Thanks for this great article, Brendan. I just wrote a brief summary of my own on this topic a little while ago on my substack, as I've been fascinated with this topic for a very long time.
What if the entire human experience from its inception is an AI virtual reality Simulation?
What if we are finally being shown how it is being accomplished? What if the Zero Point and Akashic Records are the Internet of Bio-Nano Things and the WBAN (Wireless Body Area Network IEEE802.15.6)?
It's simulation-like, yes, but fundamentally fabricated by an abstract formless field of consciousness, not by AI or computers. Funnily enough, though, many of its rules, programs, or algorithms seem to match quite well as analogies with the actual computing world (as I detail in Book 2)...
It's exactly this type of thinking, is why I warn against people following the half-truther and fear mongerer, Sabrina Wallace and other cult leaders and spiritually defunct people like Jason Breshears. They will lead you into this devoid, heartless, cruel and synthetic reality thought-form which, is dangerous, as we know that our beliefs when we cross over can shape our experiences, but more so, dampen our purpose here on Earth, ironically keeping our own frequency low, see book Power vs Force, removing the delight and joy as we expand our soul and our hearts.
What good is karma and reincarnation if you can't remember your past lives and mistakes in order to learn from them? What purpose do the kids in Gaza have? Those who hide themselves behind magical thinking would be more useful fighting tyranny by being visibly non-compliant.
Those of us who suffered tremendous losses by taking a firm stand during the fake pandemic showed rare courage....which should be the highest frequency in the book, Power vs. Force but that difficult characteristic wasn't even close to the top which is why that book didn't impress me.
"Hiding behind magical thinking" is a strawman representation of what is actually being conveyed. I'm yet to encounter anyone who's made such an objection who actually has moved the metaphysical discussion forward at all, sadly. First order of business is grasping what is actually being conveyed by the research.
Now. I'm not going to say the situation is exactly as portrayed in books like Michael Newton's (and others), however, IF the "soul" in the imaginal/non-physical seeks a specific type of experiential expression then the ability to have many/unlimited lifetimes makes sense. (Put differently, the field of Infinity has nothing else to do but dream.) Karma is just cause and effect writ large, across a broader temporal framework, in this context.
The rationale is that playing the game of life in order to have specific experiences within a free-will framework requires the sublimation of those interlife memories, otherwise we would know it was "rigged" and what was going to happen next. Then we would not be tested in quite the same way—sometimes the element of surprise is essential to eliciting a true free-will response without front-loading.
The learning (in this framework) generally/mostly happens in between lives when the "soul's" informational (perceptual) bandwidth is massively expanded and it can see a larger tapestry and pattern of experience unfolding—the "why" behind things emerges more clearly into view across a larger evolutionary arc.
The loaded question about kids in Gaza invites a larger explanation and discussion which I can't indulge right now (see Book 2 when it's out), but I will say that according to a number of different sources, reincarnation has, historically, largely been automatic and unconscious, in accordance with the laws of cause and effect. Ponder that for a moment (really ponder, don't just react.) From the interlife perspective the soul/Ego doesn't seem to care at all what experiences may come to it in earthly life, knowing it is, in fact, immortal.
We may not like the state of gameplay at all times, but liking it or not is beside the point.
There's more to say, for sure—my comment isn't intended apodictically—but I gotta run for now, thanks. 🙏
However, after reading Daniel M. Wegner's book, The Illusion of Conscious Will it is clear that free will doesn't exist. Everything we think and do is predetermined and Wegner provides numerous experiments which measure and prove this fact. There is zero proof of free will.
Occam's razor points to the nanotechtechnology we know exists and connects us to the Internet of Bio-Nano Things. All other theories/anecdotes are also supportive of this technology supported by countless documents from the IEEE.
Okay, there’s a lot of spaghetti logic to untangle there—here goes (and then I’m moving on).
1. Category Error
You’re conflating material infrastructure (WBAN, nanotech, etc.) with consciousness itself.
The claim that we are being “connected to the Internet of Bio-Nano Things” does not explain away or negate metaphysical experiences like NDEs. You’re treating bio-nano data systems as if they could replicate or generate conscious awareness—a massive leap with zero empirical support. So, no.
You're describing interface-level tech; I'm talking about source-level consciousness. These operate in entirely different domains—one can't simulate the other without first presupposing it. Category error.
2. Begging the Question
You seem to assume a priori that nanotech is behind all mystical experience/altered states of consciousness and then use that unproven assumption as evidence against the metaphysical perspective.
This is circular reasoning:
"NDEs and telepathic experiences aren’t spiritual—they’re nanotech. How do I know? Because they look like nanotech effects." “The Bible is the word of God. I know because it says so in the Bible.”
No independent evidence connects IEEE protocols to blind people seeing during NDEs, or life reviews triggered by beings of light, for example (if you think it does, please cite specific examples, not rhetoric).
Moving on…
3. Reductionism / False Equivalency
You assert that Wegner’s 'The Illusion of Conscious Will' proves free will doesn’t exist, then apparently conclude that all "higher-order" or spiritual explanations are invalid. This is rank philosophical materialism and reductionism on one level, and on another a category mismatch. Wegner’s book critiques the sense of agency in mundane, physical decision-making, NOT the metaphysical function of consciousness beyond the brain.
Big difference: Wegner’s work is not about non-local consciousness or expanded states like NDEs or OBEs—so applying his conclusions here is a category mismatch.
4. Appeal to Authority (IEEE, MIT Press)
You flood the thread with citations to suggest scholarly weight, but the actual content of those sources doesn’t address the phenomena I’ve written about (i.e. it’s irrelevant). None of those IEEE doc's debunk NDE veridical perception, mind-sight in the blind, or interlife memory (if you think it does, prove it by citing specific *examples*, not just a spray of links which derail the thread).
This is what’s known as a Gish Gallop—overwhelming the conversation with tangential links, hoping the other party either concedes or disengages.
5. Occam’s Razor Misuse
You use Occam’s Razor to argue nanotech is the “simpler” explanation for the "entire human experience", including the so-called Akashic Records. That’s patently false. It’s only “simpler” if you presuppose materialism and ignore the vast empirical body of evidence that consciousness can operate independently of the body (NDEs in cardiac arrest, veridical OBEs, etc.), and in fact has no material basis at all, in the final analysis.
That is a topic—accompanied by firsthand testimony—going back millennia, predating your technological infrastructure by many centuries.
Occam’s Razor favors the explanation with the fewest assumptions—and assuming an invisible worldwide nanotech program capable of generating eternal consciousness outside the body is not fewer assumptions—it’s actually many more, which you seem to hope we overlook as you beg the question (see point 2).
Summary: Your position in your comments = pseudo-scepticism masquerading as rationality
Your logic attempts to look grounded and empirical, but it hinges on fundamentally unprovable assumptions, ignores domain distinctions (neurology vs metaphysics), and misuses tools like Occam’s Razor and scientific citation (e.g. Gish Gallop).
In sum, while I appreciate the engagement, you're conflating physical tech infrastructure (like WBAN) with metaphysical phenomena that predate it by millennia. Blind people seeing in NDEs, veridical OBEs during anesthesia, or the consistent archetypal structure of the interlife realm across cultures and timeframes—none of that is explained or even addressed by IEEE protocols or Wegner's experiments on agency (if you believe otherwise, please cite specific examples, or concede you have none).
The idea that nanotech explains consciousness is like saying the internet created the alphabet. You're reversing causality—and that leads to major blind spots (which are avoidable if you do the homework).
Appreciate your perspective, but I've built mine on a different tier of data and experience. Respectfully moving on now. 🙏
Thanks for this great article, Brendan. I just wrote a brief summary of my own on this topic a little while ago on my substack, as I've been fascinated with this topic for a very long time.
Glad you enjoyed it, Amandha. 👊🏼
What if the entire human experience from its inception is an AI virtual reality Simulation?
What if we are finally being shown how it is being accomplished? What if the Zero Point and Akashic Records are the Internet of Bio-Nano Things and the WBAN (Wireless Body Area Network IEEE802.15.6)?
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9164961
https://odysee.com/@Argusfest:b/Alison_Nano:e
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349881372_Effect_of_Coronavirus_Worldwide_through_Misusing_of_Wireless_Sensor_Networks
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9149878
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33680703/
http://pervasivecomputinginfo.blogspot.com/2018/10/ieee-802156-standard.html
https://horizons.service.canada.ca/en/2020/02/11/exploring-biodigital-convergence/index.shtml
It's simulation-like, yes, but fundamentally fabricated by an abstract formless field of consciousness, not by AI or computers. Funnily enough, though, many of its rules, programs, or algorithms seem to match quite well as analogies with the actual computing world (as I detail in Book 2)...
It's exactly this type of thinking, is why I warn against people following the half-truther and fear mongerer, Sabrina Wallace and other cult leaders and spiritually defunct people like Jason Breshears. They will lead you into this devoid, heartless, cruel and synthetic reality thought-form which, is dangerous, as we know that our beliefs when we cross over can shape our experiences, but more so, dampen our purpose here on Earth, ironically keeping our own frequency low, see book Power vs Force, removing the delight and joy as we expand our soul and our hearts.
What good is karma and reincarnation if you can't remember your past lives and mistakes in order to learn from them? What purpose do the kids in Gaza have? Those who hide themselves behind magical thinking would be more useful fighting tyranny by being visibly non-compliant.
Those of us who suffered tremendous losses by taking a firm stand during the fake pandemic showed rare courage....which should be the highest frequency in the book, Power vs. Force but that difficult characteristic wasn't even close to the top which is why that book didn't impress me.
"Hiding behind magical thinking" is a strawman representation of what is actually being conveyed. I'm yet to encounter anyone who's made such an objection who actually has moved the metaphysical discussion forward at all, sadly. First order of business is grasping what is actually being conveyed by the research.
Now. I'm not going to say the situation is exactly as portrayed in books like Michael Newton's (and others), however, IF the "soul" in the imaginal/non-physical seeks a specific type of experiential expression then the ability to have many/unlimited lifetimes makes sense. (Put differently, the field of Infinity has nothing else to do but dream.) Karma is just cause and effect writ large, across a broader temporal framework, in this context.
The rationale is that playing the game of life in order to have specific experiences within a free-will framework requires the sublimation of those interlife memories, otherwise we would know it was "rigged" and what was going to happen next. Then we would not be tested in quite the same way—sometimes the element of surprise is essential to eliciting a true free-will response without front-loading.
The learning (in this framework) generally/mostly happens in between lives when the "soul's" informational (perceptual) bandwidth is massively expanded and it can see a larger tapestry and pattern of experience unfolding—the "why" behind things emerges more clearly into view across a larger evolutionary arc.
The loaded question about kids in Gaza invites a larger explanation and discussion which I can't indulge right now (see Book 2 when it's out), but I will say that according to a number of different sources, reincarnation has, historically, largely been automatic and unconscious, in accordance with the laws of cause and effect. Ponder that for a moment (really ponder, don't just react.) From the interlife perspective the soul/Ego doesn't seem to care at all what experiences may come to it in earthly life, knowing it is, in fact, immortal.
We may not like the state of gameplay at all times, but liking it or not is beside the point.
There's more to say, for sure—my comment isn't intended apodictically—but I gotta run for now, thanks. 🙏
Thanks for this thoughtful response.
However, after reading Daniel M. Wegner's book, The Illusion of Conscious Will it is clear that free will doesn't exist. Everything we think and do is predetermined and Wegner provides numerous experiments which measure and prove this fact. There is zero proof of free will.
Occam's razor points to the nanotechtechnology we know exists and connects us to the Internet of Bio-Nano Things. All other theories/anecdotes are also supportive of this technology supported by countless documents from the IEEE.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9164961
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9149878
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/315583.The_Illusion_of_Conscious_Will
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262731621/the-illusion-of-conscious-will/
https://yukaichou.com/gamification-book/
Okay, there’s a lot of spaghetti logic to untangle there—here goes (and then I’m moving on).
1. Category Error
You’re conflating material infrastructure (WBAN, nanotech, etc.) with consciousness itself.
The claim that we are being “connected to the Internet of Bio-Nano Things” does not explain away or negate metaphysical experiences like NDEs. You’re treating bio-nano data systems as if they could replicate or generate conscious awareness—a massive leap with zero empirical support. So, no.
You're describing interface-level tech; I'm talking about source-level consciousness. These operate in entirely different domains—one can't simulate the other without first presupposing it. Category error.
2. Begging the Question
You seem to assume a priori that nanotech is behind all mystical experience/altered states of consciousness and then use that unproven assumption as evidence against the metaphysical perspective.
This is circular reasoning:
"NDEs and telepathic experiences aren’t spiritual—they’re nanotech. How do I know? Because they look like nanotech effects." “The Bible is the word of God. I know because it says so in the Bible.”
No independent evidence connects IEEE protocols to blind people seeing during NDEs, or life reviews triggered by beings of light, for example (if you think it does, please cite specific examples, not rhetoric).
Moving on…
3. Reductionism / False Equivalency
You assert that Wegner’s 'The Illusion of Conscious Will' proves free will doesn’t exist, then apparently conclude that all "higher-order" or spiritual explanations are invalid. This is rank philosophical materialism and reductionism on one level, and on another a category mismatch. Wegner’s book critiques the sense of agency in mundane, physical decision-making, NOT the metaphysical function of consciousness beyond the brain.
Big difference: Wegner’s work is not about non-local consciousness or expanded states like NDEs or OBEs—so applying his conclusions here is a category mismatch.
4. Appeal to Authority (IEEE, MIT Press)
You flood the thread with citations to suggest scholarly weight, but the actual content of those sources doesn’t address the phenomena I’ve written about (i.e. it’s irrelevant). None of those IEEE doc's debunk NDE veridical perception, mind-sight in the blind, or interlife memory (if you think it does, prove it by citing specific *examples*, not just a spray of links which derail the thread).
This is what’s known as a Gish Gallop—overwhelming the conversation with tangential links, hoping the other party either concedes or disengages.
5. Occam’s Razor Misuse
You use Occam’s Razor to argue nanotech is the “simpler” explanation for the "entire human experience", including the so-called Akashic Records. That’s patently false. It’s only “simpler” if you presuppose materialism and ignore the vast empirical body of evidence that consciousness can operate independently of the body (NDEs in cardiac arrest, veridical OBEs, etc.), and in fact has no material basis at all, in the final analysis.
That is a topic—accompanied by firsthand testimony—going back millennia, predating your technological infrastructure by many centuries.
Occam’s Razor favors the explanation with the fewest assumptions—and assuming an invisible worldwide nanotech program capable of generating eternal consciousness outside the body is not fewer assumptions—it’s actually many more, which you seem to hope we overlook as you beg the question (see point 2).
Summary: Your position in your comments = pseudo-scepticism masquerading as rationality
Your logic attempts to look grounded and empirical, but it hinges on fundamentally unprovable assumptions, ignores domain distinctions (neurology vs metaphysics), and misuses tools like Occam’s Razor and scientific citation (e.g. Gish Gallop).
In sum, while I appreciate the engagement, you're conflating physical tech infrastructure (like WBAN) with metaphysical phenomena that predate it by millennia. Blind people seeing in NDEs, veridical OBEs during anesthesia, or the consistent archetypal structure of the interlife realm across cultures and timeframes—none of that is explained or even addressed by IEEE protocols or Wegner's experiments on agency (if you believe otherwise, please cite specific examples, or concede you have none).
The idea that nanotech explains consciousness is like saying the internet created the alphabet. You're reversing causality—and that leads to major blind spots (which are avoidable if you do the homework).
Appreciate your perspective, but I've built mine on a different tier of data and experience. Respectfully moving on now. 🙏