This is such a wild article that I simply had to blog about it. It concerns what I’m calling the “physiology of precognition”, and it was shared by V.T.:
Here’s the crux of the matter: As part of an experiment in physiological responses to future events, participants in an experiment were made to sit at a computer screen, and were then shown pictures of either a calming or emotion-evocative nature, and this procedure was then repeated. The pictures remained on the screen for three seconds, and in every run, the pictures were presented in randomized order. The results were astounding:
The results of the experiment were fascinating to say the least. The participants’ brains and hearts responded to information about the emotional quality of the pictures before the computer flashed them (random selection). This means that the heart and brain were both responding to future events. The results indicated that the responses happened, on average, 4.8 seconds before the computer selected the pictures.
How mind-altering is that?
Even more profound, perhaps, was data showing the heart received information before the brain. “It is first registered from the heart,” Rollin McCraty Ph.D. explained, “then up to the brain (emotional and pre-frontal cortex), where we can logically relate what we are intuiting, then finally down to the gut (or where something stirs).”
The question is why does this happen? And here, as one might expect, I have some high octane speculative hypotheses to advance.
Most of us have probably had such “precognitive” experiences at one time or another during our lives, from the simple example of thinking about someone only to have the phone ring a few seconds later, and that individual is on the line. Or a vague sense of something “being amiss” and the refrigerator dies or a computer malfunctions or the car won’t start.
Explaining these phenomena is evoked all sorts of theories. The Soviet astrophysicist Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, for example, conducted highly classified experiments in torsion in the Soviet Union, and actually posited that there was a kind of “retro-causation” as information flowed from the future into the past. His reasoning was complicated (as the thought of Russian astrophysicists usually is), but it basically boiled down to the Observer effect in modern physics, and how given a partially-known set of circumstances, certain future results were more likely than others, and could thus exert an influence from the future on the present and past, inverting the normal “common sense” ideas of the flow of time and causation. For this (and other) reasons, Kozyrev’s work (what little is reliably known of it) remains controversial both inside and outside of Russia, with some denouncing him as a crank, and others viewing him as a brilliant man (for the record, I tend strongly to the latter view).
More recently, there have been arguments that the structure of the observable and known universe, with its galaxies and galactic clusters spread out over the vast voids of space, resembles a gigantic neuron. Pictures have appeared on the internet of these structures juxtaposed with pictures of neurons, and the resemblance is more than striking, giving rise to the ancient metaphor that the universe is more like an organism, or perhaps better put, a meta-organism than it is like a machine, which is of course the “metaphor” that most moderns operate with. It is with this metaphor that today’s high octane speculation is chiefly concerned. The ancients not only viewed the universe as more organism than machine, but went so far as to draw the analogy to mankind as a “microcosm” of that meta-organism, an analogy that clearly implied some sort of intelligent order to the universe, but an order vastly more complicated than the Cartesian-Newtonian machine metaphor. One individual in that “microcosmist” tradition, a Church Father by the name of St. Maximus the Confessor, went even further, concluding that if man is a microcosm, the universe was a “macanthropos,” a “large man,” anticipating the modern developments in the “anthropic principle” of cosmological physics by several centuries. Kozyrev’s “retro-causation” would have made complete sense to a Maximus: “…before Abraham was, I am.”
If that be the case, then perhaps what falls out of that view is that the human being acts as a “transducer” of the vast information field of the universe, rather like a radio does not contain the information “inside the box,” but rather, tunes into it and receives it, a view that makes even more sense when one views DNA, and particularly human DNA, as an aperiodic crystal, an analogy or metaphor one sometimes encounters in regard to human genetics.
That in turn puts the comments of some people who have received the mRNA covid “quackcines” and reporting that “they’ve killed God” into an interesting light: tinker with the tuning crystal, and one is tinkering with a divine connection…
…can you say “entanglement”? Oh…wait… that’s tomorrow’s blog…
See you on the flip side…
Born and raised in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”. Following a paradigm of researching the relationship between alternative history and science, Farrell has followed with a stunning series of books, each conceived to stand alone, but each also conceived in a pre-arranged sequence.
Connect with Joseph and follow his work at Giza Death Star.