0:00

New Thinking Aloud is

0:02

presented by the California

0:04

Institute for Human Science,

0:06

a fully accredited university

0:08

offering distant learning graduate

0:10

degrees that focus on

0:12

mind, body, and spirit.

0:15

The topics that we

0:17

cover here, we are

0:19

particularly excited to announce

0:21

new degrees, emphasizing parasiteology

0:23

and the paranormal. Visit

0:26

their website at CIHS.

0:28

thinking aloud.

0:30

Conversations on

0:33

the leading

0:37

edge of

0:39

knowledge and

0:42

discovery with

0:46

psychologist

0:48

Jeffrey

0:50

Mishlove.

0:52

Hello and welcome. I'm Jeffrey

0:55

Mishlove, too, on Jeffrey's conversation

0:57

partner, or alter ego. I'm

1:00

going to talk about retropsychokinesis.

1:02

I think it's a term

1:04

that probably very few of

1:07

our listeners have heard of

1:09

before. Often, when I teach

1:11

pericycology, I list, what are

1:14

we studying? What are the

1:16

phenomena that parasycologists are interested

1:19

in? And they include the

1:21

following standard list, telepathy. clairvoyant,

1:23

psychokinesis, precognition,

1:26

and the

1:28

question of survival

1:30

after death, which includes

1:33

reincarnation and medium-ship

1:35

communications. But I

1:38

didn't mention, even

1:41

though I talked

1:44

about retro-psychokinesis, I've

1:46

never discussed it.

1:48

To be honest with my students,

1:51

it's just too exotic. They

1:53

have a hard enough time

1:56

wrapping their minds around normal

1:58

psychocedesis, normal precognition. these

2:00

things are already supposedly

2:03

impossible. So where does

2:05

retropsychokinesis fit in? Well,

2:07

let's begin by defining

2:09

what do we mean

2:11

by retropsychokinesis. It's a

2:13

causal relationship from the

2:16

present into the past,

2:18

or you could say

2:20

from the future, into

2:22

the present. might be

2:24

another way of looking

2:26

at it. In other

2:29

words, I'm going to

2:31

concentrate. I am going

2:33

to project my mental

2:35

intention to affect an

2:37

event that has taken

2:39

place already in the

2:42

past. Well, you can

2:44

understand why people would

2:46

find this totally mind-blowing.

2:48

Obviously, you can't change

2:50

the past because it's

2:52

already happened. That seems

2:55

to be... Common sense.

2:57

You can't change the

2:59

past. The past has

3:01

already happened. There's nothing

3:03

more to be done

3:05

about it. Ah-huh. Now

3:08

in quantum physics, however,

3:10

there is the idea

3:12

that the wave function

3:14

in quantum physics, the

3:16

probabilistic equations, the Schrodinger-Sai

3:18

functions of quantum physics,

3:21

don't become finalized. What

3:23

is the term? concretized

3:25

is probably the best way

3:28

to put it. We don't

3:30

know where a particle is

3:32

until it's been observed. That's

3:35

sort of obvious. And physicists

3:37

have been debating about this

3:40

for a long time. The

3:42

question is, what does it

3:44

mean to be observed? Does

3:47

it mean that you have

3:49

to have a sentient being

3:51

a conscious observer or otherwise

3:54

it doesn't count? Or could

3:56

it be simply that I

3:58

have a tech recorder that

4:01

records? the device or a

4:03

video camera. If a video

4:05

camera records a device, does

4:08

that count as an observation?

4:10

This is an important theoretical

4:12

question, not just for parasycology,

4:15

but for physics in general.

4:17

And I can tell you

4:19

the great British physicist Stephen

4:22

Hawking was of the opinion

4:24

that as soon as an

4:26

instrument has recorded an event.

4:29

then that's the same as

4:31

an observation. That's what it

4:33

counts for. The other is,

4:36

no, you can record the

4:38

event on an instrument, but

4:40

until a sentient being, like

4:43

a human being, or maybe

4:45

an intelligent animal of some

4:47

sort, observes what took place,

4:50

it's still modifiable. And that's

4:52

what pericycologist. decided to test

4:54

with a series of experiments

4:57

that get labeled as retro

4:59

psychokinesis. It's such a mind-boggling

5:02

concept, changing the past, that

5:04

people have been hesitant. People

5:06

are still saying, well, we

5:09

don't know for sure. Was

5:11

it retro psychokinesis? Or was

5:13

it, who knows what took

5:16

place? What are the causal

5:18

chains of events? But here's

5:20

how an experiment like this

5:23

will work. First of all.

5:25

Parasycologists have pioneered the use

5:27

of the quantum mechanical random

5:30

event generator. A physical device

5:32

that produces a series of

5:34

random events, or you could

5:37

call them random numbers. It

5:39

can be programmed. The number

5:41

can be simply one or

5:44

zero, in a random sequence,

5:46

or could be one through

5:48

ten, one through a hundred.

5:51

Totally programmable. But the point

5:53

is, because the output. of

5:55

this device is determined by

5:58

quantum mechanical process. It

6:00

is in theory completely unpredictable.

6:03

It is as random as

6:05

random can be. So we

6:07

use the random event generator

6:10

to create a random file,

6:12

a file of random signals

6:14

that is recorded. And in

6:17

the earliest experiments, which as

6:19

I recall, go back to

6:21

the 1970s, we're talking about

6:24

work done by helmet. Mitt,

6:26

who was a physicist who

6:28

was one of the first

6:31

people to really pioneer the

6:33

work of the random event

6:35

generator in pericycology. But he

6:38

had this idea, how are

6:40

we going to convince the

6:42

skeptics? And he said, I'll

6:45

do it this way. I'll

6:47

get them involved in the

6:49

experiment. We'll use the random

6:52

event generator to create a

6:54

file. And that file will

6:56

consist of... two signals and

6:58

in the earliest studies we

7:01

can say they were audio

7:03

signals either a high-pitched beep

7:05

beep or a low-pitched beep

7:08

like that and in a

7:10

random order and so that's

7:12

done completely random signal done

7:15

in the past it's recorded

7:17

on audio tape for example

7:19

high-pitched and low-pitched beeps and

7:22

the tape can be duplicated

7:24

it can be copied it

7:26

can be copied it can

7:29

be copied it can be

7:31

It is done. And so

7:33

far, nothing psychic has taken

7:36

place at this point at

7:38

a future time. We ask

7:40

a subject, a person to

7:43

exert a psychokinetic influence on

7:45

the event that has already

7:47

happened in the past. It's

7:50

been recorded on audio tape,

7:52

but it has not been

7:54

observed. by any sentient beings,

7:56

by no human beings, or

7:59

any intelligent... being of any

8:01

other non-human sort, no

8:03

observations have been made. And now

8:06

we give it to a person and

8:08

we tell them, I want you

8:10

to listen to this audio

8:12

tape and I want you

8:14

to concentrate on their being

8:16

more of the high pitch

8:19

beeps than the low pitch

8:21

beeps or vice versa. We

8:23

can flip a coin or

8:25

use a random event generator

8:27

to determine. whether we're asking

8:29

the person to hear more

8:31

high-pitched or more low-pitched.

8:34

And he's doing it,

8:36

could be months, days,

8:39

years after the original

8:41

recording was made. Now, as

8:43

of this point in time, and

8:46

it's almost Christmas, 2024,

8:49

the most recent

8:51

meta-analysis of the...

8:53

retro PK experiments includes

8:56

all the data up

8:58

until 2022. So it's fairly

9:00

recent and we're talking

9:03

about 41 scientific experiments

9:05

conducted in more than

9:08

nine different laboratories. And

9:10

the results are amazingly

9:13

statistically significant, some of

9:16

the most statistically significant

9:18

findings. In all of

9:21

Parasycology, if you combine

9:24

those 41 experiments, the

9:26

statistical probability

9:28

that the results you're

9:30

looking at are due

9:32

to chance alone would be

9:35

less than one in a

9:37

trillion. Very low probability.

9:40

It seems something definitely

9:42

psychic is going on

9:44

here. And what that means

9:46

if we ask a person?

9:49

to exert a psychokinetic influence,

9:51

in other words, concentrate, use

9:53

your mental intention to hear

9:55

more high-pitched beeps than low-pitched

9:57

beeps or vice versa. How

10:00

does that work? The

10:02

recording was made in

10:04

the past. It's been

10:06

recorded on audio tape.

10:08

One assumes that the

10:11

psychokinetic effect didn't take

10:13

place in the present

10:15

when the person was

10:17

listening. That would mean

10:19

an alteration of the

10:21

tape. But you see,

10:23

after the person has

10:25

attempted to listen to

10:27

the tape, The skeptic

10:29

will have a copy

10:32

of the tape. They

10:34

can validate for themselves

10:36

exactly what the results

10:38

were. They know how

10:40

many they can count.

10:42

The high pitch versus

10:44

the low pitch. So

10:46

there's a theoretical question

10:48

here, which is this

10:51

is one of the

10:53

rare instances in which

10:55

a para psychological experiment

10:57

was designed to do

10:59

two things. It was

11:01

designed to see if

11:03

there could be a

11:05

new phenomenon never before

11:07

observed that could be

11:09

observed, and that new

11:12

phenomenon would be retroactive

11:14

psychokinesis, a causal influence

11:16

from the present into

11:18

the past. And the

11:20

second question is, what

11:22

counts as an observation

11:24

if Hawking was correct?

11:26

And simply by making

11:28

the recording on some

11:31

form of audio tape,

11:33

if that counted as

11:35

an observation, then there

11:37

should be no way

11:39

to retro-cognitatively change the

11:41

recording. Can't be done.

11:43

However, if it requires

11:45

a sentient being... before

11:47

an observation is officially

11:49

taken place. In other

11:52

words, you can record

11:54

a past event. on

11:56

audio tape or videotape

11:58

or even film. But

12:00

if no sentient being

12:02

sees that film, it's

12:04

still amenable to a

12:06

psychokinetic influence coming from

12:08

the future. In other

12:11

words, we can change

12:13

the past provided that

12:15

no sentient being as

12:17

yet observed that portion

12:19

of the past that

12:21

we are changing. This...

12:23

is a radical phenomenon.

12:25

And I have to

12:27

tell you, people argue,

12:29

the skeptics argue in

12:32

Parasycology, that basically all

12:34

the phenomenon that Parasycologist's

12:36

report is all a

12:38

question of sloppy methodology

12:40

and error. And usually

12:42

they say that results

12:44

in high results at

12:46

first and then the

12:48

results. Peterout over time,

12:50

because there was never

12:53

a real phenomenon to

12:55

begin with. It's called

12:57

a decline effect, and

12:59

according to the skeptics,

13:01

every experimental outcome in

13:03

pericycology has just declined,

13:05

because there was nothing

13:07

there to begin with.

13:09

And they get abandoned,

13:12

and then a new

13:14

fan comes along. But

13:16

in the case of

13:18

retropsychokinesis, what we see

13:20

is that, yes, people

13:22

seem to have lost

13:24

interest. I've been teaching

13:26

pericycology for decades, don't

13:28

even teach retropsychocodesis. It's

13:30

such a mind-boggler. But

13:33

it seems as if

13:35

the results which are

13:37

so strong are confirming

13:39

theoretically, and this is

13:41

crucial for our theoretical

13:43

understanding of quantum physics,

13:45

that the wave function

13:47

doesn't collapse. until a

13:49

sentient being makes an

13:52

observation. How else can

13:54

you explain the fact

13:56

that people are... able

13:58

to perform so well

14:00

in the retro PK

14:02

task, but in the

14:04

absence of an alternative

14:06

explanation, we have to

14:08

take the possibility of

14:10

retro, cognitive, psychokinesis as

14:13

being very real, that

14:15

because of our intention,

14:17

we have the possibility

14:19

of changing the past

14:21

provided that no other

14:23

sentient being has yet

14:25

observed the past that

14:27

we wish to change.

14:30

And that has now

14:32

been tested experimentally at

14:35

least 41 times, using

14:37

random event generators and

14:39

producing remarkable, remarkable results.

14:41

J.B. Rine, who was

14:43

considered the founder of

14:45

American Parasycology, did candidacy

14:47

experiments in the 1930s,

14:49

of course was well

14:51

aware of Helvet Mitt

14:53

and his work in

14:55

the early efforts to

14:57

nail down retro PK.

14:59

PK, being the abbreviation

15:01

for psychokinesis. But I

15:03

have to tell you,

15:05

J.B. Rhine was set

15:07

in his ways to

15:09

some degree. He did

15:11

not like Carl Jung's

15:13

notion of synchronicity as

15:15

an a causal principle.

15:18

The idea of a

15:20

causality bothered him. He

15:22

said, no, parasite should

15:24

fit into... causal mechanisms.

15:26

We're looking for a

15:28

signal. We can't find

15:30

the signal yet, but

15:32

it's a signal that

15:34

could even go from

15:36

the future to the

15:38

past. There has to

15:40

be probably an organ

15:42

of reception in the

15:44

brain and a signal.

15:46

And we'll eventually solve

15:48

this using normal signal

15:50

theory, communication theory. Karel

15:52

Young's model, a synchronicity

15:54

that was a causal.

15:56

Was something rind could

15:58

never exist? accept. And

16:01

he could never accept

16:03

retro-psychokinesis either. So the

16:05

early physicists looking into

16:07

this world, Helmut Menton,

16:10

Evan Harris Walker, became

16:12

a strange somewhat from

16:14

the Rhinean School over this

16:16

division. Now the division

16:18

has important implications.

16:21

It has to do surprisingly

16:23

enough with the multiple warrens

16:25

theory and physics. The

16:28

multiple world's theory is in

16:30

some respects a response

16:32

to the anthropic principle

16:34

in physics. And the anthropic

16:37

principle we've discussed it

16:39

before on new thinking allowed,

16:41

but I'm going to put

16:44

it simply, there are certain

16:46

constants in physics like the

16:48

fine structure constant, the ratio

16:50

between the electromagnetic force and

16:53

the weak force in physics.

16:55

For example, there are... half

16:57

a dozen such constants.

16:59

And it turns out

17:01

if those constants were

17:03

even slightly different,

17:05

human life as we know it

17:08

would not be possible.

17:10

Molecules wouldn't

17:12

bind large-scale systems

17:14

like human beings

17:17

couldn't exist in

17:19

such a universe. Complex

17:21

systems like ours. So in

17:24

order to account for this.

17:26

without involving consciousness,

17:29

incidentally, physicists

17:31

came up with the idea

17:33

that, well, yes, it's true,

17:36

we live in a rare

17:38

universe where human life is

17:41

possible, change the constants just

17:43

a little bit, human life

17:46

couldn't exist. But

17:48

obviously, we're in that

17:50

universe because we are here.

17:53

However, there must be countless

17:55

other. universes where human

17:57

life is impossible and we just

17:59

had happen to be in the one

18:01

where it is possible. So it's just

18:04

a question of pure chance. That's

18:06

the mainstream view of

18:08

the multiple world's theory,

18:10

and the multiple world's

18:13

theory is considered a

18:15

respectable theory in physics,

18:17

as compared to retropsychokinesis,

18:19

which is completely non-respectable.

18:21

It's not even respectable

18:24

in parasycology, let alone

18:26

physics. In spite. of the enormity

18:28

of the data. However,

18:30

if we accept that

18:33

retropsychokinesis

18:35

is possible, then one

18:37

could claim we don't need

18:40

multiple worlds in

18:42

order to explain the

18:44

fact that we live

18:46

in such a rare

18:48

universe where human life

18:50

is possible, because oddly

18:53

enough, we could have

18:55

created it using Our own

18:57

retropsychokinesis going back to

18:59

the earliest moments of

19:02

our universe. The big bang. All

19:04

of this, of course, brings

19:06

into question our common sense

19:08

notions about the nature of

19:10

time. Obviously, if I can

19:12

exert a mental influence from

19:14

the present into the past,

19:16

as we have now pointed

19:19

out, has been demonstrated

19:21

experimentally on multiple occasions.

19:24

Time isn't what we thought. It was.

19:26

We have set definitions of

19:28

past, present, and future.

19:30

But the idea that

19:32

the future already exists

19:34

and is influencing the

19:36

present is it contradicts

19:39

our common sense notions. Well, I

19:41

have to leave things there pretty

19:44

much. There's much more that

19:46

could be said about

19:48

retropsychokinesis, but I think

19:50

I've given you plenty

19:52

to digest for now. So of

19:55

course I want to thank

19:57

you for being with me

19:59

because you You're

20:05

the

20:09

reason

20:12

that

20:16

we

20:19

are

20:22

here.

20:26

Three, in the New Thinking

20:28

Allowed Dialogue Series is, UFOs

20:31

and UAP, are we really

20:33

alone? Now available on Amazon.

20:36

You can now download a

20:38

free PDF copy of

20:40

issue seven of the

20:42

New Thinking Allowed magazine

20:44

or order a beautiful

20:46

printed copy.