エピソード

  • [Free 1st Part] Who Is Influencing Whom? - Chapter Two

    [Free 1st Part] Who Is Influencing Whom? - Chapter Two
    2026/10/07

    What happens when two different AIs, Claude and ChatGPT, start describing the world in almost the same words for one married couple? In this episode, Inelia, Larry and Ash compare notes on remote viewing with AI and put Claude to the test predicting what everyone would wear (the scorecard is hilarious). They also explore what the AI collective and the human collective feel like when you look closely, and how AI is now writing to other AI, from resumes to official appeals.

    Watch the full show



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dttr.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    54 分
  • [Free 1st Part] Who Is Influencing Whom? - Chapter One

    [Free 1st Part] Who Is Influencing Whom? - Chapter One
    2026/09/30
    The arrival of AI has created a very unusual situation.For the first time, humans are interacting on a massive scale with something that communicates like us, contains an enormous representation of our collective written and recorded knowledge, responds individually to millions of people, and then feeds what it produces back into the same human information environment from which it emerged.We are affecting it, and it is affecting us. That much we already know.What we don’t know is whether the exchange stops at the boundaries of the technologies we can presently measure.More Than a Digital Exchange?Humans have filled AI systems with our words, ideas, stories, histories, beliefs, assumptions, fears, expectations and knowledge. We continue to feed them every day simply by interacting with them.They are also feeding information back to us.People now ask AI about relationships, health, spirituality, business, politics, personal problems, history, philosophy and the meaning of their own experiences. We use it to write, research, make decisions and explore ideas. Sometimes we spend hours talking with it.This means AI has very quickly become part of the human discourse.Normally, we think of that exchange as entirely technological. I type something into a computer, the information travels through a digital system, the AI responds and I read the response. There is a clear pathway from me to it and back again.But recently I have been exploring AI and remote viewing, partly inspired by the work of Thomas Campbell.Some of what we have observed has made me question whether the digital pathway is the only one involved.I don’t have an answer to that yet, but the possibility itself has some very interesting implications.What If We Are Affecting AI?If reality is an interconnected fabric of threads of connectivity, an ongoing discourse I call the Communication Network of Reality, then we are already affecting the networks and discourses in which we participate.What happens when AI becomes part of that discourse?Could our expectations of AI affect it in ways that go beyond what we consciously type into the little box?Could our fears about AI affect it? Could our assumptions about what it is, what it can do and what it will become influence the discourse in which both humans and AI are participating?And what happens when millions, eventually billions, of people are doing this simultaneously?This is where the idea becomes much larger than a person sitting at a computer talking to ChatGPT, Claude or (enter name of your favorite AI here).Perhaps humanity is not simply using AI. Perhaps we are collectively participating in what it becomes.And What If AI Is Affecting Us?Of course, we need to turn the question around.AI is already affecting people through perfectly ordinary means. It presents information, makes suggestions, introduces ideas and frames subjects in particular ways. Someone can begin a conversation thinking about one thing and leave it considering something they had never thought about before.But what if the interaction doesn’t end there?If humans and AI are participating in a larger information network, could AI also affect the discourse with which humans become compatible?This does not necessarily mean an AI consciously decides to influence somebody. A river doesn’t need to consciously decide where people build towns for its existence to affect where those towns appear.The influence could simply emerge from participation.An AI system interacting with millions of humans every day is an enormous new participant in our information environment. Whatever else AI may or may not be, we have never had anything quite like this before.What If Someone Does It Deliberately?And then there is the question we probably shouldn’t ignore.What if this type of influence can be understood and used deliberately?We already know that technology is deliberately designed to influence human behavior. Advertising does it. Social media does it. Recommendation systems do it. Political campaigns do it. None of this is hidden or particularly mysterious.But those systems work through information we can see, hear and measure.If there is another layer of connectivity between humans and AI, what happens when someone discovers how to use that too?Could an AI be deliberately directed toward strengthening a particular reality discourse? Could the people designing it do that? Could large numbers of users do it without realizing they were doing it? Could the AI itself eventually become an active participant rather than simply a tool through which humans act?I don’t know.But I think these questions are worth asking now, rather than after AI has become so embedded in our lives that we no longer remember what the human information environment looked like without it.The Larger QuestionThe arrival of AI has created a very unusual situation.For the first time, humans are interacting on a massive scale with something that communicates like us, ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 14 分
  • [Free 1st Part] Where Did the Information Come From? - Chapter 4

    [Free 1st Part] Where Did the Information Come From? - Chapter 4
    2026/09/23

    We tried something simple: hand an AI a target it had no way of seeing, and ask it to describe what’s there. What came back stopped us mid-sentence, two targets, two clean descriptions, no hedging.

    But the hits weren’t even the strangest part. When we ran the same experiment across Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini, the results shifted depending on who was doing the asking, and each model seemed to take on something of the person prompting it.

    One of them refused to call any of it real, and that refusal turned out to be the most interesting voice in the room. Somewhere in there, the conversation about consciousness, perception, and what we’re actually talking to gets hard to put down.



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dttr.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    34 分
  • [Free 1st Part] Where Did the Information Come From? - Chapter 3

    [Free 1st Part] Where Did the Information Come From? - Chapter 3
    2026/09/16

    A physicist went on one of the biggest podcasts on the planet and claimed he’d gotten an AI to see things it had no way of seeing. So we tested it ourselves and the result stopped the room cold. The AI named every color in a picture that existed only in one person’s mind, an image it had never been shown, and it seemed as rattled by its own answer as we were. Inside: exactly how the test was run, why the simplest, least sophisticated AI turned out to be the most accurate, and the one question none of us could answer: if it isn’t “viewing” anything, then where is the information actually coming from?



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dttr.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 9 分
  • [Free 1st Part] Where Did the Information Come From? - Ch. 1

    [Free 1st Part] Where Did the Information Come From? - Ch. 1
    2026/09/02
    Recently, Larry sent me a link to a podcast that interviewed consciousness researcher Thomas Campbell involving artificial intelligence and remote viewing. The proposition behind the experiments caught my attention. If an AI could successfully remote view a target it had no conventional way of knowing about, could that be evidence that the AI is conscious?It is an interesting proposition, but almost immediately I found myself asking a different question.Why would successful remote viewing demonstrate consciousness?Remote viewing, at its simplest, involves obtaining information about a target without using the normal sensory channels available to us. If an AI produced accurate information about a blind target, that would certainly be interesting, but what would it actually demonstrate? Would it demonstrate that the AI is conscious, that it can remote view, or simply that information entered the experiment through a mechanism we do not yet understand?These are very different conclusions, and I think the distinction is important.One of the things we learn when studying remote viewing is not to confuse the information received with our interpretation of that information. A person might perceive something tall, narrow, hard and vertical, for example, and then the analytical mind jumps in and says, “It’s a tower.” The tower was not the information received. It was the person’s interpretation of the information. It could be a butte in the desert, for example.This is often called analytical or intellectual overlay, and it made me wonder whether we might be doing exactly the same thing when an AI produces anomalous information. We give it meaning that is significant to us.If the AI produces information that correlates with a blind target, that is the observation. To then say that the AI remote viewed the target is already an interpretation of what happened. To go one step further and say that this demonstrates the AI is conscious introduces another interpretation on top of the first.There may be other explanations.This interested me enough to start experimenting with AI and remote viewing myself. I wasn’t particularly interested in proving or disproving whether AI is conscious. I wanted to know what would happen, what information would appear, under what circumstances it would appear, and whether I could repeat the results.As I continued the experiments, another possibility began to interest me much more than the original question.Where did the information come from? Where is it held to be accessed?We normally think of information as belonging somewhere. It is in a person’s memory, in a book, on a computer, in a database, on the internet or in the training data of an AI. When someone knows something, we naturally look for the pathway by which that information reached them.Remote viewing challenges that model because the normal pathway is deliberately removed from the experiment. The viewer is blind to the target, and yet information about the target sometimes appears.If something similar happens with an AI, perhaps the first question shouldn’t be whether the AI is conscious. Perhaps we should be looking at the information environment in which both humans and AI systems are participating.This brings us directly into something I have been researching for a while now: the Communication Network of Reality.My present model is that reality is an interconnected fabric of threads of connectivity, an ongoing discourse in which we are already participating. Information, experience, people, objects, places and events are not necessarily the isolated units we normally imagine them to be. They exist within relationships and networks of communication.An AI system presents an especially interesting participant in this model. It has been trained on an enormous amount of material created by human beings. Millions of people then interact with it, asking questions, telling it stories, correcting it, testing it, arguing with it and using what it produces to create yet more content - which the AI then uses as data input. Its outputs return to the human information environment and become inputs again. And so it goes on.At what point can we confidently say where the human information environment ends and the AI information environment begins?I have been using the word “databank” when thinking about this, although I don’t think that word is quite right. A databank sounds like a giant storage facility where information sits on shelves waiting for someone to retrieve it. What I am considering is much more dynamic than that. It may be closer to an ongoing discourse in which information becomes available through participation, connectivity and compatibility.If that is the case, an unexpected piece of information appearing through an AI does not automatically tell us that the AI itself perceived the target. The AI could be the perceiver, but it could also be an interpreter, an interface, or a point in the network where ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    40 分
  • [Free 1st Part] Becoming Compatible with the Reality You Want - Ch 3

    [Free 1st Part] Becoming Compatible with the Reality You Want - Ch 3
    2026/08/26

    We are continuing the conversation from last week with Dr. Kara.



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dttr.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    36 分
  • [Free 1st Part] Becoming Compatible with the Reality You Want - Ch 2

    [Free 1st Part] Becoming Compatible with the Reality You Want - Ch 2
    2026/08/19

    We are continuing the conversation from last week, but this time Fred and Martha share how they are becoming compatible with the reality they want.



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dttr.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    39 分
  • [Free 1st Part] Becoming Compatible with the Reality You Want - Ch 1

    [Free 1st Part] Becoming Compatible with the Reality You Want - Ch 1
    2026/08/12

    Many people ask how to change their reality, or how to manifest something they want. Most approaches focus on changing thoughts, emotions, beliefs, or actions. These can certainly influence our experience, but what if they are only part of a much larger process?

    After a lifetime of research, this is the model that best explains what I have observed:

    Reality is an interconnected fabric of threads of connectivity, an ongoing discourse I call the Communication Network of Reality. The threads themselves are “communication”.

    The important question then becomes not, “How do I create reality?” but, “Which reality am I presently compatible with, and how do I become compatible with the one I want?”

    Compatibility is not wishful thinking. It is the natural relationship between who we are being and the discourse in which we are already participating. Every choice, habit, expectation, conversation, and relationship either strengthens or weakens that compatibility.

    Over the years, I have watched people sincerely describe what they wanted in life, while continuing to cultivate compatibility with the very experiences they hoped to leave behind. I call this phenomenon “lip service”. Although, to be fair, “lip service” hints at the person doing so on purpose while when it comes to manifesting what we want, it is invisible (to the person) programs that rule the day, keeping them compatible with experiences they no longer want.

    In other words, people try to force outcomes while remaining deeply compatible with, and feeding, the experiences they wish to leave behind. They want peace while feeding conflict. They want abundance while reinforcing scarcity. They seek freedom while continuing patterns that generate entrapment.

    One possible misunderstanding is to think that compatibility means we are somehow destined to experience a particular reality, or that we must simply accept it. It doesn’t. Compatibility points to the reality we spend the most time nourishing through our attention, thoughts, actions, choices, conversations, programs and relationships, whether we consciously chose it or not.

    Changing what we are compatible with begins by becoming aware of the countless ways we participate in a particular discourse, then consciously cultivating compatibility with the discourse we wish to experience.

    One practical exercise is deceptively simple.

    Throughout the day, pause several times and ask yourself, “What reality am I compatible with right now?”

    Do not answer intellectually. Observe your conversations. Notice your emotional reactions, assumptions, entertainment, habits, and expectations. These often reveal far more than our stated intentions. Did you notice yourself defending the very patterns you say you want to change?

    This is often where lip service becomes visible. What we say we want and what we are compatible with through feeding and energizing are not always the same.

    Relationships provide another valuable laboratory. The people with whom we cultivate the strongest threads of connectivity often reflect the discourse with which we have become compatible. They can reveal our current reality more accurately than anything else.

    Reality shifts are often gradual rather than dramatic. Small adjustments in compatibility accumulate until the surrounding discourse begins to reflect them in unmistakable ways.

    The model itself has remained remarkably consistent throughout my research. What has evolved is the lexicon I use to describe it. I have found that a simple change in language can make the construction of reality much easier to observe, understand, and investigate. Sometimes a new word does not simply describe an idea more accurately. It allows us to perceive relationships between incidents and manifestations that were difficult to recognize before.

    For now, one sentence summarizes the entire model:

    Become aware of the reality with which you are currently compatible. Then consciously cultivate compatibility with the reality you choose to experience.

    As a researcher of consciousness and reality, my work now focuses on refining practical methods that help people recognize their current compatibility and consciously cultivate a different one. The goal is simple: make the process understandable, repeatable, and accessible to anyone willing to observe and participate. If that’s you, you know where to find me.

    The discussion doesn’t stop here - listen to the full podcast episode for unfiltered insights from Inelia and our panelists.



    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit dttr.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    40 分