Researching Brain Coherence at the Monroe Institute with Nancy Walter -- IDrSwabjses

[01:34:30] exhaustion like I almost passed out. And at first I was like, "Oh my gosh, what's wrong with me?" And then I realized, "Oh, I'm matching him empathically and he must have fallen asleep." And sure enough, that's exactly what happened. he called a few minutes later and said that I I haven't really thought of it though, like as if it was about synchronization. But as you're talking, I'm thinking that's maybe absolutely what these [01:35:00] empathic experiences are. And I know you've had so many in your lifetime that you're constantly a walking empath from >> Yeah. Uh what do you think about that? Do you think that synchronization might be the key? And if it is, how do we sometimes just automatically get synchronized even if we're not trying or even is it just through oh what's [01:35:30] happening with this person and then even just through thought at a distance we're getting synchronized or what do you think? I think some of us are geared more towards just being open to receiving that kind of information or being to being connected to someone in that way, even people that we don't know. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that at one point or another, we've walked into a room where other people [01:36:00] have already been there and just sensed the tension or the joy that's going on. I mean, it's it's how we're able to cry for other people across great distances just just to hear about their story and get this overwhelming sense of emotion. It's not because we've then put ourselves in their shoes, but in some instances, it's actually where you're you feel what the other person is feeling. I myself have found that I [01:36:30] cannot watch reals or Tik Tok videos where people are being injured. Even if it's through some silly thing like a, you know, riding on a skateboard and you fall down and you smack your head, I get this physical sensation of pain is very uncomfortable. So, I just stopped watching those videos. as soon as I know someone's going to get hurt, I'll just turn it off because I don't want to feel that pain and it's it always it's always [01:37:00] happens to me. So, yeah, I think some of us are just open to it and other people maybe you're just too busy or unconcerned or maybe you've built up barriers or shields where you don't have to become overwhelmed with these things. I've been around other people who can't even be in the same room with someone who has a headache because then they they catch the headache. >> Oh yeah. >> So it can be a little too extreme. [01:37:30] >> Yeah. Especially with emotions too. That's why I think arguments can escalate so fast because someone's angry and that anger shoots out and then I know I'll like channel it and then I'll get angry not even knowing like what the anger's about and it'll just start bouncing off each other and if both people are sensitive that's where things can just really es escalate really quickly. Uh, I was surprised. Even the [01:38:00] other day I emailed a group of people and as I was about to send the email, I got this shooting pain through my hand. And so I wrote, "Hey guys, this is going to sound weird, but which of you has an injured hand?" And no one responded. And then the next day I wrote to one of them. Actually, it was Dale Graph who I've interviewed here before. He's vice president at the moment. Sure enough, [01:38:30] when I went to email him, I got the same pain in my hand. And he was one of the people who was in the group. And so I was like, I think you're the one who has a pain in his hand. And he wrote back saying, yeah, I did injure my hand the other day. He's like, I'm okay. Don't don't worry about me. He he he is very stoic. It was just so clear. And you know, it didn't feel very good. But it [01:39:00] the the whole synchronization idea behind all of this is, you know, cuz we're not feeling every single person's pain every second, right? If we were, we would just be screaming out in agony because everybody h has some kind of pain usually going on somewhere. It's just not always extreme. So yeah, that's the question. Why are we doing this with some people? And sometimes it is a stranger that we just happen to be [01:39:30] stepping close to and other times it is people that we have more established relationships with. Do you have any insights for the whole field of parasychology or any of these topics? Where would you like to see the field going? I'd like to see more interdisciplinary collaboration. So I I don't think we can look at these in isolated fields. I think there needs [01:40:00] to be um an encompassing way of approaching these. Typically, you know, we get people from physics or psychology or cognitive um neurosychology that are interested in these things. And I I think it needs to be opened broader than that. So I I think in order for us to be able to [01:40:30] develop the tools to then even be able to measure, we need to work together to understand it. Whether it's just asking a lot of questions of these people who are having experiences um but also taking different measures, not just uh EEG and physiology measures, but there are other things that we're not measuring. So we focus very much on the individuals having the experiences, [01:41:00] but what about the environment they're in? More often we're looking at them in a lab versus the natural settings, which is become a little easier with portable EEGs, but that that has its limitations as well. So I just think cracking this egg wide open and just involving many different disciplines in the research of these topics. [01:41:30] There's enough evidence out there to know that these things are real. They are happening. So then why instead of working against each other to say, "Well, this isn't real or you're not doing it right." about just working together to come up with ways that we can investigate these things on a scale and also in ways that are appropriate. I understand not every researcher is going [01:42:00] to um design and have methods and analyses that are going to support the field of science. But what what are way more ways that we can come together to do these to do these things to investigate it from all aspects. And you mentioned portable EEGs, and that was a question I wanted to ask you about because there are a lot of remote viewers right now that are using [01:42:30] portable EEGs such as the Muse. And some are promoting this and even making assertions that they can tell what a target is through looking at their own brain wave patterns like they could tell if a target is a object versus a location. And some of these claims seem to be [01:43:00] unsubstantiated. So, do you believe right now it is possible that through looking at EEG um read readouts that somebody could tell the difference between different kinds of targets? Is it that refined? And if that was even possible, would such a thing be possible with a portable device such as the Muse? [01:43:30] I think you need to approach these devices scientifically. So what area is the device collecting data from? And is that area of the head subject to artifacts such as muscle movement, eye movement, twitches, just anything that would give the implication that it was a brain wave [01:44:00] when in fact it might be a muscle artifact. So looking at it that way and even with the most sophisticated EEG machines, there is no script or definitive way of saying, "Oh, here's this brain wave pattern. Therefore, this person is now out of body or this person has just had a psychic experience." I think you need to be educated, but it's also individual. These devices are useful in for people [01:44:30] who are using them for personal reasons and I could see where someone would say okay I'm having this experience over and over again and then this experience I'm also seeing this brain wave pattern if they're looking at the raw EEG data but being educated on what uh EEG actually is and what these device where the devices they're getting the data from what areas of of the head that they're [01:45:00] being measured on. It's important to be educated and to also um back things up scientifically as well. >> So I know at University of Virginia's department of perceptual studies that they are doing some experiments with remote viewers and EEGs. I was a participant for a few days and they had [01:45:30] me completely adjust how I would typically do a remote viewing experiment to control for artifacts. So I couldn't be perceiving information and writing at the same time because they said movement would create an artifact. And so do you agree that if a remote viewer is writing or drawing [01:46:00] at the same time that they have the EEG equipment on that they really couldn't tell if those signals were from the movement, the writing versus what's really happening in the brain in relation to the receiving intuitive information, >> the muscle artifact, even eye blinks are noticeable on EEG. So unless you're you're trained to to detect those [01:46:30] differences when you're analyzing the EEG data, I think these the algorithms for the personal use devices can not intentionally but people yes can mistake um muscle artifact or eye blanks for something that they might think is actual um brain wave detection. You'll see that in in gamma ranges as [01:47:00] well for the larger muscles and even like for someone myself. I mean I have a few of these devices that I I test just for my own purposes so I can say okay what can what can I use in the lab. So yeah unless you're trained to know it would be very difficult to know. Plus, unless you're looking at the raw data versus what the out what their software might present to you, those are two different things. So, I have the [01:47:30] essential tremor and I often joke in the lab that I wouldn't be able to hook myself up to an EEG because I wouldn't know what's the essential tremor where my muscles and my neck and my head are just twitching all all the time versus what my brain would actually be doing. >> Yeah. What can you define that? An essential tremor. Uh essential tremor is a neurological condition where the the brain is just [01:48:00] causing electrical activity to go through the muscles and the tendons. So it's it's creating the constant muscle movement. Sometimes it's more noticeable than others. Um it's noticeable to me all the time because I'm I'm living with it. But an EEG would pick up on that and would give me a false reading, you know, as a brain wave versus a muscle twitch [01:48:30] because it's so consistent. I don't I've never looked, but I I can imagine with this as active as my head and neck muscles are that I probably would have a hard time distinguishing between what would be an EEG pattern and what would be muscle artifact unless I was looking pretty closely. Have to zoom in. And so those that want to have these at home devices, [01:49:00] what kind of training could they get that would teach them about artifacts and and everything you're talking about? >> I think unless you're looking at the raw EEG data, I don't think it really matters if you're um you're using their algorithm or their software of the device. They certainly have the the software is designed to give you um averages and accumulated data points [01:49:30] that would be very effective for someone who's um looking to advance their skills or their meditation or their concentration because I I know one I won't mention their name but they have a device that if your brain wave patterns are consistent sit in a certain range, you know, it elicits one sound versus if you're not, then it elicits another sound. So, they are very good for