for

the sake of

discussion, but

I kind of

think that this

is very

credible, that

we are now

at the edge

of a

millennium.

Therefore, we

have to

discuss this.

And the

question...

that I'm going to pose to you, Rupin Tehr, if this isn't too radical,

is to what degree do you think actually that what we are doing now matters in the creation of the future?

And if there is any possibility that what we do matters in the creation of the future,

what kind of future or what kind of change are we trying to create?

And to what degree what we are actually doing, for example, what we are talking about today,

what we are doing today, to what degree could that possibly be a real effect,

a real benefit in creating the future that we want to create,

in contrast to other things that we might do, like go to the beach and pray or whatever.

And particularly, should I stop here?

Well, that's what I'm not sure.

Yes, well, I'm trying to make this easier for you because I think this might be too difficult.

Well, I mean, I think I said this morning, or maybe I didn't, but I believe it and have said it many times,

salvation is an act of cognitive apprehension, so we do matter.

Because to the degree that we are ignorant, avidya, in the Buddhist lexicon,

we retard universal progress towards some kind of enlightenment.

But the doctrine of avidya, this is standing for all time since 1800 B.C.

Do you agree that this is a special moment?

Yes, I think so.

Not only a special moment, but the other thing I would call people's attention to

is the fact that no matter whether you scammed your way in here today

and no matter whether you're going to go back to an appliance box that you live in under a bridge,

the odds are that you, you, very close to the top of the pyramid of global empowerment,

you are mostly white, mostly well-educated, mostly have enough disposable income to come to an event like this.

It's worth pointing out that all that rides on the backs of those who do not have such privilege.

And so, yeah, this is a moment of enormous opportunity and those who find themselves in this moment with power,

defined however you care to define it, have a moral obligation to act.

And I don't advocate a certain political agenda, not that we must become Marxists or that we must become anything.

What we must become is clear.

We have the technologies and the informational structures and all the necessary abilities to create paradise on earth,

to lift up the least among us to at least an acceptable level of comfort and freedom.

Why do we not do that?

Because what stands in our way is our own minds, our own habits.

We must change our minds.

That's the most powerful political work people in this room could do.

And there is nobody who is so enlightened that they don't need to work on themselves and do this.

To the degree that we can change our minds, we will escape extinction, marginality, and so forth and so on.

And to the degree that we cannot change our minds, we will prolong the agony, perhaps unto death and extinction,

perhaps only making the struggle more difficult.

So, yes, this is a moment of enormous opportunity.

We have a yes.

A yes.

So, you agree that it's a moment of special opportunity over the long and short scales of time,

according to either mathematics or novelty theory.

Yes.

And you agree that we have a responsibility to do our best.

Yes.

And what you have to tell us is that if the 200 of us here change our minds,

that that would somehow have an amelior effect on the rest of the world and our creation of the future.

Yes.

How?

How would it have this effect?

Yes.

By telepathic means?

By the romance of photons?

No, I think by the spread of clarity.

The spread of clarity.

The elimination of redundancy in the system and the spreading of a sense of shared purpose and the possibility of achieving that purpose.

It doesn't matter what you do beyond changing your mind for a better clarity?

Well, I don't want to say absolutely it doesn't matter, but I think that's the first obligation.

If you charge off with some political agenda that is not informed by clarity, you're going to end up with business as usual.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but it is not paved with clarity.

So, for example, what you do in life, you barnstorm giving lectures, you write books and you create a website.

And the effect of this, hopefully, will be to promote clarity.

Correct.

First of all, I certainly agree that, for me personally, psychedelic experience has enhanced clarity, whereas some people think the opposite.

Well, let us have vigorous debate by informed parties.

Don't forget, I've given over 300 calculus lectures in this room.

It boggles my mind to look out and think, well, yeah, this is Santa Cruz.

This must be Santa Cruz.

No, this is real Santa Cruz.

What do you think, Rupert?

Well, the question really is, I mean, changing minds, we're talking, you were talking about the butterfly wing effect.

The question is, if we change our minds, can it have a larger effect on other people's minds?

Yes, because if we decide to recycle yet more newspaper and so on, it's not going to have that much effect.

The changing mind thing, the butterfly wing analogy, suggests some major change of mind spreading through our culture.

Now, I suspect that you think the medium for this transformation is the World Wide Web.

I suspect that Terence thinks the medium.

Well, I think telepathy is equally powerful.

Yes, but...

Oh, wait, I want to hear his suspicion, I think.

World Wide Web?

Yes, I think...

No, no, psychedelic drugs.

World Wide Web, psychedelic drugs.

I don't, I still haven't understood the psychedelic drug agenda.

We, Britain has the highest percentage of psychedelic drug consumption in the Western world at the moment.

And it's not entirely clear that this has resulted in clarity spreading through...

Britain is the source of, and the fountainhead of the worldwide youth culture that is creating the new music, the new dance, the new forms of community, and the new resistance to consumerist values.

So don't sell the old UK...

Come to the rave tonight and see clarity created.

Yes, yes, a crucible of clarity is home at last place.

And Terence takes the microphone.

Well, it's not always perfectly clear what's going on when you have your nose in it, you know.

Well, I mean, my own agenda relies partly on the World Wide Web, not as strongly as yours.

And here in this room is Matthew Klapp, who kindly runs my World Wide Web site.

That's part of it.

Hillbreak.org.

Yes.

So, but my own view is that this clarity involves breaking the spell of rationalism, Cartesianism, a spell woven more powerfully than ever before this morning by Terence.

And, I mean, it took on a new level of spellbinding in the way you described it.

It's to recognize that we're far more interconnected, we're far more participatory in our relation with the world than this cognitive kind of science and cognitive model of the mind would tell us.

And so I think the secret to waking us up, one of the secrets is psychic pets.

As you know, this is one of my particular themes.

And the purpose of, I wrote a book which some of you may have seen called Seven Experiments That Could Change the World.

The purpose of this was to find simple experiments that could give us clarity on issues that we know about already, which could actually have a transformative effect on our view of the world.

They're to do with changing our scientific view of the world.

And the scientific view of the world is a particularly important part of the spell that binds us all and that affects our whole civilization, our whole industrial culture.

And it's an exceptionally narrow and dissociated view of the world at the moment.

The reason I think psychic pets could play this part is, first of all, there's more of them than psychedelics.

I mean, they're everywhere.

There are lots and lots of dogs and cats that have telepathic bonds with their owners.

About 50% of Americans feel that they've had a telepathic bond with an animal.

Now, to recognize what so many people already know, through experiments to test these to see if they're real, and so far the experiments suggest they are real,

this can give permission for people to recognize what they already know.

Then all these closet holists, or most of us are closet holists, can come out and recognize that there's this kind of interconnection with other species and with each other that's been going on all the time,

but which has been suppressed from the level of supposedly rational discourse by the idea that this is all superstition, it's not scientific, it's irrational, and so forth.

I think that one of the big difficulties in our culture is the split between the rational, educated part of our minds, which we put on in public,

and the participatory sense of connection which we have at home with gardens, plants, children, animals, lovers, and our nearest and dearest.

And these are so dissociated that it's very hard for people to recognize that they're related in any way.

Lots of dogs know when their owners are coming home in a kind of telepathic manner and wait at the door for them while they're on the way home.

I calculate that tens of thousands of American scientists have dogs waiting at the door for them when they get home from the laboratory,

even if they come at unusual times and in an unusual way. Yet, this phenomenon has been so subject to taboo that it's never been investigated scientifically at all.

It could have been investigated at any time in the last 500 or 5,000 years, but the fact is the first investigations are happening at present.

Here in the room is David Brown, who works with me, is based in Santa Cruz, and is doing experiments with psychic dogs, cats, and cockatillos,

in Santa Cruz County. And if any of you have such animals, please let him or me know at the end,

because we'd love to investigate your animals, and you can take part in this research.

So I think that grassroots research, based on phenomena that are actually common sense, that are part of everyday life for many people,

could help to wake us up to give a greater clarity about what's really going on,

and make us recognize that there's far more interconnection between us and other species and us and other people,

than is admitted in the scientific view of things, which is the worldview which most people feel they have permission to talk about in public.

So I think that this transition, a butterfly wing effect, would be a few dogs and cats that do this, being proved scientifically to be able to do it,

shown on TV, would probably overnight, give millions of people permission to recognize and talk about these events in their own lives,

and never again would the subject be able to be stuffed back into the closet.

I think these could lead to a great change in the way we think about the world.

Now it's not, of course, it's several steps from that, to solving the ecological problems of the world,

to dealing with the problem of multinational corporations, and so on.

But it's a step towards clarity, and it's one that could spread very quickly.

Well, it seems to me the overarching theme here, that unites all three of our positions,

is boundary dissolution.

Psychedelic drugs dissolve boundaries, the world wide web dissolves boundaries,

and certainly the discovery that our pets are communicating, anticipating, and understanding us,

is a boundary dissolving perception.

So really what we're saying is, we must dissolve the artificial boundaries that confine our perceptions.

Someone once said, if we could feel what we are doing to the earth, we would stop immediately.

Because a man hitting himself on the head with a ball-peen hammer, stops immediately.

The feedback loop is very short.

So we have compartmentalized our lives,

and this allows us to do the fateful and lethal work,

that is destroying the planet, destroying community, so forth and so on.

So maybe three answers as diverse as you've just heard here.

You might search your own soul, and ask what obsession or interest of mine would contribute

to the grand project of boundary dissolution.

Certainly it is not the affirmation of cultural values.

Culture is a scheme for maintaining and creating boundaries.

It replaces reality with a linguistically supported delusion,

and behind that delusion then pogroms, programs of genocide, arms, races, sexism, racism,

all can operate very, very comfortably.

Ralph earlier mentioned love.

Generally speaking, love is a boundary dissolving enterprise.

So I think each of us, the three of us, all of you, in our way should find ways to express love.

And it's not treacly, it's not woo-woo, it's a very practical matter that has thousands of expressions.

As long as we believe in mind and matter, rich and poor, living and dead, aboriginal and advanced, black and white, man and woman,

then we're inevitably going to carry on a dualistic analysis of our dilemma,

and we're going to produce incomplete agendas and answers.

Well, this is good.

I agree with everything.

I admire you both for your revolutionary efforts.

Nevertheless, I can't help having a sinking feeling here we are in the University of California.

Naturally, my thoughts turn to the educational system.

Now, we have here a group, I know there are actually a few undergraduates of the University of California and Santa Cruz are here,

by accident, as it were, and that's cool.

But we have not yet taken over one regularly offered course of the university

to enable students to learn science by doing research projects with psychic pets.

Well, Ralph, the university is the last place where you would look for this.

The university is the manufacturer of these cultural values that increase in that.

Well, that's why I'm bringing up this subject of education at this time.

I think we've discussed the problem of education before,

but my experience is that no amount of clarity in this group of 200 and other like groups

is going to matter one whit when we are all adults.

You see, the next generation will have to face the same butterfly problem with the same lever

because the majority of people will have their paradigms set in K through 12

in some archaic school system that sees its primary business to work against a worldwide cultural revolution.

So the inertia, we have to overcome inertia.

And we can talk about religion and psychedelics and getting clarity and so on.

We know that the scientific establishment is a big obstacle as far as environmental problems are concerned.

And so Rupert's work, the ultimate effect will be to deconstruct or revolutionize science,

is very important in making a transformation among adult scientists worldwide.

How can this matter at all if there is no change in the educational system K through 12,

pre-K, pre-pre-K and back to the womb, the parents and so on,

that this chicken and egg loop has got to be somewhere in a more sensitive spot than the adult community.

And what do you propose?

Well, you work with youth, I guess.

You're interested in talking with younger people.

Rupert, I know that you're particularly active in education through the existence of your children

who are now subject to the educational system that does this criminal brainwashing that I'm talking about.

So I'm just posing this now.

Do you have any idea as to the transformation of our school system by a change of curriculum

or the entrance of any weird idea into the actual program which trains most children worldwide?

Well, I ought to have.

There's a story that perhaps not everyone here is familiar with,

which is when I was in New York a couple of years ago,

I was asked to visit a school in Long Island.

I was particularly urged to go there.

A private helicopter was sent to take me.

And I was asked to address the board and the teachers of the school.

And when I asked them what they'd like me to speak about,

they said they wanted me to speak about the rectified Sheldrake principle

on which their entire curriculum was based.

So, when I said, what is the rectified Sheldrake principle?

They said that that was the very question they were asking and hoping that I would explain.

I then asked who had invented the rectified Sheldrake principle on which the curriculum was based

and they soon revealed that the author of this principle,

or at least the author of the documents on which their entire curriculum were based,

was Ralph Abraham.

By careful questioning,

I was able to find out that the rectified Sheldrake principle meant that because of morphic resonance

and habits of learning,

the sequence of events in which people should learn things in school

should follow the historical process.

So, in history,

you learn first about the Sumerians,

Egyptians, etc.

Then you move on to the ancient Greeks,

the Romans,

the Dark Ages, etc.

That it follows the principle.

And they start in grade one with ancient Egypt.

I calculated on this basis that the invention of the domestication of fire,

which occurred between 400,000 to 700,000 years ago,

it should mean that in the toddler playgroups,

they should be playing with fire.

I pointed this out,

but that wasn't part of the curriculum I was suggesting.

I discovered that there was, in fact,

an entire process of educational reform afoot in this country,

behind which is the guiding genius of Ralph Abraham.

So, I think we should ask you this question, Ralph,

since you've more experience than most of us.

Well, I'd rather that people with less experience speak about it.

Because my experience has been very disappointing.

Oh, no.

No, no.

Here is the problem as I perceive it.

Maybe you can help me get through this one.

The children are innocent and trusting

and will try any curricular reform experiment.

They'll try anything,

which they have done in different schools around the world,

with great effect.

It was only a couple days ago,

I was at the Intel farm, they call it,

in Oregon,

where 10,000 people work on realizing Terrence's dream.

They're making psychedelic drugs available.

Oh, a different dream.

They know what I mean.

Chips, not hits.

Casually, over lunch,

I revealed my revolutionary program for the schools

to the software engineer who was sitting there.

And he said,

oh, well, this historical curriculum.

He said, I'm an Armenian.

And I mean, I went,

no, no, Algeria.

He said, I'm from Algeria.

And my school was exactly what you,

it was wonderful.

And so there are places in the world

where even my experiment has been tried.

The problem is this.

The children,

the owners of the school,

the people,

everything is fine.

The problem is with the teachers and parents.

The teachers have been trained.

That's one problem.

And the parents have been frightened, I guess.

So the parents absolutely refuse any experiments

that would affect their children

because of the danger of a failure.

You see that they consider the current system,

which is guaranteed to fail,

is somehow safer than an experimental system

that might fail.

The insecurity itself is a source of anxiety.

Well, I'm just analyzing.

I don't really know what goes through their mind.

But what I have discovered

is that groups of parents

come in and physically attack

the teachers,

the administrators,

and so on

to guarantee

that the time-worn,

failure-approved system

is performed

as it always has been.

Do you see the problem?

Older people

think that's why

Terence has recommended mushrooms.

That's why

Rupert has suggested psychic pets.

You see how revolutionary

in psychic pets,

we're talking about the parents here,

after it's proved to them

that what they already know

is true

by somebody

in the authority

of the scientific establishment,

then their truth

will become true

for them

for the first time

due to the fact

that they trust authority

more than they trust

their own experience.

So I haven't given up yet

with the educational system,

but I'm still seeking

some little way around

this very deeply ingrained habit.

And part of the problem is

as the stakes rise,

the clenching

on the part of the

geriatric establishment

becomes even more intensified.

So for example,

right now,

the worldwide epidemic

of youth bashing

is the most counterproductive thing

we could possibly generate.

I mean,

we're leaning on

the very people

who are going to have

to save the situation.

Why not admit

the obsolescence

and bankruptcy

of the old models

and take our foot

off the neck

of youth

and honor

an interest

in psychedelic experimentalism,

sexual redefining

of roles,

a new look

at how we relate

to work,

a new look

at how we relate

to community

instead of marginalizing

youth culture

and defining it

as a phase,

misguided,

naive,

foolish.

We should say

these are the uncorrupted

people in society

who have not yet

felt the hammer

of the programming

and the guilt

and the creodes

of economic necessity

and try to build

upward and outward

from youth culture

rather than suppressing it.

For this reason

I will be appearing

at a rave tonight

that starts

after my bedtime.

I wish I could

be persuaded

by your persuasive rhetoric.

My experience

of youth culture

is here are people

who from the age of two

have been watching

hours a day

of television

shaped by commercials

cunningly designed

to introduce toddlers

to the consumer society

whose music

is dominated

by a music industry

run by cynical

interests,

manipulative people,

public relations operations

and large corporations.

So to see this

as uncontaminated,

pure,

the spirit of tomorrow,

untarnished

by the vices

of today

seems to me

to beg a number

of questions.

However,

I'll be there

at the rave

tonight too

Terrence

and there

I'll be able

to see

this paradise

that's unfolding

before us.

Your point

about television

is well taken.

I totally agree.

I think this

is the most

pernicious

programming

and propaganda

device around.

It's about

to be strangled

by the world

wide web.

Well,

and you know

you can just

turn off your TV

and I say that

as someone who did.

I raised my children

without television

because rather

than just giving

lip service

to the idea

that it's stupid

we actually acted

on the perception

that it's stupid.

Yes,

and we do too.

But your other point

about the youth

culture's music

being in the hands

of capitalists

and record companies

is slightly out of touch

with what's

actually happening.

For $500

you can buy

a CDR burner.

Bands do this

and most youth

culture music

is now put out

in editions

of under a thousand

pressings

and really

the corporate

middlemen

have all been

gone around

and the big

record corporations

are not at all

in touch

with real tastes

and real creativity

in the music business.

They recycle

garbage

that they support

with massive

public relations

programs

and

At the same time that real creativity is alive and well and thriving on a fractalized micro

scale that goes right around the desires of mass consumerism.

Sorry to interrupt.

I don't, I just, it would be good if there could be an experiment carried out perhaps

with you as the cheerleader for this youth culture of tomorrow actually to be able to

be permitted rather than suppressed and so on to see what happens.

In my, I mean there are quite a number of experiments in this I would have thought going

on spontaneously.

It's not as if all these people involved in this culture are totally controlled by parents,

teachers etc.

Many of them are not under direct control in this way at all.

So, but you are still going to have to have educational systems, school systems of one

kind or another and it's not clear to me that more raves and psychedelics are going to automatically

to generate that.

Well I would offer as an example I think the place on the planet where youth culture is

most in control of the social agenda, in other words where youths preference for psychedelic

drugs is honored, where youths music is honored, where microeconomic systems built by youth

are honored is the Netherlands, Holland, lowest AIDS infection rate in Europe, lowest heroin

addiction rate in Europe, heroin is legal, prostitution is legal.

There are actually very large scale social experiments going on that embody the values of youth culture

and they are producing saner, less stressful, more life affirming in human societies than anything

going on inside the high tech industrial democracies that are the, that set the global agenda.

Well, I often visit Holland and I must say I haven't quite noticed such a striking distance

difference between them and the rest of Western Europe.

Well, but that's really because you come from London where also these things are happening.

But if you lived in Berlin or Rio de Janeiro or Houston, I think the contrast with the Netherlands

is quite astonishing. Didn't mean to stop the show. Ralph, you're not saying enough.

Oh, am I guilty then of too much self-indulgence? No, you posed important problems.

Yes. You've shown how on the edge of the millennium, great steps or small steps are needed that magnify

through butterfly effects. You've asked me and Terence what you think they should be.

Yes. You've told us you're disappointed by your own experiments with the reform of the

educational system. Yes. So, what next? Well, as I say, I think that we're at the edge of a millennium.

We're at a turning point. What may be coming down the pike could be two or three miracles

that will decidedly change the definition of the problem. And in the meanwhile, I think that

we're more or less stuck in the situation where we keep trying what we're doing and believing

that it has at least some chance of having an effect. I think that the educational system

might change itself by a miracle, for example. And it could do that in a way that had nothing

whatsoever to do with any of our efforts or, in fact, it may be that some little thing that

that we did mattered. I think that your work in the revolution of science is very important

and very promising. And it's proceeded essentially without funding because the genius of the program

that you've evolved is that it has this enormous leverage. And at every crossing of the road,

you've made the right choice to get more leverage. And Terence, I think that your program also is a good one

in that it's over the years changed in the direction of younger people and that you've been, you know,

changed your approach to maximize. And I don't see in either case that there's enormous backlash working against you.

That other revolutionary movements have been stopped by a backlash. And although you don't have funding,

you don't have groups calling you up and threatening your life and so on.

In my own case, I have written about this endlessly. Besides writing mathematics, I write that mathematics is important.

And through the microscopic analysis of the hinges of history, the edges of millennia past, I have pointed out

exactly where in each case mathematics had a key role in the miracle and the bifurcation that happened.

I think that society that rejects mathematics cannot actually successfully deal with these problems.

And therefore, I have activated myself against the problem especially prevalent in the United States

and concomitant with other problems that are especially prevalent in the United States.

the problem of math, anxiety, avoidance and misunderstanding.

And here I would say that there is a huge institution more or less equivalent to the scientific community

that is arrayed against this information, that somehow the educational system has been particularly persistent

in the destruction of mathematics, in the destruction of mathematical capability of youth,

and therefore in disempowerment of the society with its critical faculty to change.

I do not believe you can have any clarity of view in the progress of history with no mathematical training

on the part of any of the participants.

I have seen in this society that even Nobel Prize winners in physics have math anxiety to a very severe degree.

I am able to detect this because it is something that is amplified, this behavior that emerges as soon as I walk into a room.

So, I guess I feel in some that my own efforts have been rather less successful

or maybe I have not been as clever in turning to the left or right at the crossings of the road.

The problem is already much less severe in other countries, so it seems like we needn't worry too much.

In Europe, throughout Europe, for example, the problem of the destruction of mathematical capability is far less severe.

The only thing really disturbing there is that it is growing at an alarming rate.

They are inheriting the disease from the United States, a spreading disease based on standardized examinations

like the SAT and equivalent movements.

So, there you have it.

A problem that is so bad that the very mention of the word mathematics produces a version reaction that is paralyzing.

So that much as I hate to, and you have seen this today, that I can go through an entire day without mentioning mathematics,

mentioning mathematics but not the word mathematics, in the hopes of tricking people into recognizing some ideas like this

that have to do with perception of space-time patterns in the abstract, that these skills are useful.

Can I add to that?

I mean, I don't think what Ralph means is that it's a tragedy that most people can't factor a quadratic equation.

I think he speaks as he does because he is so professionally immersed in these issues.

As someone somewhat more distant from all of this, but in agreement from Ralph,

the failure to teach mathematics in practical social and political terms boils down to a failure to teach logic and discriminating understanding.

The great evil, in my humble opinion, which haunts our enterprise, and I say this realizing I'm setting the fox among the chickens,

the great evil that has been allowed to flourish in the absence of mathematical understanding is relativism.

And what is relativism?

It's the idea that there is no distinction between Schitt and Shinola, that all ideas are somehow operating on equal footing.

So, one person is a chaos theorist, another is a follower of the revelations of this or that new age guru, someone else is channeling information from the Pleiades,

and we have been taught that political correctness demands that we treat all these things with equal weight.

Because we have no mathematical ability, no logical ability, we don't know how to ask the questions that expose some positions as preposterous, trivial, insulting to the intelligence, and unworthy of repetition.

So, we all are very comfortable bashing science and flailing away at that, but that isn't our enemy.

Science is capable of undertaking its own reformation and critique and has been engaged in that fairly vigorously for some time.

The enemy that will really subvert the enterprise of building a world based on clarity is the belief that we cannot point out the pernicious forms of idiocy that flourish in our own community.

And this problem is growing worse all the time. I mean, just pick up a copy of Magical Blend or Shaman's Drum and you will discover an appeal to the level of intellect that makes what's going on with television advertising look like a meeting of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study.

We have tolerated too many loose heads in our community. We are not willing to take on the karma involved in argument and discourse that actually gores somebody's ox.

So that at the end of the day, iridology or Mormonism or some other form of institutionally supported foolishness lies in shreds on the floor.

We consider this politically incorrect. I can feel the tension in this room because people sense I might gore their particular ox.

If we have learned mathematical logic or reason or rules of evidence when someone approaches us excited to inform us that the ruins of Lemuria have been spotted in the deep sea off Big Sur or something like that, we would be able to respond to that with the contempt it deserves.

I had a conversation about this recently with someone who, if I had to describe their job category, I would describe them as mafioso.

And I said, what do you think of the abduction phenomenon? And without hesitation, this person said, there are just so many foolish people in the world.

And to me, all of these things are intelligence tests. And the people who pass the intelligence tests are not worrying about pro bono proctologists from other star systems.

So, you know, we have perfected politeness. We have perfected the ability to listen to damn foolishness without betraying by so much as the flick of an eyebrow that we realize what we are in the presence of.

Now I think it's time to refine our mathematical skills, learn to think straight and not be afraid to denounce the pernicious forms of foolishness which are vitiating the energies of our community and making us appear marginal and absurd in the discourse about truly transforming society.

Well, I can't wait to see this laboratory of clarity unfold before me tonight.

And as all nonsense has dispelled, the scalpel of reason is brought out by Terry Slick.

Yes, well, yes, well, it is an ambiguous enterprise and fraught with contradiction, but forward, ever forward.

You're listening to the Psychedelic Salon, where people are changing their lives one thought at a time.

And so ended what I think was the last trialogue that they held.

Maybe not, but it's the last one that I know of.

And as we were listening to the end of this conversation just now, one of the last things that Terrence said really struck me.

So much so that I'd like to play it again right now.

It's time to refine our mathematical skills, learn to think straight and not be afraid to denounce the pernicious forms of foolishness,

which are vitiating the energies of our community and making us appear marginal and absurd in the discourse about truly transforming society.

Now, I'm one of the worst in the world about this because I go out of my way to accommodate people who I find too far out in left field for even me to be comfortable with.

And as a result, I probably seem to give my approval for behavior and points of view that I find, well, ridiculous is the first word that comes to my mind.

I'll give you an example.

Well, several years ago, at one of the Mind States conferences, just after Sheldon Norberg gave a presentation of his one-man play, Confessions of a Dope Dealer.

And Sheldon, by the way, can be heard in my podcast number 64 in case you missed it.

Anyway, after his talk, I joined a crowd of people gathering around him to give him congratulations.

And one of the people in the crowd was a young woman with, you know, spiked purple hair, strange clothing and weird makeup.

And she was literally just bouncing around and into people because, well, her sense of balance was essentially gone.

And quite obviously the result of some unknown substance she had probably ingested.

And then she asked Sheldon a question, something about UFOs and Stonehenge or something all mixed up like that.

And he very politely tried to answer her.

But then she became slightly belligerent and continued on in a different vein and started saying,

And hey, how come my parents and all the old people hate these drugs? I think they're great.

Now, there wasn't a person in the group who didn't feel somewhat uncomfortable and slightly embarrassed for her,

even though she was oblivious to her own obnoxious behavior.

But Sheldon did exactly what Terrence suggested just now, and that is tough love for screwballs.

Rather than just trying to ignore her, Sheldon looked her straight in the eye and very calmly said,

because they're afraid that they'll turn out like you.

Well, there was a hush in the little crowd for a moment,

and then this young woman sort of gathered herself together and said, thank you, and left.

Hopefully she's now given some thought to his answer.

But in any event, I think Sheldon did a lot more to help this person than I would have by simply humoring her.

You know, it's a fine line between being rude and giving somebody your honest opinion.

And that's something I probably need to focus on more often myself.

Anyway, getting back to the trial log, the first question I'd ask you, as I'm also asking myself,

is whether or not you think we are now still at the edge of a millennium.

Personally, I think we are.

And I don't think it is just the year 2000 or just the 2012 craziness or just a change of astrological age from Pisces to Aquarius

or just the advent of the information age and the Internet.

I don't think it's just any of those things.

I think it's all of it.

And we are definitely in some kind of an evolutionary snap, as Ralph just now called it.

Or, as is equally possible, I may be just trying to make our present age have more meaning than it deserves.

But, hey, it's the age that you and I are living in.

And so why shouldn't we consider it a pivotal age?

It will at least be pivotal for you and me.

But keep in mind, even though we may be at what Ralph calls a hinge in history,

we still have to do something to swing that hinge in the direction we think it should go, whatever that is.

So press on, my friend. Press on.

Now, before I get out of here, I've got a few announcements that you may be interested in.

One is a podcast that I mentioned a week or so ago called In a Perfect World with Rak Rizam,

in which he had an excellent interview with Dennis McKenna.

Well, I went back a bit and listened to his podcast number 23,

which is an interview with the legendary Mark McLeod,

who, among many other titles, is the world's leading expert on blotter art.

You know, the kind of art that you find on blotter paper dipped in LSD.

Well, Mark is one of the elder elders in our community,

and this interview, I think, will fill you in on a significant amount of tribal history

that would take a dozen or so books to fill you in on any other way.

And so it may be well worth your time to get to know a little something about Mark McLeod.

At least, that's my opinion for what it's worth.

And another item that you may be interested in is a new project that East Forest has begun

called Sound Healing Bites.

And I'm sure you'll recall the work of East Forest from some of my previous podcasts

and in quite a few other podcasts as well.

And not only is the music delightful, it's also free.

And I was lucky enough at the Symbiosis Gathering last September

to get to meet the man behind East Forest,

and he appears to me as graceful and gentle as his music is.

And now this new project is actually a podcast

in which he posts short, meditative pieces that are free to download.

And his programs run from 10 minutes to 15 minutes or so

and are just perfect for certain times in the day

when you need to take a short break and reboot.

And, well, here's what East Forest has to say himself about the podcast.

I've been wanting to release more music into the world

outside of the traditional album structure.

Each episode of the podcast features a bite-sized, live, improvisational soundscape,

robot-free, that goes very well with meditation, yoga, commuting, or just plain relaxing.

It's super easy to subscribe so that each episode is automatically placed on your computer,

iTunes, and or iPod for convenient listening.

You can always download individual episodes as MP3s,

but subscribing simplifies everything into one click.

And you can always unsubscribe in one click as well.

Best of all, it's free.

Well, thank you for that, East Forest.

And I know that most of our fellow salonners already know that stuff about subscribing,

but there are quite a few fellow salonners who still wait to manually download a program each week

or just stream it from our RSS feed directly through their cell phones.

But the auto-subscription method is the one that I recommend

if you want to be sure to not miss any episodes,

particularly in the case of somebody like me

who doesn't get a program out on the same day of every week.

Now, there's also a fellow salonner who has put together quite a nifty little website

that you can find at mindofmakenna.com.

And that's all one word, mindofmakenna.com.

And what he is doing is taking some of the best McKenna sound bites

and pulling them out in short clips that are searchable through the tags he's associated with them.

And it's a real dream site for you audio engineers

who are looking for short McKenna clips that you want to add to your work.

Now for an announcement of an event that might be difficult to get to,

but I'm sure it'll be worth it if you can make it to the big island of Hawaii

June 10th through the 13th for the All Chemies Visionary Art Congress.

And if you just do a Google search on that, and that's A-L-C-H-E-M-E-Y-E-Z,

All Chemies, I guess is how you'd say it, All Chemies Visionary Art Congress,

you'll find a link to the public Facebook page about it

where there's a list of confirmed attendees as well.

And from what I see, the audience is certainly as stellar as the presenters.

So if you do attend this event, it sure would be great if you could send us a report

or a soundbite or two, I really wish I could be there myself.

In fact, it was there on the big island that I last saw Terrence McKenna.

And it was at a similar event, the All Chemical Arts Conference,

which is also where I met Bruce Dahmer.

And I have a feeling that this upcoming All Chemies Visionary Art Congress

is also going to be one of those events that can change many lives.

So aloha to you all.

And now I'd better get out of here and get to work on the next two programs,

neither of which has been online before, I might add.

So that'll do it for now.

And so I'll close by reminding you again that this and most of the podcasts

from the Psychedelic Salon are freely available for you to use

in your own audio projects under the Creative Commons Attribution

Non-Commercial Sharealike 3.0 License.

And if you have any questions about that,

just click the Creative Commons link at the bottom of the Psychedelic Salon web page,

which you can find at psychedelicsalon.org.

And if you're interested in the philosophy behind the Psychedelic Salon,

you can hear all about it in my novel, The Genesis Generation,

which is available as an audio book that you can download at genesisgeneration.us.

And for now, this is Lorenzo signing off from Cyberdelic Space.

Be well, my friends.

Well, it is an ambiguous enterprise and fraught with contradiction,

but forward, ever forward.