Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 4, 2001 - Art Bell

02:48:19

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Fuzzy Science - Bart Kosko

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from April 4th, 2001.
	From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening and or good morning wherever you may be across this great land of ours.
	From the island of Guam in the west, sort of west, I mean it's cross state line, maybe it's east, I don't know, eastward to the Caribbean and the U.S.
	Virgin Islands, south into South America, north all the way to the pole, this is Coast to Coast AM and I'm Art Bell.
	Cheerio!
	Lots to talk about tonight.
	Lots and lots to talk about tonight.
	But first, I guess I better do what I'm supposed to do first, right?
	Welcome, KXYL in Brownwood, Texas.
	They're at 1240 on the dial.
	Glad to be on the air in Brownwood as we continue to screech now toward 500 affiliates nationwide on the network.
	Glad to have you on board.
	We're gonna break some news for you in this first hour.
	It has sort of begun to leak out in some other news media earlier in the day, but not a one of them have got the complete story.
	Tonight here, in the first hour, you will get the complete story.
	It has to do with chemtrails.
	And boy, have we got some big news for you in that category.
	So, stay tuned for that coming up here in a few moments.
	Last night I mentioned Echo Challenge.
	I don't know if any of you have seen that.
	As you know, I'm a fan of Survivor on TV.
	And Echo Challenge is Survivor times 10,000.
	Easily times 10,000.
	I mean, it's, uh, this is really rough stuff.
	It also took place, uh, the one I'm referring to in Borneo.
	And holy mack, I mean, these people were picking leeches out of places where you didn't even think leeches would want to go.
	They were going over terrain that no human being should ever have to go over.
	They were suffering injury that no human being short of supermen and women, which these were, could sustain and keep going.
	If you want to see Echo Challenge, it's going to be on the USA network on TV.
	These are Eastern Times.
	Check your own TV guide to see when it's on locally.
	Sunday, you can catch the whole thing.
	It'll be on at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 o'clock in the afternoon, Eastern Times.
	That'd be the preferred time to catch it.
	Then, next Tuesday, I think they're going to do a recap, two-hour recap.
	But if you want to catch the whole thing, and it's worth catching, why any human being would ever go through this escapes me totally.
	I'm in the middle of... I haven't watched the whole thing, and I'll see the last couple of episodes, I think, tonight, when I finish my air shift.
	So mark that down, USA Television, Eastern Times, on Sunday, April 8th, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
	It's a real mind blower.
	It's something past reality TV.
	And one of the, by the way, one of the teams that went in the Echo Challenge, and I know you're not going to believe this, was a team of three playboy centerfold bunnies.
	And so you say, oh yeah, right.
	Well, right.
	This is really extreme sports.
	I mean, really, really extreme.
	And I had a listener who happened to know one of these bunnies, and so I got in contact with one of the bunnies, and now I think I'm in contact with three of the bunnies, and we might have them on.
	They did remarkably well in the Echo Challenge.
	You cannot imagine how difficult this That's why I'm urging you to see it.
	We'll probably book these gals on the show to talk about what they did.
	My God, it was incredible!
	In my opinion, anybody who would do that has to have lost their mind.
	In fact, you've got to pay to get into it.
	It's put on by Barnett, the same guy who does Survivor.
	But this one, they ought to call it Borneo Death on a Stick.
	Incredible.
	So we'll see.
	Maybe we'll get somebody booked on the show, or several somebodies.
	So there is that.
	Let me see, is there anything else that I must get on before we get to... Remember during the Nixon years, remember Deep Throat?
	Well, we've got Deep Sky.
	That's right, Deep Sky, as it relates to chemtrails.
	And as I said, a little wisp of this have made it out on other media, but only here will you hear, and for the first time, the complete story from Deep Sky.
	That's coming up here shortly.
	The airplane still on the island in China.
	Actually, Drudge was running a story earlier saying China's hinting it might put the crew of an American spy plane on trial as tension over the grounding and seizure of the aircraft They put him on trial, and then we do have a problem, so I would imagine they would avoid doing that.
	The Clinton administration offering a course of regrets, but no apology for what happened.
	And it's all still at a stalemate.
	All right, there you have at least the opening.
	I've got so much more I've got to get to you, but what I'm about to give you from a reporter In New Hampshire, and from Will Thomas, uh, takes precedence over the rest of what I'm going to do right now.
	It's breaking news, it has to do with chemtrails, and trust me, you don't want to miss it.
	Coming up immediately next.
	Well, we're going to call this report Operation Deep Sky, I guess.
	First of all, you know him very well.
	Will Thomas, are you there?
	I'm here.
	Okay.
	A reporter, a journalist, he's been on to this Chemtrail thing for how long now, anyway?
	Two years and three months, and I could probably give you the hours and minutes.
	That's all right.
	Two years, and that's a long time, and you've done a number of shows here.
	There's a young lady back east in New Hampshire named Tiffany Brent.
	Is that correct?
	DT.
	A B-R-E-N-D-T?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Tiffany, welcome to the program.
	Thank you, Art.
	You are a reporter, news person, radio person.
	You work for what station back there?
	I work for WLKZ, Oldies 105, as a disc jockey, and I also do news, weather, and sports.
	Isn't that fun?
	Huh.
	Yes, actually.
	It's alright.
	So, you've been in the media for how long, Tiffany?
	Eight years.
	And I also do freelance reporting and my items air on another radio station, WMWV, which is out of Conway, New Hampshire.
	All right.
	How long have you been a broadcaster?
	Eight years.
	Eight years?
	Yes.
	All right.
	How did Tiffany meet Will?
	On the phone.
	On the phone.
	And over email.
	And over email.
	I take it, Tiffany, that you have been following the story of Chemtrails, these things that look like contrails, only not.
	They're much more perhaps sinister or different than a normal contrail, usually darker, oily, kind of gooky stuff that spreads through the sky and remains when it ought not.
	That's a quick description, but how did you get on to this?
	Well, initially I had learned about it a couple of years ago and had seen it, I'm sure many times, didn't even know what I was looking at, but I really got my teeth into it March 12th of this year.
	Because we saw an incredibly huge operation in the skies over Maine and New Hampshire, and I just could not believe what I was seeing in my life.
	March 12th, so not even a month ago.
	Exactly.
	Had you heard about Chemtrails on this program, or did you just sort of fall into wondering what it was all on your own?
	No, I had heard about it on your program from my partner, Lou Aubuchon, And from someone else that I know, named Phil Marie Jr.
	So, you knew what you were looking at?
	When I saw it on March 12th, I sure did.
	Alright, so what did you do?
	Here are these, no doubt, horrid little chemtrails, crossing X's, crossing your sky, whatever.
	What did you do?
	Well, I had just literally gotten off the air just a few hours before that, and I wasn't even sure what I was looking at.
	I had made a comment In fun, saying Contrail or Chemtrail.
	And Lou happened to look out the window and he said, I'm not sure.
	We both went outside and we couldn't believe it.
	We were seeing, at that point, we had seen 30 jets.
	Not just lines, but 30 jets in 45 minutes.
	We counted them.
	30 jets?
	In 45 minutes, from 12.10pm to 12.55pm.
	in forty five minutes from twelve ten p m twelve fifty five p m
	wanted jetpack are you're not really uh... i wouldn't think in new hampshire
	you'd be over any uh...
	major air traffic uh... lanes If you were in New Jersey, New York, somewhere there, I could imagine it.
	But where you are, I wouldn't think that many jets ought to be flying.
	No, and it's not something that we had ever witnessed before.
	Not even Lou, who is ex-military.
	And I used to live in Mamaroneck, New York, which is just north of New York City.
	And of course you know the jet traffic that you would normally see down there.
	This still wasn't like that.
	This was very different.
	Even greater than that?
	Yes.
	So I guess with a reporter's curiosity you decided to do what?
	I made several phone calls to various airports that might have air traffic in our area and finally got a hold of one human being that would actually tell me Something of what was going on, but I did have to pull it out of him.
	As a matter of fact, we have two tapes that you're going to play tonight.
	Yes, we do.
	Now, I want to talk about the tapes before we play them, so that people understand what they're hearing.
	This is going to be, first of all, the tape is going to be altered.
	Yes, it is.
	The sound is altered.
	In what manner did you alter the sound?
	Well, my voice sounds a little bit different, but the reality of it was that we took his voice out, fiddled around with it, played with pitch control, and then put it back.
	So, he's going to sound a little unnatural.
	This is basically to keep this guy from getting fired, right?
	Absolutely.
	All right.
	Can you tell us what position this person holds?
	I want to know where he works.
	How much can you tell me about him without Telling me too much?
	Well, what I don't tell you, I can't.
	I'll tell you everything that I can tell you that he has given me permission to say.
	He is an air traffic control manager.
	Air traffic control manager?
	Yes.
	And he works at a major metropolitan airport in the Northeast.
	Alright.
	Is he the first person you connected with?
	On that day, no.
	No.
	So you had to go fishing around a little bit.
	What kind of answers did you get from the first people you called?
	Well, they wanted to put me through to their superiors, but I was on hold a couple of times, a little bit longer than I like to be on hold, so I just kept dialing.
	Mostly people wouldn't tell me anything or they didn't know anything.
	This person that we're going to play the telephone tapes of has given you permission to record his voice.
	Yes, actually, both tapes were done in person.
	Oh, in other words, he came to your, what, studios or radio station or what?
	Well, he actually made a trip up here.
	He has a house by a lake.
	I also have a place by a lake.
	And this is in Maine right now, by the way.
	Although I do work in New Hampshire, I have a house on a lake in Maine.
	And he invited me to interview him there because he felt more comfortable than At that time, either going to a radio station or possibly me interviewing him anywhere near any of the airports.
	Is this fellow worried about his job if it gets out who he is?
	He's worried about his job and I have had the impression since my first meeting with him that he's worried about more than that.
	More than that?
	Yes.
	As in the health of himself and or his family, that kind of thing?
	Yes, that was one of the first things that came out right after the interview.
	I had asked him At that time, it was off the record, but since I've had permission to say this, if he had experienced or his family had experienced any unusual health concerns or symptoms that they had not had in the past, and he said, well, by unusual, do you mean something that the doctors wouldn't know anything about?
	And I said, no, just something that, say, happened suddenly that you never had happen to you in the past.
	And he told me that his wife had what he termed as sudden adult onset asthma when she had not even had as
	much of it as an allergy in the past.
	All three of his children suffered from either asthmatic or allergic reactions and very sudden
	and gushing nosebleeds to the point where his infant, his son who is under two years
	old who I happened to see that day, had to go to the emergency room.
	Do you think there is a relationship between these health problems and what he knows?
	I mean, that would imply they're already not only on to him, but actively disciplining him.
	I don't know if that's happened yet, because my most recent interview with him was yesterday.
	So, we don't know.
	I will try and reach him tomorrow, and hopefully I'll be able to hear from him.
	But I gave him a bone so I could take a bone away.
	I told him something that had happened to me at a time that I didn't even realize I was taking photographs of chemtrails when I thought I was taking photographs of foliage and the beautiful blue sky that we had.
	And this was a couple of years ago.
	Very shortly after that, I had a gushing nosebleed and I don't get nosebleeds.
	And I went to the emergency room at a hospital in New Hampshire.
	So when I told him that, he also told me that Yes, that's something that has happened to him and his family.
	He personally has not had a serious nosebleed, although he's had nosebleeds, but nothing like his son.
	Which one of the two of you decided to call this fellow Deep Sky?
	I did.
	That was Will, yes.
	I couldn't resist after Woodford and Bernstein.
	I guess the journalist in me has always wanted a coup as big as Watergate and Art.
	We have that thanks to ST tonight.
	Did Tiffany call you once she had the first tape?
	I mean, how did this happen?
	Tiffany, go ahead.
	Okay.
	Basically, I think we had been in touch by email first.
	That's right.
	We do listen to you, Art, both Lou and I, and actually Lou's been listening for longer than I have because I didn't even know who you were for a while.
	But since we've been listening, we listened to your show on March 14th because we had heard it was going to be about chemtrails and that Will was going to be on.
	And obviously that was just a couple of days after we had seen the largest operation we'd ever seen.
	So we did listen and we contacted Will via chemtrail, via email about the chemtrails.
	And then Will had contacted us after that.
	Well, Will made a frantic call to me.
	I don't know, that was a few days ago, Will, and I made reference to it on the air.
	Will said, I not only have the smoking gun, I've got the smoking bomb.
	And you had a tape that you were having very great difficulty in playing.
	You don't have a lot of luck with tape, Will.
	Not having a lot of luck with secondhand tape, no.
	And so you tried to play it for me and never could.
	I take it that was the first of the two tapes that we're going to hear tonight, is that correct?
	Yes, it is.
	All right, and then there was a second tape that was made, a really critical, important tape that nobody has heard anywhere until tonight, correct?
	No one has, except for Will.
	Except for Will.
	Right.
	We got together on that one and put together a list of questions, the two of us, to present to this person that would allow him to answer key and critical questions again without exposing himself.
	Well, alright.
	Do either one of you think that what we're about to do tonight is going to be dangerous for either you or the gentleman who came to you, Tiffany?
	I don't know that I would say dangerous, except that if they do figure out a plan, which we've taken great pains to make sure that they cannot figure out a plan, I think he could lose his job.
	And if somebody comes to you with some sort of court order trying to get information on who he is based on what you revealed tonight, what would you do?
	I just have terrible short-term memory problems, Art.
	Yeah, and you could blame it on chemtrails, too.
	I could do that, yes.
	I joke, but I'm serious.
	I know, I understand.
	Believe me.
	We have speculated, as you know, on the air For a long time, about what chemtrails might be, the ugliest theory is that they are virtually testing some sort of germ warfare on us.
	Then it gets a little less ugly.
	Maybe they're trying to immunize all of us against something horrible that's out there.
	And from there, it goes to even lesser things, nevertheless big stories.
	For example, control of our weather, or an attempt to control our weather.
	This tape, once the audience has heard it, is going to answer which of those it is, correct?
	Yes.
	Do you believe this man?
	I believe that he believes that this is what it is, because I believe that he was told this.
	And he does say that this is what he was told.
	And actually, he was not told it on the 12th.
	Did he seem credible to you?
	Yes.
	Very credible.
	Alright, an air traffic control manager is about to tell us what these chemtrails are all about.
	Uh, you're gonna hear a lot of I'd rather not comment on that kind of deal.
	Uh, and I can't blame him, but that's what's coming up.
	So both of you, hold on, alright?
	Alright, well... Alright, that's the setup for all of this, folks.
	You're about to get some answers.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM from the High Desert.
	You're listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from April 4th, 2001.
	I stopped an old man along the way, hoping to find some old forgotten words or ancient melodies.
	You turn to me as if to say, hurry boy, it's waiting there for you.
	It's gonna take some time to take me away from you.
	There's nothing that I wanna do.
	Be it sight, sound, smell, touch, there's something inside that we need so much.
	The sight of a touch, or the scent of a sand, or the strength of an oak when it's deep in the ground.
	The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac to the sun again.
	Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing.
	To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing.
	To add all these things in our memories home.
	I'm the only son to tell the truth.
	I'm the only son to tell the truth.
	Yeah!
	Ride, ride with your soul.
	Why, why take his soul, take his place On this trip, just for me?
	Take this place, on this trip.
	Just for me.
	Why, take a free ride, to the place I've seen it's more free
	I've been going the straight and clear, worked so hard just to win my fear
	Had to risk my life to call my friend, but by now, I know, I'm never in trouble
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	The night featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from April 4th, 2001.
	Good morning.
	In a moment, you're going to hear Tiffany Brent along with Will Thomas, but you're going to hear a recording that Tiffany Brent made, a witness who actually came to her, an air traffic control manager whose voice is going to be modified for obvious reasons, who's about to tell you what he thinks he knows Or has been told these chemtrails are all about.
	Stay right there.
	Well, you never hear that, not with the chemtrails.
	Good morning, everybody.
	I'm Art Bell, and here we go.
	Tiffany Brandt is a reporter from New Hampshire who has interviewed an air traffic control manager at one of the major Northeast airports in the U.S.
	Will Thomas, an investigator who's Been on this chemtrail thing forever, from a reporting point of view, and trying to get good, hard information.
	And I think Will believes that Tiffany has good, hard info, don't you, Will?
	I do.
	We've got it tonight, Art.
	All right.
	Let's not hold them, Tiffany.
	Let's do it.
	The first tape is just sort of, I guess, a kind of a setup piece for the second tape, right?
	Yes, more or less.
	But there is some information on there that Confirmed what we suspected, specifically the military operation.
	All right, let's rock.
	Okay.
	Here we go, folks.
	Tape preparation sounds.
	Thank you very much.
	For the record, you work at a metropolitan area airport in air traffic control.
	In fact, you are a federal employee, is that correct?
	Yes.
	And I am the journalist and radio personality that spoke with you via phone on Monday, March 12, 2001?
	Yes.
	Well, I would like to reconstruct our conversation of March 12, 2001 as near to the original as possible, with the exceptions of anything that might identify you, and the addition of a few questions that have since arisen in my mind.
	Is this agreeable to you?
	Yes.
	At approximately 1255 p.m.
	on Monday, March 12, 2001, I called your airport's air traffic control tower, and I spoke directly with you, correct?
	Yes.
	I gave you my exact location, which you recognized And informed you of what seemed to me to be an unusual amount of air traffic visible in our area.
	In fact, I told you that we were witnessing over 30 jets in less than an hour, mostly flying northeast to southwest, over 30,000 feet.
	Did I not?
	Yes.
	And what do you remember as your answer?
	I have relatives in the area, so I knew where you were calling from and what should be visible to you.
	Do you remember telling me in that time span that you had nine jets in or out of your airspace?
	Yes.
	Did I ask if you could see all the traffic on your screens that we were witnessing?
	Yes, and I told you that we own everything to 10,000 feet, that we filter everything else out.
	We could see it if we chose to, but we don't unless we have something of our own coming in at that altitude.
	And what altitude is that?
	Over 30,000 feet.
	And what do you remember telling me of international air traffic that would be visible to us, if any?
	I said that there is an increase of international flights on Monday, and especially in the afternoons, and that you might be seeing international flights coming into Boston or New York.
	Did you ask me if I'm usually in this area during the week or just a visitor?
	Yes, I thought that you might not be used to the normal amount of air traffic that we have here during the week.
	And I told you that I am here every day during the week and sometimes on weekends?
	Yes.
	So I am used to normal air traffic?
	Did I insist that this was not normal?
	That what we were seeing was considerably more air traffic than I can remember seeing here even in the summer?
	Yes.
	Didn't I ask how it was that we could see so many jets, and whose air traffic was it, if not yours?
	That is, if you filter out most everything over 10,000 feet?
	Yes, and I told you that Boston Center is in Nashua, New Hampshire, also Kennebunk VOR.
	Boston Center being another air traffic control center in the Northeast?
	Yes, the one that handles a good deal of traffic, including international flights.
	And what is Kennebunk VOR?
	It's a major navigational aid to international air traffic in the Northeast.
	At this point, did I mention that my partner was outside the building, still counting several more jets in the air at the same time as we spoke?
	Yes.
	And what was your answer to that?
	I said that that amount of air traffic in such a short span of time was unusual, even though you would see more international air traffic in the afternoon.
	Did you mention to me that you had to reroute some air traffic?
	Yes.
	And why was that?
	We had to bring a couple in lower.
	That is, we had two from the northeast that had to come in under their usual altitude.
	They had to come in at 10,000 feet or under.
	We had Boston Center take one.
	So, if I'm hearing this correctly, on March 12, 2001, you had a reason not to filter out everything over 30,000 feet?
	Yes.
	So you did see some, and I quote, step-up activity yourself?
	Yes.
	Didn't you question that?
	No.
	Well, why not?
	Because I had an explanation for that.
	Did someone ask you to reroute your traffic?
	Yes.
	Who?
	I can tell you that I received a call telling me what I had to do.
	You mean reroute air traffic?
	Yes.
	You can't tell me who?
	No.
	Will you tell me why?
	You are sure you'll keep my name and will I work out of it?
	Well, you work at a major metropolitan airport in the Northeast in air traffic control.
	You did agree to allow me to say that.
	Yes.
	And I gave you my word that that is all I will say.
	Okay.
	So will you tell me why you were told to reroute your air traffic?
	I was told that there was a military exercise in the area.
	And did you tell me the military exercise combined with your traffic and international traffic is probably why I was seeing stepped up activity?
	Yes.
	And you used the phrase stepped up?
	Yes, I probably did.
	Did you say, of course, they wouldn't give you any of the particulars and that you don't ask, you just do your job?
	Yes, something like that.
	Well, since Monday the 12th, have we spoken?
	Yes, a couple of times.
	To set up this interview?
	Yes.
	Did I ask if you happened to notice an increase in air traffic on the 12th?
	Yes.
	And you said?
	I did notice a little more than usual, yes.
	In the last couple of years, can you recall any other times when you were asked to reroute air traffic?
	Just a couple of times.
	Maybe as much as four times.
	Were you asked to reroute air traffic yesterday or today?
	Yes.
	Both days?
	Well, I'd rather not say both days, but yes, I was.
	For the same reason as Monday?
	I have to be careful of my job.
	I have a family to support.
	Well, I understand.
	You have helped me tremendously.
	And I won't do anything or add anything to the information that you have given me here in this interview today.
	I will not do anything to compromise the promise of anonymity that I gave you.
	But will you answer that one last question?
	About?
	Were you asked to reroute air traffic Tuesday and today for the same reason as Monday, the 12th of March?
	Yes.
	Thank you again for granting me this interview.
	All right.
	All right, that's interview number one.
	Yes.
	And the big information comes in interview number two, but it all goes to the listeners deciding for themselves the credibility of what they're hearing.
	Exactly.
	And the main reason why that tape was important is that he became curious about the amount of air traffic that I would see.
	And you'll hear in the second tape how he made a trip up here himself On a Monday, to see exactly what we would normally see.
	By the way, Tiffany, you'd be real good in depositions.
	So I've been told.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Let's, without delay, I'll tell you, you can hold the phone a little closer or turn up the volume a little bit.
	Okay.
	Let's go to the second critical tape.
	Same man, second interview, folks.
	Here we go.
	Go ahead, Tiffany.
	Go ahead and put it on.
	Once again, it's April 3rd, and this is a follow-up to the interview of March 21st, 2001 with my Deep Sky Source.
	We've spoken with each other via phone, and we've met before, correct?
	Yes.
	When I called you to set up this follow-up interview, did you tell me about a trip you made on March 26th, 2001 to my area?
	Yes.
	Would you tell me about that trip, why you made it, and what you observed?
	I wanted to see for myself what air traffic would be visible to you on any given Monday from noon to 1 p.m.
	And what did you observe?
	I saw one jet flying at approximately 31,000 feet, traveling east to southwest.
	I also saw two smaller aircraft at much lower altitudes.
	Did you mention something about traffic that might be visible to me from our local jet port?
	Yes.
	And how much traffic would be visible to me of the nine jets in or out of that jet port on March 12th?
	Possibly one or two of those jets.
	Would any international traffic be visible to me?
	Yes, but a small amount.
	Not the number of jets that I have witnessed on March 12th, 2001?
	No.
	Which you told me were probably a combination of a military exercise and international traffic.
	Yes.
	And that was 30 plus jets in 45 minutes from 12.10pm to 12.55pm?
	That is what you reported to me, yes.
	But you've since proven to yourself that I wouldn't see much international traffic.
	Yes.
	You also saw a lot of activity on your screen on the 12th.
	You told me you witnessed stepped up activity on the 12th, the 20th, and the 21st of March.
	Yes.
	And this was due to military exercises?
	Yes.
	Was there considerably more traffic on the 12th than there was on the 20th or the 21st?
	Yes.
	And would I be able to witness this activity from my location?
	Yes.
	Is it customary to reroute air traffic for military exercises from your tower?
	That is, does this occur on a regular basis?
	No, not really.
	Not from my airspace, no.
	But it might be from other areas.
	That is possible, yes.
	Well, is there a reason why you're so worried about your identity?
	Worried enough to have me alter your voice on the tape?
	Yes.
	And why is that?
	I don't know how much I can tell you that you can record.
	You mean this might compromise your identity?
	It could.
	Oh, I'll let that one go.
	Did you witness any radar anomalies due to the exercise?
	That is, was it degraded or maybe enhanced during the operation on March 12th?
	Somewhat degraded, yes.
	Was radar painting or any kind of clutter or cloud in a clear sky?
	Yes, there was what you might call a haze.
	Would this affect flight safety?
	That would depend on the density.
	Was safety affected on March 12th, 20th, or 21st, 2001?
	Not from my perspective, no.
	Did your orders to reroute air traffic come from military personnel?
	No.
	Did they come from a higher civil authority?
	Yes, but I can't tell you who, so please don't ask.
	Are you aware of this happening in any other air traffic regions?
	Yes.
	On the same date?
	Yes, and other dates as well.
	Many regions?
	I wouldn't say many, no.
	Some regions?
	Yes.
	What region?
	Well, one was south of my location.
	Will you tell me where?
	I'd rather not.
	Were you told the type of aircraft that was involved in the military exercise?
	Yes.
	Were they tanker-type aircraft?
	Yes.
	Where did they originate?
	I really can't disclose that information.
	It might identify me.
	Okay.
	To your knowledge, did any aircraft cross into Canadian airspace?
	That was what was indicated on my equipment, yes.
	On March 12th?
	Yes.
	Do you know or were you told the nature of the operation?
	Only after the fact.
	When?
	On the 22nd.
	Of March?
	Yes.
	Was this a radar experiment?
	Not that I was told.
	Was this a weather modification experiment?
	That approximates what I was subsequently told, yes.
	Will you elaborate on that?
	I'd rather not, no.
	Okay, well thank you again for agreeing to this interview and as I promised I will not disclose your identity for any reason.
	Alright, so there it is.
	Modification.
	He said it aloud.
	Yes, he did.
	Again, Tiffany, two things.
	One, you know, I joked, I said you'd be good in a deposition.
	You would.
	Those questions sounded as though they were absolutely prepared.
	I mean, you were just boom, boom, boom, boom right there.
	Did you have those written up for him before the interview?
	I had them written up for me before the interview.
	That's right.
	That's right.
	Well, in preparation for him.
	Yes.
	So you knew exactly what you were going to ask?
	Yes, I did.
	Did he know ahead of time what you were going to ask?
	I told him I wouldn't blindside him, that we would discuss in the first interview, that we would discuss what we had already discussed on the phone when I contacted him at work.
	In the second interview, I said we're probably going to... Wait a minute, that's critical.
	You contacted him at work?
	The first time, not in the first interview.
	I understand, but you, without question, Tiffany, you spoke to him.
	You know what you called.
	You called whatever air traffic control center it is that you called that we're not exposing here.
	Exactly.
	So you know doggone well he's not a put-on, he's not, he's a real employee is what I'm saying.
	He's a real employee, absolutely.
	Okay, that was very important.
	Will, comments, what do you make of all this?
	I helped prepare those questions and these are key questions and let's take a second and look a little bit closer.
	One of the key questions was the radar return.
	There's been speculation that this was a radar experiment using barium to enhance radar.
	We have been able to disprove that with his answer that it actually degraded performance with a hazy type clutter on the radar in weather that was a clear blue cloudless sky.
	That indicates to me Very, very fine particulates of aluminum.
	Talcum powder type clouds of aluminum would give you that hazy return.
	So, I think we're really on the right track with our aluminum hypothesis here, and also the fact they've crossed into Canadian airspace makes me particularly angry.
	Briefly explain to the audience why aluminum, just in case they didn't hear you the other night.
	Sure.
	Aluminum's so powdery, It's virtual powder, and it actually polishes the engines of aircraft.
	That's what we were talking about last time.
	But why the aluminum?
	What do they think that will do to our weather?
	What is the theory?
	The theory put forward by Dr. Edward Teller in the Lawrence Livermore Lab, which actually ran computer models, and the International Panel on Climate Change, which verified these models, says that if you put up 10 million tons, 10 million tons of aluminum particulates, Very fine particulates.
	It will reflect up to 1% of incoming sunlight and chill out global warming that is now almost in a runaway condition.
	Now the military of course has been using aluminum shafts, big tin foil sized pieces of aluminum to jam radars for many years.
	That's why fine particulates will give a hazy return Without interfering to the point where it would degrade... Alright, so I now see where your preparation of these questions came into play for Tiffany's interview.
	You wanted to see if there was any degradation of the radar that you believe would be produced, and probably would, by a powder-type substance, aluminum.
	So he gave the exact answer that would support that theory.
	Yes, he really confirmed that theory.
	He nailed that down, and here's something that's very important for our listeners tonight.
	When an agency wants to modify weather, according to NASA, they introduce very, very fine particulates into the atmosphere.
	These particulates act as nuclei.
	Water vapor condenses around them, it forms clouds, it forms precipitation.
	I'd like to go back to Tiffany in just a second and talk about what happened to their weather On and after the 12th, and we're talking fatalities here.
	Alright, we're very short on time.
	Tiffany, what did happen to the weather?
	Well, I can say that after they sprayed on the 12th, we had a very large snowstorm, and in mid-March, that's a little unusual for Maine.
	But worse yet, since it has become spring, we had two snowstorms that equaled almost four feet.
	So since the 20th, we have had two snowstorms.
	That was quite large.
	All right.
	Tiffany, we've got to begin summing up here.
	This gentleman, then, we know through you firsthand to be who he says he is.
	Yes.
	You know that for certain, and at least as far as that goes, you're staking your journalistic reputation on the fact that he is who he says he is at least that much, right?
	Yes, I've called him at work a few times, yes.
	Uh-huh.
	Do you think it likely that he will give you any more... I mean, he flatly said weather modification.
	Yes, he did.
	Do you think he will give you, or knows, any further details that he'd be willing to talk about?
	We're going to try and find out where they originated.
	I believe he knows that.
	In that interview, Tiffany, did you stop at the point where he said weather modification, or did you probe without success further?
	I stopped at that point because I knew that he was getting into an area where he was very nervous.
	He more than chained smoked, both interviews, and his hands were shaking.
	Okay, Will Thomas, other media are going to be interested in this.
	I think best we give out one set of contact information, Will, and why don't you go ahead and give that out so other media can contact you.
	Okay, my website with full documentation I've sent out over 100 press releases to major newspapers, radio, magazines throughout the U.S.
	and Canada.
	I have gotten one response.
	Will Thomas at telus.net. Art, I've sent out over 100 press releases to major newspapers,
	radio, magazines throughout the U.S. and Canada. I have gotten one response. I am urging all
	listeners tonight, go to your local media, local and national media, and insist that
	they cover this story.
	Alright, well, now you've got a little something to cover, at least.
	Yes.
	Will Thomas, that's W-I-L-L-T-H-O-M-A-S, right?
	Yes.
	At telus, T-E-L-U-S dot net.
	Correct.
	Tiffany, are you going to pursue this with this Deep Sky, we'll call him?
	I will be speaking with him tomorrow morning for a thing.
	Oh, really?
	Yes.
	Are you going to pursue the weather control angle with him and try and find out how much more he knows?
	Yes, and I'm also going to try and find out if he does know, which I believe he does, where these jets originated.
	Uh-huh.
	Art, we're talking the mother of all class action lawsuits, and I'm not kidding.
	We are in touch with two attorneys as we speak tonight.
	Well, then you're probably also in the middle of the mother of all dangerous situations from my point of view.
	No, we've gone public, and that's the safety.
	I talked with ST earlier today.
	We were going to sit on this, and I said it's too hot.
	We're going to go public, and that really is our safety here.
	I feel under no physical threat whatsoever.
	All right.
	All right, then I want to thank both of you, Will and Tiffany, and we'll look forward to any further follow-up on this, but it's the first person that's ever said anything like that.
	Yeah, I've gathered because I could not get any information from anyone else.
	Good night, all.
	Good night.
	Thank you, Art.
	Thank you, ST.
	Thank you.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	tonight on the presentation of coast to coast a m from april fourth
	two thousand one the
	the the
	Fresh and golden needles kill a tender heart of mine.
	And I dare not drown my sorrow in the warm glow of your wax.
	But you think I should be happy with your money and your name
	And hide myself in sorrow while you play your cheatin' game Silver threads and golden needles, they're a man's best
	part of mind And I hear my dad's voice in the distance, and I hear my
	dad's voice in the distance You heard an air traffic control manager at a northeastern facility in the U.S.
	courtesy of Tiffany Brent and William Thomas admit for the first time publicly that what they're doing up there With those chemtrails.
	It's weather control.
	That's what he said, folks.
	In a few moments, we're really going to have an interview.
	We're really going to.
	Dr. Bart Kosko, Professor Kosko, is here, and he has written a book called Heaven in a Chip.
	Heaven in a Chip.
	Now, what do you suppose that means?
	Says, Fuzzy Visions of Society and Science in the Digital Age.
	Imagine a world where you could achieve digital immortality in a computer chip.
	Tell the government how you want it to spend your tax dollars.
	We'll have to talk about that one.
	Have a digital intelligent agent as your best friend and your protector from the prying eyes of government and corporations.
	Design a child, perhaps, that is 40% yours, 40% your spouse's, and 20% someone else's.
	Yes, sir.
	Millions are lining up, I'm sure, to do that right now.
	Create new music from Mozart, and new art from Michelangelo.
	View a fetus as only 36% alive, while viewing an aging person as only 90% dead.
	Back up your thoughts.
	Your entire brain on a chip the size of a sugar cube?
	That's what we're going to be talking about with Professor Kosko in just one moment, if you'll be patient and stay right where you are.
	Heaven.
	Bart Kosko is a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California, where he teaches courses on information, science, neural networks, fuzzy logic, digital processing, and where he serves as an elected faculty senator and former director of USC's Signal and Image Processing Institute.
	Dr. Kosko holds degrees in philosophy, economics, mathematics, electrical engineering, and is an award-winning composer.
	He is an elected governor of the International Neural Network Society, and has chaired and co-chaired several international conferences on neural and fuzzy systems conferences, and is on the editorial board of several scientific and mathematical journals.
	Dr. Kosko has published over 100 scientific papers, has published several popular essays in venues from Scientific American, To the New York Times, Dr. Kosko is author of the new book, Heaven in a Chip, Random House, the international best-selling Fuzzy Thinking, and a novel called Nanotime, a fact-based cyber-thriller about what World War III would look like in 2030.
	Oh yes, we'll ask about that.
	Dr. Kosko has authored the scientific textbooks Fuzzy Engineering, Neural Networks, and fuzzy systems and neural networks for signal processing, all from Prentice Hall, and the brand new text, Intelligent Signal Processing.
	The latter text reflects the new field of advanced technology that Dr. Cosco has helped found, ISP, or Intelligent Signal Processing.
	Dr. Cosco is also one of the fewer than 1,000 people in the world who wears a cryonics bracelet, get this folks, And who holds a cryo-suspension contract to take effect upon his death, or de-animation, if you will.
	Hence, he is in the experimental group, while about six billion other people are in the burn-or-bury control group, oh my God, of this multi-decade social experiment.
	Oh my, there's a lot of material here.
	Dr. Kosko is on the Scientific Advisory Board, of the Alcor Cryonics Foundation, along with MIT Artificial Intelligence pioneers, Professor Marvin Minsky, and nanotechnology founders, Drs.
	Eric Drexler and Ralph Merkel.
	I could talk to you for probably ten shows, Professor.
	Welcome.
	Welcome.
	Good to be here.
	We have a little bit of a hum on this phone line, it sounds like.
	Do you have a light on, perhaps, or something nearby your phone that would be causing it to hum a little?
	I can't locate it, all right.
	Okay.
	Well, we can live with it.
	It's very low level.
	I don't even know where to start with you.
	There is so much here.
	I guess, I guess, heaven and a chip.
	There are a lot of things I want to talk to you about, but heaven and a chip.
	Let's start here.
	Would you explain to the audience so that they can understand it?
	Is it possible?
	What is fuzzy logic?
	Fuzzy logic is reasoning with shades of gray.
	So, for example, you were talking earlier about the airspace.
	Just where does the sky end and space begin?
	That's not at all clear.
	Where does life begin and end?
	And a non-fuzzy example, something that's artificially black and white, is when you suddenly become an adult at the first second of your 18th birthday.
	And what you find is the minute you get outside of Mathematics or politics, where people in effect artificially draw lines, everything is fuzzy.
	All air is cool and not cool to some degree.
	Everything is gray to that extent.
	What we've tried to do is to endow computers with that same property.
	A lot of what makes us intelligent is our ability to work with constant uncertainty and imperfect situations and understandings.
	And we've been packing that bit by bit into computer chips and putting those chips initially into gadgets.
	And most people listening are using Fuzzy Logic in their car.
	A typical car has over 100 computer chips.
	It's very easy to program some of those chips to an automatic transmission to help with the process, especially shifting while going downhill, changing gears, or to control the carburetor.
	Or if you have a camcorder, there's a fuzzy, smart little device in there.
	That's taken a lot of expertise from experts in Japan and packed it into the chip so that it adjusts the autofocus for you, or your microwave oven, or hundreds of other gadgets from washing machines.
	Doctor, in a digital sense, everything's a zero or a one.
	Correct.
	In what way does fuzzy logic, in what way does it function in any different way than that?
	Well, you raise the fundamental tension.
	It does capture the idea of something analog between 0 and 1, and yet the math of fuzzy logic is black and white.
	Because of that, that was sort of the breakthrough.
	Once we figured out the math using black and white tools, then we could upload it into chips and build all kinds of systems.
	Let me just continue for a minute.
	This ranges not just to every electronics gadget almost that comes out of Japan or Korea, and a few of them from here.
	The GM Saturn has it in the transmission.
	The new VW bug has a transmission.
	They don't advertise in this country the word fuzzy.
	It's still seen as a pejorative term.
	Sure.
	But in Germany, for example, this is used in very large-scale signal systems processing.
	It's used to control cranes and physical plants.
	It's used to control sewage.
	It's even used in the control, God forbid, of nuclear power plants to some degree.
	All right, so in other words, instead of a zero or a one, two absolutely defined states, you're talking about Sometimes a 0.5, a 0.4, a 0.7, even gradients in between those.
	Right.
	For example, if we had an air conditioner that had a rule under the form that the air is cool that set the motor speed to flow, anytime you take an air measurement, it's cool to some degree.
	That's always changing.
	Every measurement is an exception to some degree of the rule.
	And so this is smoothly mapping those partially cool measurements into a smoothly changing control output instead of something being all or none black or white.
	Exactly cool within the range, say, of 65 degrees Fahrenheit to 70 degrees Fahrenheit.
	It smooths out the rough edges.
	And by then, combining lots of knowledge like that, it's very easy to represent mathematically in a computer.
	And by the way, these computers are digital computers.
	That's what's neat about this.
	We use binary logic to capture gray reasoning.
	We can boost the machine IQ of gadgets.
	And now, you know, ultimately, we talked about World War II, you mentioned World War III, all the way up to smart weapons and so forth.
	You know, I read an article from the BBC the other day that stated, it may be a bit premature, but it said the first biological computer was born the other day.
	And they claimed to be using leeches, you know, the leeches, lousy little leeches, to compute.
	And they showed this jar full of leeches.
	It's a disgusting thing to think about, but are they on to something with that direction of development, with biological... They certainly are.
	That's touching on the sister technology of fuzzy systems.
	Those are neural networks, or computers that are based on the brain that recognize patterns, and it's often fun to compare them or test them on the simplest neural organisms like worms and leeches and things like that, or to take the giant squid.
	It's been especially popular as a laboratory experimental device.
	Yeah, and I think it's just that.
	But nevertheless, it's a big number.
	don't have a these creatures don't have a lot of neurons unlike you and me in
	your brain you have over a hundred billion neurons about what you remember
	the number that's roughly the number of stars in the milky way galaxy which in turn is roughly
	the number of known galaxies in the universe is interesting
	coincidence yeah and i think it's just that
	but nevertheless it's a big number and and by the way each of those neurons i
	think we want to talk about this later each of those neurons in your brain
	emits one to zero to the fact but is connected on average to ten thousand others and just
	imagine what's going on your head right now you've got a hundred billion
	neurons emitting almost a random one to zero in sending that to ten
	thousand other neurons are talking quadrillions
	of signal propagating around there without any central clock without any kind of government in
	effect running everything somehow this
	wonderful devices figured out how to self-organize professor what's my clock speed
	Thank you.
	That's a good question, and actually, you know, I had mine measured recently.
	I had a problem with my hand in those experiments, and what they do is they shock the heck out of you, poking various nerve fibers, and then measure it, look at the waveform that pops out, and as you know, most people propagate signals at about 40 or 50 meters per second, and that's the classic explanation why if you're at ground zero at a nuclear burst, you'll never know it, because That's pretty slow.
	The wires won't help before it gets to your brain.
	Yeah, that's pretty slow, huh?
	Pretty slow.
	Actually, it's good enough for biological work.
	It's nowhere near a Pentium.
	The Pentium would be sleeping constantly, waiting for new signals to come in at that rate.
	So, how is it going to be profitable for scientists to be using organic material to compute if the neurons communicate so slowly?
	Well, one thing is to boost that neural communication.
	The other thing is to assist it when it fails.
	Last year, for the first time, we implanted, I didn't, but scientists collectively, scientists implanted a neural-type chip into a blind person, back into the visual cortex, and a bunch of neurons, each one could be on or off, and there's two to the end, a very big number of possible states.
	So this unsighted person suddenly has I kind of see a grid of ones and zeros lighting up in front of them.
	I saw that.
	I saw that.
	They actually showed what the blind person saw.
	Right.
	Correct.
	Absolutely amazing.
	Now, that's a tough job, though, Art, of grafting chips to flesh and vice versa.
	And as, of course, the flesh is fixed and we're figuring it out every day, but the chips, every 18 months, thanks to Moore's Law, are doubling in capacity and basically falling in price.
	So a lot of these schemes, mathematically and otherwise, that we've worked out the last 20 years, they were not feasible before.
	Thanks to Moore's Law, either are feasible now or soon will be, and in effect, computer processing is becoming free.
	So that we won't... Excuse me, for no other reason then, that eventually the machines and the humans are going to co-join, you're going to want to begin working with the neurons very quickly.
	Right.
	I think the way to see that is to refer to the humans as a bio-machine and a bio-processor, and that's what we are.
	Extremely sophisticated.
	But we're starting to figure it out, and with that comes a change to many concepts, from legal ones right down to religious ones.
	Well, we'll get to those, inevitably.
	But what a jump from what we're discussing right now to a day how far away when you might actually be able to, in effect, and when you talk about digital immortality, I'm assuming That you're contemplating the possibility of downloading the contents of a human brain, either into a machine, or another human being.
	That's right.
	First off, I would use, to get the preposition, I'd use uploading.
	But we would upload from a brain, which is a computer made of three pounds of meat, to a different kind of brain, made of more durable material.
	Think of it as your brain playing musical tunes right now, on a very classical and floppy instrument, And shooting that over to a synthesizer, something that can play far more, play the same music, play it in different ways, and it doesn't need sleep or blood sugar.
	Right.
	So that's the basic idea, but long before that, Art, is what you're starting to see now, and that is the gradual parts replacement, initially with people who need it the most, people who are blind.
	We have cochlear implants now, and ultimately to help Alzheimer's patients and others, but several of the claims of religion and others to give Hi to those who are blinded and to raise the poor.
	We're achieving now through science.
	Doctor, sticking with it for a second, because it fascinates me so, how much storage would you imagine that it would take to contain the contents of the human brain?
	Good question.
	I've done a lot of estimates of that.
	I give over this in detail in the back of Heaven and Earth.
	By the way, there's like a hundred pages of tiny footnotes in the back with mathematics and references to the primary scientific literature.
	But the usual answer is about a billion, billion bits, or something of that effect.
	And the way to think about that is, it would take a computer chip today the size of a good, large building to replicate the sheer processing power of your brain.
	We simply can't do it.
	But every 18 months, you cut that in two.
	So that by the year, now maybe 2015, 2020, somewhere thereabouts, a computer the size of a sugar cube equals your brain.
	And forever thereafter, a great layout strips it.
	That doesn't mean you can just plug it in, of course.
	That's the top job of working out the porting technology.
	Right.
	But it does mean, in effect, the wink of a technological eye.
	It'll be unlimited computation.
	That's at hand.
	That's without going to quantum chips and other things like that.
	But, Doctor, the entire contents of the human brain, if that were, and I understand that we're doubling speeds and the amount of storage exponentially increasing and getting cheaper, it's incredible what's going on out there.
	One could imagine that one day it would be possible.
	If you transferred the contents of a human brain to a machine, and it was stored, would it continue to contain the emotions, the feelings, the memories, the everything of the person that had been uploaded?
	The answer is yes, and there's several reasons why.
	But there's a mathematical one.
	Of course, I'm not going to prove theorems on the air, but it's a theorem.
	It's a fact.
	Mathematics.
	That both neural systems and fuzzy systems are what we call universal approximators.
	That is, any curve you could draw that wiggles in any imaginable way, in a way that human beings cannot imagine.
	These systems can, in theory, always approximate if they have enough neurons or rules.
	So, in principle, your brain is like a surface with trillions of bumps in it.
	A real complicated mathematical surface.
	And we can do a real good job of approximating.
	Maybe not getting all the bumps in there at first, but eventually we can.
	So we know in theory we can do that.
	And we're creeping up on it.
	First, we do simple surfaces with just a few bumps, but we're getting more bumps all the time as the computer power gets cheaper and cheaper.
	That's the first question.
	Well, now, if you did the... All right.
	Doctor... Here's the real answer.
	The real answer to your question.
	Yes?
	Is your knowledge of self, as the classical philosophers and other thinkers have known for years, is an illusion?
	And we can sustain that illusion of all those signals flowing into you from your skin and from outside of you.
	Doctor, we're at the bottom of the hour.
	Hold on, we'll be right back.
	Professor Kosko is my guest.
	I'm Art Bell.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from April 4th, 2001.
	This is a test.
	Here.
	Oh.
	A little jiving on a Saturday night.
	Come walk with me.
	Gonna dance the day away.
	Jenny would sneak.
	Jenny was sneaky, she always smiled for the people she'd meet
	On troubled drives, she had another way of using her eyes Using blue, the mood to groove, I didn't know the way to
	get to you You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier
	Radio Networks Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from April 4th, 2001.
	We're talking with Professor Bart Kosko about his book, Heaven in a Chip.
	Some of you might say, sounds like hell in a chip.
	We'll talk about some of that in a moment.
	I kind of wonder if I were to be uploaded and wake up and find myself in a machine.
	Otherwise, I'm the same.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Every bit the Art Bell I am right now, except I'm in a machine.
	I am a machine.
	No, I'm in a machine.
	If I did this while I was still alive, what would the other Art Bell be doing?
	And would we be the same individuals from that moment on out?
	Learning, experiencing, feeling, being tortured, loved, How you love a machine?
	Well, I do know how you love a machine, but it's not really the same.
	You get some of the questions that I'm about to ask.
	There may not be answers for them, but we'll try.
	Obviously, I'm going to be pushing Professor Kusko into some science fiction-like areas, although maybe not.
	Professor, As I just asked on the air, and you said all of this might be possible by the year 20-what?
	Well, the question is how long will it take to have computer chips have the sheer processing power of your brain.
	That's somewhere between 2020 and 2030.
	We used to think it was 2030 or 2050.
	We're moving that up because Moore's Law, the doubling of chip density every 18 months.
	So then a lot of people now living will live to experience this.
	No question about that, but that doesn't mean, though, that you could just open the brain and shove it in like the Frankenstein monster.
	Well, I know we're going to need a big connector, but one would presume that the technologies would proceed along, and probably we would be able to.
	Let's say we did upload my brain into a machine.
	Would I be conscious I think the answer is yes.
	As I said before the break, the real reason is the notion of self is really a kind of delicately sustained illusion, and we can continue that illusion.
	But you're touching on something else a little trickier.
	What if I am living now in a brain and I want to get to the chip?
	Does the me in the brain die, and then wake up in a chip?
	How do I know it's the same person in the chip?
	That is the question, and of course we can... I have a fuzzy answer for that, Art.
	Well, we can download the information from a disk drive, and all we have is a copy, right?
	Right, and the copies pose a whole new problem here, of the notion of identity.
	Alright.
	But here's the fuzzy solution.
	I call it chipping away at your brain.
	Let's suppose you're wide awake, and the neurosurgeons pop off your skull.
	And cut out a small chunk of your brain, roll it around in some sensors to find out exactly how the chunk works, its input and output, and replace it with an equivalent little golden chiplet.
	You put it in, you're wide awake, it doesn't hurt, and when they insert it... Sounds like it hurts.
	It might, but let's assume it doesn't.
	And they insert the little chiplet, and it feels like you just drank a cup of coffee, but nothing's changed.
	You're still you.
	There's still the continuity of self, even though, of course, you lose that every time you fall asleep.
	Now we take out another chunk of your brain, another part, and we repeat this process.
	And we do it step by fuzzy step.
	And by degrees, you are uploading ultimately to a chip, because in the end, you're in that chip.
	What's left of your brain is a bunch of chunks floating in solution.
	And you've made a smooth transition without ever a break in consciousness.
	This is a classic fuzzy solution to a binary problem, by the way.
	So that itself is not a problem.
	Well, suppose we did it, though, in the manner that I discussed.
	I would then, at that instant, be in two places.
	In every sense of me, I would be in two places at one time.
	The bifurcation of consciousness is a real issue that we'll have to face someday, and we haven't had to to date.
	But even before that time, one of the first things we want to do that will raise the problem in a different way is to back up.
	I mean, one of the terrible tricks that nature and evolution has played upon us is that our most precious information has no backup.
	You get old, the brain withers and dies.
	That's right.
	The cheapest computer has a backup.
	And so as you backup, would you like us to backup your last year or two of brain thought?
	I don't know.
	I probably wouldn't go for the last year or two, but there would be segments.
	Yes, I'd pick out segments, and I'd say, let's have a look.
	Wouldn't it be fun just to relive the best moments of the worst moments of your life in very bad at will?
	Oh, yes.
	And relive it, Art, not just like watching on a screen, which is sort of a poor man's version of virtual reality, but really relive it with the same vivid sensation that you believe you're experiencing now.
	You are there.
	You are there.
	Let me tell you what we're really getting at here.
	We're trying to exorcise a little demon, a little thing called the homunculus, the little man who sits behind the screen and the brain pulling the lever.
	Just like in the movie, by the way, Men in Black, which parodied that idea very well.
	Here's the way to think about that.
	If you eat an apple, I ask you, why did you eat that apple?
	You say, I wanted to.
	Fine.
	Why did you want to?
	Because my will wanted to.
	Here's where it gets difficult.
	Why did your will want to?
	There's really no good answer at that point.
	And this reveals the fiction bearer.
	There's no little art sitting inside the brain pulling the levers.
	It's much more complicated.
	What there is is something like the United Nations, or something like a whole bunch of warring, competing neural circuits that are fighting for control.
	For example, if you look at an image, and in the image is an apple.
	I say, all right, look at the apple.
	You can focus your attention somehow that you can't explain on that apple.
	Now, we can explain that now mathematically.
	We have tools that show how that selective attention works.
	Neurons and the thalamus that seem to line up and create a false sense of searchlight for the illusion, we can replicate those kinds of things.
	Oh my.
	Let me make this very clear.
	Yes, please.
	We cannot have it both ways.
	We cannot enjoy the wonderful advances in science and biology and mathematics.
	At the same time, keep these old concepts, Art, that came around as far as we know before there was civilization, notions of self, The way we speak and the language, these are going to have to give way to different concepts.
	How do you really know that that will end up being true?
	How do you really know that if you download, bit by bit or collectively, my entire brain, that you'll really have the emotional me?
	The real me?
	All of me?
	Well, again, I can work out the math of why glass breaks when I shatter, but technically I have to break the glass each time to test that hypothesis.
	We don't know until you actually do it, of course, but you can make some very good reasoned guesses.
	But I want to stress, the neural systems we work with, the fuzzy systems we work with, both obey the wonderful property of universal approximation.
	They, in theory, could do anything.
	That's presumably why nature has stumbled upon these devices, and has developed them in ways we're still trying to figure out.
	We work with the simplest, just four or five Neurons can often recognize very complex arrays of patterns.
	And again, you have over 100 billion working in your brain that have been tuned for millions of years through your ancestors.
	So, we have a much better sense that with that kind of computational power, that distributed parallel neural power that everybody has in their brain, and not just in the brain, just what you have in your big toe is pretty impressive, and your spine is very impressive, that you're able to approximate a lot of things by way of a lot of things that we can't right now imagine.
	you know the true capability human by mine if you look at a mathematically
	are beyond comprehension uh...
	it it it brings up another really interesting possibility If I can be uploaded to a machine, or even another human brain, then why would it not be possible to virtually record or upload the experiences of another person?
	Let's say somebody who does the idiotic, crazy, insane echo challenge.
	I don't know if you've seen any of that stuff.
	These people torture themselves to death.
	And have me experience every minute of that echo challenge.
	Are you touched on something a lot of us expect that someday, and we won't live to see it unfortunately, those of us in the tank might come out and witness it, that someday this will be a form of entertainment.
	It's exactly that.
	But it's more than that.
	Oh, it's much more than that.
	It's so much more than that, that why wouldn't, why shouldn't we be afraid, scared to death of that?
	Because that kind of available reality, I mean, they talk about reality TV.
	This would be actually being there, doing it, feeling every cut, every bruise, every bit of pain, everything that person experienced.
	That would be so overwhelming and so encompassing that it would be tempting to forego life for one extreme experience after another.
	Well, again, if you jump there first, in the same way, can you imagine Art a hundred years ago telling someone, we're going to have 200 people flying through the sky in metal boats?
	Are you kidding?
	I'd be terrified to do that.
	And we couldn't imagine society now without it.
	But if you get their degrees, I think you'll find that it'll be a popular form of entertainment.
	But there's something else going on here, too.
	Well, we've got a problem now, doctor, with people watching five hours of television a day.
	If you offered them this, you would be offering them something that would be better than life.
	Well, I think in the end, Art, that life is going to turn out to be grist for our imaginative mill.
	We take the sensations of us and others in the past and random number generators to create more.
	But if we look at the real set of mathematical possibilities that even our humble brains could experience, we haven't sampled a fraction of a fraction of a fraction percent of it.
	There's a lot of sensations and patterns out there to think about and do that we haven't imagined.
	No doubt, entire sense modalities.
	In fact, if you just took the human genome and looked at the mathematical possibilities of what we know of the genome now, about 30,000 genes, and the way it's pulled up out of amino acids, You could construct creatures consistent with that, that what you would think are bug-eyed monsters from outer space, but still compatible with the human genome.
	There's so much potential, combinatorially, when you're playing with this many elements.
	If you create something of that sort, why would it not imagine us as simply a bunch of pests, intellectual dullards that would be better I don't know.
	Serving them in their needs, whether it be electricity or whatever it might be.
	This is a classic concern.
	If we have the big mega supercomputer chewing away and we're nothing like a dog with some speeded-up thoughts that doesn't have anything really intelligent to say to them.
	I guess that's not possible.
	Well, according to what you're saying, it is.
	You will have that power.
	You will have that expansion of thought.
	And we'll get there a step at a time, a chip at a time.
	But you did touch upon the idea that we are watching more TV.
	And we are.
	What is that really?
	That's just signal processing.
	We love to bombard.
	Well, one can imagine living all kinds of scenarios, underground tapes going around, or chips or whatever they would be.
	to stimulate we can get i think that trend is going to continue away that we
	really can't expect this is truly the tip of the iceberg uh... a lot of fun
	or that
	well one can imagine living all kinds of scenarios underground uh...
	uh... tapes going around or chips or whatever they would be i mean i'm sure
	you can imagine all the permutations that would be possible right small
	subset of the media yes uh...
	So, how does that not, in effect, destroy society as we have always known it, and loved it, and hated it?
	Or would you say it will do that, and it'll be a better place?
	Again, the word destroy is pretty strong.
	I think if you were to take a snapshot of 100 years from now, I think we would all say, my God, do people want to live in that?
	And that's probably been true for the last 500 years.
	If you're going to give a 100-year snapshot, it's going to be much more intense in the next, given these rapid rates of change.
	But getting there, by degrees, I think we'll not only get there, I think people will be standing in line to get there.
	I think it'll be such a rich experience.
	Just the idea of conquering death and disease itself should be enough.
	It may make us all into couch potatoes of the worst kind.
	I mean, one of the classic problems in philosophy is called the brain in a vat problem.
	How can you prove that you, right now, aren't a brain sitting in a vat of fluid somewhere?
	Very much like, brought out of the movie, Matrix.
	And technically you can't.
	Technically, I can't.
	You're right.
	You get real close and you have some reasonable guesses.
	And then you realize you're looking at this as an illusion of self, a sense of ability
	to focus your concentration and struggling to recapture those items of memory.
	And of course, this gets worse with age.
	We can do that and we can do so much better.
	Well, in the legal world, though, you use the benchmark is what a reasonable person
	would conclude.
	And as a reasonable person, I conclude I'm not in a vat at the moment, floating about,
	thinking my thoughts.
	However, I can imagine myself in a vat, and I can imagine your technology eventually getting me there, or perhaps my son, or his son, I don't know.
	But what kind of world is that going to be?
	Is that really going to be a world Well, you know what?
	You would probably want to live in that world, because reading down a little further, you wear a bracelet.
	What is this bracelet for?
	This is to freeze me when I die.
	Freeze you?
	De-animate.
	And there's a reason for that.
	We don't have backup.
	And unfortunately, most of us alive today simply were born a little too early.
	We're not going to live to the good times when it's relatively cheap and expensive to upload, at least for those in developed countries at first.
	There's only one way, with any chance of scientific plausibility whatsoever, however slight that may be, of backing yourself up.
	It's not a good way.
	It's not a cheap way.
	But it is the only way.
	And that is, upon your death or deanimation, recognizing that you are your synapses.
	You are your brain.
	That's the hardware, but it's been conditioned like software through your experiences, to freeze that.
	Now, it's not going to spontaneously come back when you thaw it out.
	In fact, it looked like a frozen strawberry when you thawed that out.
	But with the proposed nanotechnology of the future, with molecular engineering, with a bit of patience, you in theory, without violating laws of physics, without any great cost, can reconstruct it, sell it a time, and boost it.
	And that's a good way, actually the only way at the present, to back up.
	So the real question is, would you bet your life on this?
	No.
	But I am more than happy to bet my death on it.
	Professor, are you going to have your entire body frozen, or just your head?
	I happen to be one of those, Art.
	I'm an all-body kind of guy.
	I know there's a choice, either the head or the body.
	And the neural suspension of the head is much better, and I recommend it to the interested listener.
	For a relatively small sum, Art, each month, you can set that money aside that you would otherwise spend on the movies, and it goes to an insurance policy that, upon your death, pays alcor the clinics outfit to suspend you it's not a big
	deal but liquid nitrogen is cheap and you do time in a bottle at minus 320
	degrees fahrenheit there's no change if you have to wait fifty years or five
	hundred it really makes no difference are they in california they move from
	california good see all those rolling blackouts exactly rolling black
	an earthquake or big issues for after all body they put you upside down to
	the head with all the last they've moved to scottsdale arizona uh...
	you will be your entire body is going to be preserved project
	Right, first you're pumped with antifreeze, glycerin.
	Antifreeze?
	Antifreeze, basically, glycerin.
	It takes about 10 days to cool you down to that level, and then you're frozen.
	The other alternative is barrier burn, which have zero chance in terms of the information lost of reconstruction.
	The real tragedy, Art, is that we all, in effect, have one car from the lot, and it's starting to fall apart.
	This idea here that we'd like to keep upgrading it, or in theory, repairing the same car over and over.
	But nature didn't deliver that yet.
	Or even get a brand new car, ultimately.
	Absolutely.
	Hi, Dr. I guess I ought to ask, you don't have to answer, about your religious beliefs.
	Because a lot of people of religion, of course, would never consider freezing themselves.
	But why is that?
	They go to sleep at night?
	Well, because in their opinion, when they die, they have something called a soul, which goes then through a natural transition to possibly another dimension, to somewhere else, where consciousness continues.
	To which you say what?
	When they go to sleep, where does their soul go?
	I've always wondered about that myself.
	Another thing, many surgeries now are such that the body is empty of blood and liquid Uh, watery, icy waters pumped through the veins.
	I saw the 60 Minutes piece.
	Exactly, that's a good example.
	According to the old definitions, you're dead, but of course we can bring that back to life.
	Where'd the soul go in that case?
	Where'd the soul go?
	The error of the soul arguments go back to our ancient natural language.
	And a good way to, I think, put this notion in perspective is someone's looking at your watch, looking at a time handle, suddenly it stops and says, oh, where'd the motion go?
	No, no, no, it's just a matter of energy and gears.
	In fact, there are very religious people in chronic suspension now and are signed up for it.
	I mean, in theory, it's compatible with it, but you're right on its face.
	It does seem to fly in the face of these earlier supernatural notions.
	Out of curiosity, Professor, when these people agree to be frozen as very religious people, Christians, whatever, where did they think their soul would be while they were cryogenically frozen?
	And when they are retrieved, if that ever becomes possible, where do they think their soul will be then?
	It's a good question.
	I've never heard a good answer from them.
	Well then, those people of great faith who are frozen right now, aren't they sort of hypocritical in a way?
	I'm not convinced of that.
	I mean, if you think about those sci-fi movies we used to like from the 60s and 70s, be it Planet of the Apes, when Charlton Heston wakes up from a form of chronic suspension, or those unlucky scientists frozen and killed by Hal the Computer in 2001, now there didn't seem to be any major problems about their soul.
	It was a form of sleep, and so was this.
	We simply stop motion and think about it.
	We have different scales of time, of course.
	And right now, you and I are thinking of very slow neural time.
	You mentioned this before the break.
	If you're on a chip time, 30 seconds of our slow neural time can be many, many hundreds or even thousands of years.
	So time's an issue.
	But if you're on quantum time, we're talking issues at 10 to the minus 43.
	In a quantum episode, where'd your soul go?
	You and I are suspended robots during that period of time.
	I don't think the old supernatural notion of soul has been sufficiently well worked out to handle that, nor can it address the problem of how can something that has no senses enjoy the acclaimed senses of heaven, like eating grapes?
	We can deal with all those problems in the digital domain.
	You could even convince a machine that the deer have a grape? Enjoy it?
	I'd stress, Art, that if aliens came now and looked at us, they would say,
	what are these two machines talking about to each other?
	They are machines.
	Ultimately, they're energy and gear.
	That's very interesting.
	We've got a break here at the top of the hour, Dr. Holdon.
	Remember, I think it was Dr. Kaku I asked, wouldn't they... No, no, no, it was... I know who it was.
	It was Seth Shostak of SETI.
	And I said, Dr. Shostak, isn't it likely that the first beings we will encounter The first extraterrestrials are going to be machines.
	Asked him for the first time ever, that question last time he was on, and he said, absolutely.
	The odds are very high indeed, they will be machines.
	Let me say, any way you want it, call me to love me, it's alright.
	In the year 2525, if man is still alive, if woman can survive, they may fly.
	you you
	In the year 3535 Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies Everything you think, do and say is in the bill you took today.
	In the year 4545, he's gonna eat your teeth and wash me dry.
	You won't find a thing to chew, nobody's gonna look at you.
	In the year 5555, your arms hanging lift at your side.
	Your legs got nothing to do, some machine doing that for you.
	In the year sixty-five, sixty-five Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife You'll take your son, take your daughter too From the bottom of a long glass of woe In the year twenty-five, twenty-six You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time, the night featuring a replay of Coaster Coast AM from April 4th, 2001.
	A prophetic song, I imagine so.
	We'll ask in a moment.
	My guest is Professor Bart Kosko.
	All kinds of education, all kinds of experience in the areas that we're talking about.
	Fuzzy logic, what's coming.
	Very well credentialed.
	and he'll be right back.
	and professor bart costco Professor, does that song sound perhaps a little prophetic to you?
	Yes, it does, Art, and bless you for playing it.
	I have to tell you this.
	When I was a young boy on a farm in Kansas, I and my friends would sit around listening to that smoking pot, talking about the future, and that had a lot to do with my choice of career in science, that very song.
	Well, wait a minute, Professor.
	Smoking pot?
	How come you don't have too many brain cells fried and cooked to be transferred anywhere or even to function well enough to get turned doctor and all the rest of that?
	I don't know.
	It worked wonders for me.
	I don't smoke anymore and haven't for quite a while, but it helped open doors.
	I read the books by Aldous Huxley and others and experimented with those kinds of things in the early 70s.
	So I take it you're not in favor of the government's war on plants?
	No, and more than that, Art, I think, just on this point, that people who have, in the educational elite, have an undue power over other folks by way of the government, in particular the medical establishment.
	If you, as an adult, wish to walk into a store and buy penicillin at your own risk, willing to forego Assuming someone, if you assume the risk, and by all means you should be able to do that.
	So not only should the nonsense of the war on so-called drugs be eliminated, there's no basis in the Constitution for it.
	At least in the old days of prohibiting alcohol, they had to amend the Constitution.
	It didn't go that way, but I think it's inevitable that this will go all the way to self-medication.
	This obviously would have application for, let's say, when all of this first becomes available, and we first start doing all of this.
	People of wealth, people with money, and it's going to take always, no matter what the technology is, it always costs a lot at the beginning, right?
	Absolutely.
	So, the people who are going to be able to afford this sort of thing are going to be the very well off.
	How would you imagine them doing it?
	In other words, somehow we picture an old guy On his deathbed, the last throes, and you're going to upload his brain.
	Well, what you're going to get is what there is, and that's kind of a degraded brain at that point, isn't it?
	It raises a real question about when is it an optimal time to die or upload.
	But the nature on this score of cryonics is what we call, in computer science, a push-down stack.
	Remember those trays?
	You put one on top and it pushes down the whole stack?
	Yes.
	Well, the property there is that, really, in dire straits, it raises the question when you should be Frozen.
	And one of my colleagues, Dr. Thomas Donaldson, had this very trauma because he had brain cancer.
	I know the case.
	You know the case?
	I know the case very well.
	It made national headlines.
	Right.
	And even inspired an episode of L.A.
	Law that turned out far more favorably than it worked out in real L.A.
	Law.
	But his case, he's a mathematician, he said, look, I don't want to wait until I'm dead and possibly autopsy, which would destroy the whole thing.
	I want to be frozen now.
	And the government wouldn't allow that.
	Unfortunately for him, his tumor was, and I understand still is, in remission.
	It could come back at any point.
	You know him personally?
	Professionally.
	If you were faced with his situation, would you make the fight to be frozen early?
	You bet.
	You would?
	Absolutely.
	Like a shot.
	You are your synapses.
	Do you honestly have that much faith in the cryogenic technology?
	It's cryotic technology, by the way.
	Not so much that I have it in that.
	That's just a suspension mechanism.
	I have faith in science.
	Now, again, whether it's 50 years or 500, even 5,000, it makes no difference.
	At minus 320 degrees Fahrenheit, there is no change.
	Quantum changes barely occur.
	Time is frozen.
	This is forward-only time travel.
	But there is a problem, though.
	I mean, if you keel over with a heart attack in a parking lot somewhere, and it takes them quite a while to get to you, and then transport you to the appointed freezing location, your brain is beginning to turn to mush already.
	We call that molecular death.
	It's even worse if you're in a fire or something.
	Well, a fire would be very bad.
	We all run that risk.
	But, if you choose the moment yourself, When you are still a sound mind, legal term I guess, then presumably you would be revived or uploaded in that precise state or close to it when you're thawed.
	With one problem with the government, And which I want to point out has been supported and aided and abetted here by the undertaker funeral industry, a dark blue industry that seldom gets explored.
	But the problem is right now if you do that, if you basically killed yourself to be frozen, you almost guarantee an autopsy to destroy your brain.
	Courtesy of the government.
	Absolutely.
	There's another problem with this.
	If you want to leave some money, for example, to compound, just put it in a bond.
	Like Benjamin Franklin put a dollar in the bank knowing that 150 years or so would amount to a huge quantity because of the exponential returns.
	We don't have that kind of imperpetuity status in this country.
	The money goes by default to the government after 20 or so years.
	I believe Liechtenstein and two other countries have that.
	That's another issue because part of this is ultimately funded by a pot of money and what are called Resurrection bounties to people incentive to pull you out.
	Well, I was going to say you could do all this under the table, I suppose, but you really couldn't do these legal things under the table.
	You'd want some sort of status.
	We're going to have to readdress all that.
	Just as now with cloning other things, we have to rethink the nature of conception and offspring.
	This will happen on the other end of death and resurrection.
	For example, what if you're a mass murderer and you want to be chronically suspended?
	Will they allow that?
	I don't know.
	Well, I wouldn't, but who am I?
	What about, you mentioned cloning.
	Now, the Raelians, I've interviewed the Raelians.
	You know who they are, right?
	You're going to have to refresh me on that.
	Oh, you don't?
	Alright, the Raelians probably are going to be the first... Oh yes, I'm sorry, I didn't know.
	They're going to be the first to clone a little ten-year-old girl.
	Correct.
	They actually believe that it's going to be possible and soon to clone and then use the process you're talking about to replace the brain of the clone With the present brain of the needy person, we'll put it that way.
	I think they've got some pretty good odds on the first act and very bad odds on the second.
	And I would point out, though, what they're really talking about is just another form of reproduction.
	You know, people have all kinds of silly ideas about sex as it is.
	This is really no different than that.
	And I think the argument for having children to replace, to give children to infertile couples, you know, is a compelling one, and you'll see that being the entering edge of the wedge here.
	Definitely not going to be as much fun.
	Well, I mean, that is saying something, but I suppose you would separate sex and reproduction totally.
	But, Art, if I could say one other thing about cloning, because the media, I think, gets us wrong all the time.
	If you like navel oranges, you're eating clones.
	Almost every fruit tree in America, and most around the world, is a cloned tree.
	That's true.
	We graph things on.
	True.
	And we've been doing this for a long time.
	All of our food is genetically modified.
	Chromosomes of an Eric Horner are really a Frankenstein nightmare, if you think about it.
	But this has been going on for a very long time.
	It's quite natural to extend it from the animal kingdom to the... Have you been hearing, just incidentally, the story yesterday that several of the cloned animals are beginning to die, and they're dying from diseases of the immune system.
	Have you been hearing about that?
	I've heard that and other issues, because they raise the very real question.
	One issue It has to do, each time the cell divides, there's a little tape in there called a telomerase tape.
	Yes.
	And you snip it off, and when it snips off about 50 times or so, that's it.
	You run out, you die.
	And the question is, like with Dolly, if I understand it, does Dolly get a brand new telomerase tape when she's born?
	When it was born, or is it the tape of the mother that was fairly old?
	If I understand it, telomerase tape was still in good condition.
	Of course, it doesn't mean you could overcome these other problems.
	And there are real issues about creating a creature so quickly in a dish.
	When you might otherwise have nine months of gestation.
	Evolution's had a long time to work out the bugs in that approach.
	I would think at first you'd have some problems.
	How do you feel ethically and morally about pursuing this whole... You obviously, I mean, you're very confident the way you speak.
	You're very confident.
	You're very sure.
	You've taken personal steps.
	I suppose it's a silly question, but do you have any moral or ethical reservations about this technology proceeding?
	Well, everything we've been discussing, from cloning to eventually uploading a human brain, and or those things that will obviously be in between, many of which arguably will advance and help mankind in many ways.
	But I mean, as you look down the road in this technology, there are going to be some pretty big moral, ethical questions.
	There will, and there will be unforeseen dangers.
	I don't foresee any major ones at the time, but you never do in advance.
	But the answer is no, and I think again that 100 years ago, when life expectancy, you and I are almost all likely to be dead by now, people would be scared.
	Are we fiddling with the natural way of things, living to age 70 and 80 on average?
	Yes.
	I don't think so at all.
	I don't mind using a toothbrush or driving in a car or airplane.
	I think it's all within the realm of scientific possibility.
	The real issue with something like this, Art, is to what extent will the law evolve?
	The law is somewhat like your brain.
	It's an adaptive system, and it's done a pretty good job of adapting.
	A case in point has to do with spam email.
	Spam email is a problem, of course, for most people, and the courts did pretty good.
	They took the old medieval doctrine of trespass to chattels, chattel being movable property And said, when someone sends you spam, that, in effect, is a form of virtual trespass.
	So rather than create new laws, they've updated it.
	It's a case called, from 1997, called Computer vs. Cyber Promotions.
	You can look it up online.
	And it's set a precedent into the process of stare decisis.
	That'll evolve.
	I think that'll happen here, too.
	A step at a time.
	The crucial thing is that those who take the risk, though, are going to have to indemnify and bear the potential cost.
	Here's a good one, then, for you.
	If there was a process available by which you could upload your brain to some sort of machine until something else was figured out, and you had a brain tumor, we'll make it easy for you here, would you be prepared to do that today, if you had to?
	I used the word reasonable before, and if there were a reasonable expectation Let's get science fiction-y, I guess, for a moment.
	Maybe you can project this.
	or buried, then sure.
	Again, these technologies have one great thing in their favor, that the alternatives are hopeless.
	Now, let's get science fiction-y, I guess, for a moment.
	Maybe you can project this. Once the brain was in the machine,
	would it continue to expand, learn, feel, Yes.
	Have emotions.
	Let's take that one at a time.
	What is learning?
	Learning is change of your synapses.
	Yes.
	These are the wires.
	If you took a brain and cut it open, you'd see a lot of gray matter.
	That's basically wires.
	The neurons are largely on the outside, that convoluted surface of the neocortex.
	Right.
	And every time a photon hits your eye, it makes a little change.
	Right.
	Brains are remarkably plastic.
	That's, by the way, a reason to be careful what you watch on TV or who you hang out with.
	It leaves its mark, maybe subconsciously.
	But it's modifying those synapses.
	Now, if we model synapses, as we do mathematically, and you can download free neural software to demonstrate this.
	In fact, I introduced something called the BAM, or the Bidirectional Associative Memory, that's available in the public domain.
	You can test this.
	You'll see that we can create, with very simple now electrical devices or in software, little learnable synapses.
	Now, if we've uploaded you into a device that has those, that has Not just your current number of quadrillion, perhaps many more, or those that modify and change with far more sophisticated learning algorithms.
	And I assure you, Art, there are hundreds, there are hundreds.
	And there are three journals that describe this.
	The Journal of Neural Networks, which I'm one of the editors, associate editors, the Journal of Neural Computation, and the IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks.
	They come out monthly, and each month they're chock full of algorithms that if you could capture in the way you're talking about, would give you what we view as superhuman capabilities.
	So yes, you'll continue to learn.
	all these patterns and experiences, that whole illusion of self that we call self.
	How would I find my satisfaction, my emotion? Would I turn from the physical, ultimately,
	as I was in the machine, to the pure intellectual, finding my happiness,
	my joy, my satisfaction in the completion of some problem that was put to me?
	I In other words, how would I... I think you're envisioning a world of sterile Mr. Spocks walking around.
	My answer to that is think about you and I are living in computers right now.
	Again, they're just sloppy computers made of three pounds of meat.
	They have the bizarre property of needing sleep.
	A bump on the head screws them up.
	A lot of what you take to be your emotions and changes are simply fluctuations in blood sugar.
	And other things.
	Of course, strokes can happen.
	All sorts of strange deteriorations.
	I don't think that's fundamentally different.
	I like to think of it, again, as the patterns of the mind, like music.
	If you want to replay the patterns, or the kinds of patterns you have now, you should be able to do that with no problem.
	But you can do vastly more original and more powerful things, beginning with the ability to edit memories at will.
	First off, having a complete memory is another bad property about neurons that we have all mammals have.
	Neurons work on a 40 millisecond window.
	They add up the little pulses flowing in, and that's basically it.
	And then if nothing comes in, they'll change the synapse.
	But do you really want a 40 millisecond window?
	That's why we forget everything so quickly.
	You read a book at night and you've forgotten 95% the next day.
	This is what we call the recency effect.
	And it's really easy to see mathematically why it happens.
	It has to do with what's called a decay term.
	And we know how to deal with that.
	But you would like, I think, to be able to vary at will.
	For example, what we were talking about 20 minutes ago has kind of faded from memory.
	It's on your tape.
	So in other words, I might find joy in Even heavenly joy in being able to remember everything.
	Or not to remember it.
	I mean, if you really shake it, a lot of folks do, that your childhood traumas are interfering with your life, and you'll be able to control and filter those out, and do many other things.
	And maybe you'll, in effect, have memories of experiences that you didn't directly have.
	But this all should be things under your control.
	They're not now.
	You're under control of it.
	Professor, do you ever see young Frankenstein?
	Sure.
	You remember the Abbey Normal Brain?
	Absolutely.
	When you said we might make mistakes along the way, if you were to take an Abbey Normal Brain and upload it to a machine, would you still have an Abbey Normal Brain or would you then have something that you could sectionalize and use perfectly well?
	Well, the first point is I think that we have two points.
	The first point I think No.
	No, you never see that.
	That's really what we're talking about.
	We all know that the jars get mixed up.
	We've seen it.
	the aberrant behavior so we should be able to avoid that but the first order
	would be the same behavior but the second point i'm glad you brought a
	frankenstein because i always ask myself with the kid art whatever happened if
	they put the good brain in you never see that in the movie no no you never see
	that that's really what we're talking about we all know that the jars get
	mixed up we've seen it kidding you dropped a plane brain in a slot i believe
	Ah, that's right.
	So yes, I mean, you're right.
	So, a good brain.
	I think, by the way, most cryonicists view Dr. Frankenstein as a hero.
	I'm just trying to understand how I would feel in a machine.
	Would I find my satisfactions in all of this memory, in this ability to compute endlessly, to grow and learn endlessly?
	Would these be my mental orgasms?
	Could be, but the easy answer is we're in a machine now, we seem to have fun with that, but I explored this in the novel Nano Time that you mentioned, that once you go through a kind of Buddhist, like the Buddha did, at first he was into sensory experiences and all the wine, women, and songs he could handle, and after that he really might want to have fun in an interesting spiritual way, contemplating things that we can't now, listening to music that doesn't have two or three independent voices, but two or three hundred or a thousand, really having something interesting to think about in terms of origins of the universe, More complex ideas that just wouldn't fit in our little brains right now.
	So I think there would be all sorts of things on the conceptual frontier.
	I think I mentioned to you that Seth Shostak from SETI said the most likely encounter we human beings will have, if we have one, if we are contacted, the most likely scenario is we will be contacted by machines.
	Correct.
	There's a real simple reason why information is the cheapest thing to transmit.
	Matter is very expensive and so we'll likely find some information being or something that encapsulates that, can create that, the
	robot probe.
	We're already doing that ourselves on other planets, but if someone had a million year start on us,
	you would think that they'd be doing that to a great extent.
	Would it be the eventual societal evolution of any planet that manages to survive
	to essentially become machines from biological to move to the machine?
	You know, I think that's right.
	If you go back and read the book, 2001.
	Not the movie, but the book.
	They tried it.
	Oh, wasn't that a great book?
	Wonderful book.
	Hold on.
	We'll pick up on that when we get back.
	We're at break time here.
	I'm Art Bell.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from April 4th, 2001.
	Coast to Coast is a movie about a young girl who's in love with a man who's a
	criminal and she's trying to get him to let her go.
	The story is about a young girl who's in love with a man who's a criminal
	and she's trying to get him to let her go.
	The story is about a young girl who's in love with a man who's a criminal
	and she's trying to get him to let her go.
	The story is about a young girl who's in love with a man who's a criminal
	and she's trying to get him to let her go.
	The story is about a young girl who's in love with a man who's a criminal
	and she's trying to get him to let her go.
	The story is about a young girl who's in love with a man who's a criminal
	and she's trying to get him to let her go.
	The story is about a young girl who's in love with a man who's a criminal
	and she's trying to get him to let her go.
	The story is about a young girl who's in love with a man who's a criminal
	and she's trying to get him to let her go.
	The story is about a young girl who's in love with a man who's a criminal
	and she's trying to get him to let her go.
	The story is about a young girl who's in love with a man who's a criminal
	and she's trying to get him to let her go.
	presents Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired April 4th, 2001.
	You know, there may be some rides that you may not want to take, or you may want to think about for a while.
	Not Professor Costco.
	He's already decided.
	He's going to be taking that trip.
	I'm Art Bell.
	we'll be right back.
	I believe you said something about two...
	Correct.
	What's next in the biggest picture?
	If you think about the end of the book, 2001, not the movie, Stanley Kubrick tried to capture this with that wonderful display, a psychedelic display of colors at the end.
	But if you read the book, you see Arthur Clarke was talking about becoming information, becoming your own thought, really capturing the idea of the great German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, who said, the world is my idea of it, and ultimately mingling with space and time itself.
	And to weave yourself into the very fabric of the universe.
	And there's a lot of reasons for that.
	There's a relationship, as we know, between matter and energy.
	We're also discovering relationships between energy and information.
	I rather fancied, at the end of the book, that he, in essence, became a god.
	I guess that would be another way to put it.
	In terms of how we would define it, I think that's absolutely right.
	But I think, Arthur, try to take that a little further.
	And the idea that more advanced species will have shed these mortal coils, and the constraints of what Arthur has called the tyranny of matter.
	Thor Arthur, I should say.
	The tyranny of matter.
	And again, if there's a relationship between mass and energy, equal to mc squared, and a relationship between energy and information, it follows that there's a relationship between information and matter.
	And here it is.
	It's something given to us by what's called the Hawking-Bekenstein equation.
	You can measure the information content Of anything, of you, of a book, by throwing it into a black hole and seeing how big the black hole's belly swells.
	And so the question arises, can we view the entire world as made of information?
	And some thoughtful physicists answered that by saying if we threw the whole universe into a black hole, we would get an amount of information that's 10 to the number 120, which roughly is the number of all possible chess games, by the way.
	And that's what we are worth in this universe, where the bit count is bigger than a Google, which is 10 to the 100.
	Let me try a couple of questions.
	there is a deep connection between information and matter.
	So one concept a lot of folks have looked at is what about the idea of the universe as a kind of chip?
	And now we're turning that around here, seeing the chip can be a kind of universe.
	And that's ultimately behind the idea of power.
	Let me try a couple of questions.
	Mike in Las Vegas wants to know, if a large number of people are ported into computers,
	who's going to pay to keep the electricity on for them?
	Will they be imprisoned in computers as slaves, working for juice, forever imprisoned?
	That was the theme of the movie Matrix.
	Uh-huh.
	We should broach the question, though, to make sure you're... Well, it's not such a crazy question.
	That's a good question.
	But, and it brings up the real problem with uploading to a chip.
	That is, somebody with a flip of a switch could end your eternity just that quickly.
	Yes.
	But the energy costs, as chips get smaller and more efficient, are smaller and smaller themselves.
	If we play this out, How can we be in a chip and have indefinite time spans?
	Well, first point, time in a chip is thousands, millions of times, maybe billions of times faster than what we call neural time, the slow time.
	Your sense of time is very subjective.
	Again, one minute of our time right now can easily be a hundred years plus on chip time, even with nanoprocessors that are under design.
	So, you can get a lot of that.
	Ultimately, you can always get energy sucked out of a star or black hole somewhere.
	But it does raise more serious questions with our system of government evolved out of tribal warfare and such that one of the real problems with anything like this, not just a full upload but even a partial implant, is the control of the government.
	Do you want the Supreme Court finding a quote compelling governmental interest and having access to your chip?
	What about evil thoughts?
	They'll give new meaning to the notion of a hate crime if they can simply get a subpoena and downplay your, replay your thoughts.
	But information ultimately is power, and you know our government will be first in line doing all this because the supermind can sure create the superweapon, can't it?
	It can do that, and this really raises a deeper question, Art.
	If we start all going to our own little heaven in a chip, Man or woman or thing, a king and two of them, castle or bubble.
	We don't really need governments anymore.
	This is something a government... Oh, see, now that will really bother them, I guarantee you.
	Well, but in the end, economics wins out.
	And governments, if you think about it, are monopolies on power in a region.
	They're atom-based kinds of things, you know, the logic of the sword.
	You know, we see that now with the battle over China, who owns the kind of fuzzy airspace.
	Or other spaces.
	Well, we know the property rights are not well defined.
	It's like if I blow smoke in your face, I don't have 100% control of that smoke.
	Wherever you have fuzzy property rights, you typically have a legal problem.
	But as time passes, it's just not clear what the function of a government would be.
	Now, you may want to govern yourself in a chip.
	In fact, if you think about a lot of the classical religions, especially You know, even our government, which is the best of the worst, look at what it's doing with the drug war.
	Why is it waging the drug war?
	Mainly, I believe, because it hurts productivity.
	and well you want you to do that you know even our government which is the
	best of the worst yet and look at what it's doing with the drug war why is it waging
	the drug war mainly i believe
	because it hurts productivity because
	uh... when we are uh... feeling really good uh... or stoned or whatever we're
	not productive and if we're not productive we're not
	paying many taxes and we're not supporting the government Now, what you have envisioned in terms of, for example, uploading a human brain, or no, no, no, let's back off from that.
	Let's just say being able to experience what somebody else has experienced.
	Oh my God!
	Now we can live entirely, vicariously, We can do it 24 hours a day if we want to, or no, we still have to sleep.
	So we could do it most of our waking hours.
	We could live a wonderful, vicarious life.
	You know damn well it's going to be a war against chips.
	Could be.
	I think at first it will be that.
	It'll be the have chips and not have chips kind of argument.
	But I think the drug war is a different matter.
	I think that's like slavery was.
	People know that the arguments aren't there.
	They know that A black market in any substance kicks up the price.
	We have the evidence of alcohol prohibition.
	They know that's wrong.
	This would be every bit, no, no, it would be more psychologically addicting than any drug we've got today.
	But when the ship is going in a certain direction, like the ship of state has been on this, and it hit a fever frenzy in the 70s and 80s on this, I think it takes a while to turn around.
	And it just has to do with alcohol prohibition and with slavery.
	People knew that was wrong long before, but still, you read the Constitution, there's a slavery clause in there.
	It's been struck out by the 13th Amendment.
	What was that doing in there in 1790?
	And I think the same thing here.
	When a certain generation, an older generation, frankly dies off, I think you'll see the drug war is just a bad memory of the past.
	But you're not dying off.
	You're going to freeze yourself.
	I am going to, right.
	I'm talking about the current power structure.
	I want to stress also for the listener how easy it is to do this, and how only a thousand people have done this.
	This is not a big deal financially.
	If you advertise it out, paying a little bit each month for an insurance contract, how big a deal is that?
	As a kind of backup.
	Now let's try a little, let me ask you a question about this, alright?
	Let us say in the next 30 or 40 years, you're close to death and you're frozen.
	You manage to get by the barriers and you're frozen pretty instantly and you've got good prospects of being revived.
	As you look technologically into the future, when do you think, Professor, that you will likely wake up?
	I think our usual window, where we can't predict beyond is 50 years.
	And if we ask, what kind of technology would you need to bring someone out?
	Today, you know, it'd be like trying, as the critics have often said, trying to resurrect a cow from the hamburger.
	We couldn't do that at all.
	But if you view the body as a container of information, the DNA is very clear evidence of that, but there's much more beyond it.
	Like, for example, what's encoded at the synapse at a higher level.
	If you view that as information, all that is maintained when you're in the tank.
	Sure, there's incredible life damage now, despite the efforts to Minimize it with glycerin and other antifreezes.
	Well, we're not that far from the cow from the hamburger.
	Okay, but let me make this point.
	But if you view that information, then what we really need to restructure, you need little devices doing manufacturing and construction at the cell level, at the nano level.
	Not at the molecular, sorry, at the microprocessor level.
	Right now we're working with big blobs of molecules.
	So in theory, for example, you could take an orange and unstack the orange molecules and restack them as apple molecules, and you've just turned an orange into an apple.
	It would look like black magic today.
	I suspect it will be commonplace to some future generations.
	So we know that's okay.
	That's doable.
	It requires a level of molecular engineering.
	There's several trillion cells in the body.
	And it's a big problem, but it's an engineering problem.
	It's not a religious problem.
	It's not a government problem.
	It's something in theory we can knock out.
	And with the increasing efficiencies of science and markets, we'll in all likelihood do that.
	May I ask you a personal question?
	Are you married?
	Yes, I am.
	Children?
	Yes, I have one.
	How about the prospect of you, because after all you are thinking about you, being revived at a time when your wife will be long gone, your son will be long gone, maybe your grandchildren or daughter, I'm sorry, will be long gone.
	You may have grandchildren or great-grandchildren or even greater.
	Who knows?
	But everybody you know, everything you knew, it's all gone.
	I think we call this the Tears of the Buddha.
	It'll be so sad that all my friends and non-friends and strangers I would like to have met simply didn't take that simple precautionary step.
	They were grasshoppers, not ants, and they weren't back up.
	That'll be sad, but I suspect there'll be so many distractions and entertainment to the day.
	My question is, will my PhD still be good?
	I don't know.
	I'll be happy to get another one.
	But I think it'll be a lot of fun.
	Just imagine again if it were a thousand or a hundred years ago.
	Or a thousand years ago, if you were a Viking, somehow frozen and revived now, you'd miss the old days, to be sure, but I think you'd fit right in, and you'd be watching Survivor after a week.
	So, in other words... We're adaptable.
	Now we sit at a computer.
	Oops, there's the blue screen of death.
	Oh, we try to reboot.
	Oh, it won't boot.
	Oh, it says there's not even a hard drive there.
	You put your head in your hands.
	That's death.
	Alright?
	And you're imagining that before that moment, We simply copied the hard drive, and so we... Software.
	The software.
	The software, yes.
	We're freezing the hard drive that has a software... Equating the hard drive to the brain.
	Okay.
	And so there you are.
	You imagine that every bit of you, again, all the emotions, all the feelings, all the memories, everything, it would all be there.
	The only thing is that the people who are running this machine... If they're people.
	Well, if they're people.
	Could begin to administer all kinds of changes, cause you to forget your wife and your children, and in fact your life.
	And in fact they could actually, couldn't they professor, virtually erase everything that was your identity, using you as a machine for their own purposes, whatever those might be.
	That could certainly happen.
	They could implant, you know, politically correct chips to filter out bad thoughts of the day.
	They might be very afraid of someone coming back who was born in the 20th century, in the future.
	That's certainly possible.
	Or they might view you as a kind of precious time relic to be cherished.
	But I just don't think it's a big deal.
	I think, in the end, there will come a point when disease is conquered first.
	That's inevitable.
	And death becomes something largely voluntary.
	People's lifespans will go up to a few hundred years, when cells in a factory regenerate.
	There are a lot of schemes of how that might happen.
	And there'll be proportionally a small number of people still floating in the tank.
	Maybe just for sentimental reasons, they'll bring them out and resurrect them.
	Do you remember the Star Trek episode where all the little brains in the petri dishes or whatever they were, were sitting around betting on gladiators?
	It's ringing a distant bell.
	A distant bell.
	Well, there's another Star Trek episode that does come to mind.
	And at the end of this, there's the fellow in the shiny suit, and in the big revelatory moment when Bones and Spock say, we can't figure this out, man in the shiny suit, what seems to be here is an authentic manuscript of Johannes Brahms' music, and it seems to be a sculpture done by Michelangelo, and there's a reason for that, because I am Brahms.
	That's right.
	Because I am Michelangelo, because back in ancient Babylonia, I happened by random chance to have cells that were regenerating, and I was sort of an average guy.
	It's just that I learned a lot along the way, and you know, after two, three, four thousand years, I got pretty good at making statues and writing music.
	So your heaven in a chip could be exactly that.
	Heaven in a chip, or it could be hell in a chip.
	Could be.
	Could be a constrained heaven in a chip.
	Could be a well-managed, well-regulated heaven in a chip.
	But the alternative art is synaptic obliteration.
	It is.
	Do you imagine, though, a time given digital immortality that an entity would choose Itself, for any reason you can imagine, to be terminated.
	Sure.
	And again, I'll cite the great Sir Arthur Clarke, who has a famous novella called The City and the Stars.
	It takes place a billion years from now, we've been to the stars, come back, we're bored with that, and people basically, their information patterns, they get tired of it, they go into the blue flames and in effect upload and wait for another time.
	That could happen, but this is what it ought to be.
	Death should be purely voluntary.
	No coercion, no duress.
	And we live under duress now.
	As you get older, it gets worse by the day.
	But would there not be infinite knowledge to be sought after?
	Infinite's a tricky mathematical term, as you know, but practically speaking, huge amounts of knowledge that to us would seem infinite.
	Sure.
	I mean, wouldn't you like to read a few thousand more books and see a few thousand more movies?
	And that's just the beginning of it.
	Just on this earth today as we know it.
	We have such a short lifespan.
	We sample so few things out there now.
	How many people have been to more than five countries?
	It's a small number.
	Would a separated intellect miss the physical body?
	Would we suffer the, at first at least, and for a while, the missing limb syndrome?
	Could be.
	Would you miss those toothaches and those pains?
	I think you argue with number one, have the ability to continue the illusion, the illusion of the body.
	Remember, the brain sits up there And all these signals come up an imperfect pipe from the spine.
	We can replicate that if you want.
	Or, I would suspect, if you want to go the old-fashioned way, maybe again for entertainment's sake, you could go back in all slow me-time and slog around under gravity as a big, lumbering, reproducing machine.
	But that, again, should be something of pure choice.
	All right.
	Let me quickly... We're going to go to calls here shortly.
	I just want to grab one on our international line.
	Where are you calling from, please?
	Yes, this is Thomas from Rosarito Beach, Mexico.
	Mexico.
	How you doing?
	I'm doing pretty good.
	Okay, well you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Oh, great.
	Actually, I'm not really calling for that.
	I'm actually calling about a UFO sighting down here.
	Well, actually, we're not taking that.
	You mean right now?
	Right now.
	Professor, hold on just a moment.
	What are you seeing, please?
	We're seeing like a Big Dipper formation.
	We've seen over 25 flights of these.
	25 so far?
	25 flights.
	They're moving at about a little bit faster than satellites.
	They look like satellites, but there are no flashing lights at all.
	And they're moving in a formation of some sort?
	They're moving in a formation that looks like Big Dipper, but there's one after another, and they're all kind of going at different trajectories.
	At what apparent speed?
	Let's see.
	They're crossing from about...
	From our northern view to our southern view of about seven minutes.
	So they're moving south, then?
	Uh-huh.
	They are moving south, mostly.
	South and southeast.
	All right, then it would not be of value for people here in the U.S.
	to run out and try to get a look.
	Oh, definitely in San Diego they could.
	San Diego.
	All right.
	In San Diego, take a look to your south, right?
	Uh-huh.
	North to south.
	All right, sir.
	I appreciate the report.
	Thank you.
	I'm sure we'll get more.
	Thank you very much.
	Take care.
	How about that, Professor?
	We speak.
	I'm looking out my window.
	I'm in L.A.
	I don't see it.
	Well, I'm sure the light pollution there in L.A.
	is going to stop you.
	I didn't even know you were in L.A.
	That's where you are, huh?
	Oh, you're at U.S.C.?
	I'm home now, but University of Southern California.
	Do you teach all this?
	Well, I teach the technology behind it.
	For example, tonight I give a lecture on smart machines, on neural networks, on the nature of memory and learning.
	So the answer is yes.
	Do you get the same kinds of questions that you've been getting from me tonight?
	No, I don't, and it's too bad that I don't.
	Probably because there's just so much to learn.
	You know, each year we cram more material into a technological advanced degree or undergraduate degree, and people are just often too busy to raise these issues.
	How do you design a child that's 40% yours, 40% your spouse's, and 20% who knows, somebody else's?
	You can do it by realizing that what you are is one little point Like on a big sheet of paper, and that's your point, what we call genome space.
	And your mom and dad are two other points, and you lie right in the line between those two.
	If we were to move your point a little bit, we can have any mathematical combination possible.
	So I think it's quite reasonable to expect that people will want to mix their genes and, you know, with the pop star or the televangelist of the day, there'll be legal issues of identity here.
	So a real issue arises, Art.
	I mean, if somebody says, I want to have Art Bell's child, and the man and wife say, yeah, we've got three kids, let's have the fourth kid.
	Let's put in something that's 40%.
	Someone released our genome on the net.
	In theory, you can work out the mathematics of that with today's computers, maybe 10, 15, 20 years.
	And you've got a real question of privacy invasion.
	What do you mean somebody releases my genome on the net?
	Is that going to be possible?
	Well, I think a lot of us will carry more and more of our biological information on a credit card.
	It's easy to get that.
	Anything in a public database is subject to exploitation, especially to public figures.
	You bet you it could happen.
	Well, it feels so violated.
	Yeah.
	Well, you're touching on a deeper issue of, you know, we have these ancient laws.
	Some are being adapted like a case of spam email, but we're really not catching up to the digital technology in terms of privacy.
	All right.
	You good to go for another hour?
	You bet.
	All right.
	Stay right there.
	Professor Bart Kosko is my guest.
	Good morning!
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM, from April 4th, 2001.
	My destiny is quite a single way.
	A mystery book on the shelf.
	It's all just repeating itself.
	I'm gonna see you walkin' home.
	Wally-loo, promise you'll love me forevermore.
	Wally-loo, couldn't escape if I wally-loo.
	Wally-loo, knowin' I'll save you, save you.
	Wally-loo, Wally-loo, Wally-loo, Wally-loo.
	Wally-loo, you'll be home tonight.
	Lonely days and lonely nights, Secret, secret things,
	It's a long way home.
	It's a long way home.
	Never see what you wanna see, Rare the flame could have guided you,
	It's a long way home.
	It's a long way home.
	When you're up some days, Oh, underneath the boat,
	Oh, under the yellow boat, I'll save you home.
	Then you'll watch secret things, illusion, fantasy, Oh, the fantasy,
	It's a long way home.
	It's a long way home.
	www.LRCgenerator.com You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time, on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from April 4th, 2001.
	Professor Bart Kosko is here, and we're talking about his book, Heaven in a Chip, or is it Helen a Chip?
	I really don't know.
	I guess that's part of what we're talking about tonight.
	It certainly could be Heaven, but it It also certainly could be hell.
	Back now to Professor Cosco.
	Bart Kosko, welcome back.
	Good to be back.
	There are a lot of people that want to talk to you and ask questions, but I have one first.
	And this one, no doubt, comes from a... See, we're all products of what we read, our environment, our television, everything you were saying earlier.
	And I remember a movie In which somebody decided to view a person's death.
	Now, wouldn't that be high on the list of things?
	If you had the ability to actually experience and view, but experience precisely what that person experienced, then the moment of death would be of high interest to a lot of people.
	Yes, it would.
	I think it would create a new kind of extreme sport.
	Well, I mean, I would imagine that you would think that the moment of death would be fade to black, right?
	Well, but remember though, Art, by definition you have no sensory ability, so it cuts off before that.
	Have you ever been to the dentist or something and you've been knocked out?
	Yes.
	You're waiting for the operation and the next thing you know you wake up in pain.
	You never experience the absence of sensation.
	People standing around.
	No, no, there's a little fuzzy logic applies here.
	In other words, the process of death is not instant, is it?
	In some cases, I mean, you could be hit by a truck or something, but aside from that, a lot of deaths are not instantaneous.
	They are perhaps even agonizing.
	We don't know past a certain point what somebody experiences, right?
	We can make some educated guesses, but you're right.
	It's often a flickering light there at the end.
	Little fuzzy logic there at the end.
	And so, that would be an interesting thing to view.
	Would it surprise you if, in viewing that, you went through the darkness and came out on some other side?
	I guess that would really surprise you, wouldn't it?
	It would surprise me to no end.
	It would literally surprise the bejeezus out of me.
	Yes, I'm sure it would.
	Would it cause you to give up pursuing this technology?
	It might.
	I'm not sure about that.
	Oh, isn't that interesting?
	I'm not sure whether it should happen.
	At the same time, Art, if I turned around and a biblical prophet walked up to me and could prove that, I think I would probably become a priest overnight.
	That's pretty powerful evidence.
	Yes.
	Yes, it is.
	But you would pursue experiencing that moment?
	Yeah, I think you would.
	I think we're all fascinated by the end.
	By the way, I wanted to point out there's a famous story by Robert Heinlein, the scientific author.
	In fact, his first sold short story, called Lifeline, about a man who devised a technology.
	In principle, it's possible.
	That we have something called the leaky cable equation.
	If there's a leak in a telephone cable in the ocean, you can send an electrical signal through it and find out where the leak is, and the ships go out and fix it.
	He used that with the principle of general relativity, and you're kind of a big pink worm in space-time.
	You can look at your birth and look at your death, and you can send a signal down, and he would tell you the answer to when you would die and how, and the story proceeds from there.
	All right, I want to get to a few calls now, so here we go.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hi.
	Hello, Art.
	Hello.
	And hello, Professor.
	This thing raises many questions.
	I've been thinking about it a long time, and it raises questions both for the individual and our society.
	One thing I really question is whether our society, any time in the near future, could even cope with this.
	I mean, if you had people living hundreds of times longer than they do now and still would be in possession of their assets and they might want a place to live physically and stuff, where would you put all of these people?
	That's a standard concern about cryotics and in general about life extension.
	And there's several things to say.
	The first one is there's a lot more land out there than people realize.
	Let me give you some quick back of the napkin numbers.
	If you took all the people today on the planet and gave them all a city lot or a housing lot, they would all fit in the state of Texas.
	Give everybody a complete acre and they fit comfortably within Australia.
	You may not like that kind of density.
	Well, yeah, that might not be exactly a very acceptable lifestyle for some people.
	It may not be.
	The other thing that a lot of futurists, I think, have seen here, I think it's inevitable, is even if we were to continue these accelerated rates of growth, we ultimately spread out, and not just to the nearby planets, but between in higher-Earth orbit and elsewhere, taking advantage of a lot of excess mass flying around up there in the skies.
	in the heavens and convert that into big diamond shielded bubbles in which we have our own
	greenhouses and universes.
	If you look at it in that sense, you've got to remember we're talking volumes.
	Right, we would almost have to have habitats or something.
	My point I'm making is it would take trillions and trillions of people to crowd that space
	The brain is kind of a delicately balanced mechanism.
	We have people now that go through wars and come back with traumatic stress, even though they're young people in their 20s and their bodies are perfectly functional.
	I think we could survive that.
	Let me ask you another question.
	We have normal people right now.
	The brain is kind of a delicately balanced mechanism.
	We have people now that go through wars and come back with traumatic stress even though
	they are young people in their 20s and their bodies are perfectly functional.
	But they go through psychosis and they are never the same.
	I really question whether I would want to continue living if I had only mechanical bodies.
	That's one thing.
	I don't know how you would replace all the quantum effects of a physical body, but I question whether trying to transition a physical body into a mechanical body, whether the brain wouldn't be tipped into such a psychosis it could not survive.
	Well, I assume if you didn't do the operation right, but again, we are mechanical bodies, biomechanical bodies perhaps.
	And if you did this operation delicately, Art and I talked earlier about transferring up a chunk at a time to the chip, you could make it up there smoothly.
	You could certainly botch the procedure, but there's nothing in principle here.
	There's nothing in principle here that says the procedure should fail.
	For example, we're not violating the speed of light or anything like that.
	All such complicated procedures have a risk associated with them, and we hope those will be intelligently managed at the time.
	What's hard here is trying to envision a snapshot of the future.
	Of course, that would shock us today.
	But we get on these things a step at a time.
	All right.
	Wouldn't... Thank you, Caller.
	Wouldn't a... Wouldn't a snapshot of our future, that future, which you imagine, include traditional reproduction virtually disappearing?
	I don't know, Art.
	I think a lot of people still want to continue to do it the old-fashioned way.
	I think it'll be a complicated... I do think what will be different, though, is there'll be a lot of people walking around that don't look like people today.
	They will have so manipulated their genome.
	that they may be merged, they may have multiple organs, sense organs or others.
	And that's all within the realm of genomic possibility, just as we understand the principles
	of genomes today.
	So it's not – the crucial thing is this.
	Someone 100 years ago, which I can't imagine, would have imagined very fast horse-drawn
	buggies on freeways.
	You know, it just didn't work out that way.
	But Professor, maybe we – he can't draw the analogy because the times will be different,
	but not much has changed in mankind's reign so far, and we've had wars over differences
	far smaller than the ones you just described.
	Correct.
	So, wouldn't traditional human beings fear, loathe, ultimately kill anything that different?
	That's a good question.
	I think the first order of their demand, the government's regulated, as we're seeing now with the case of simple cloning for fertility.
	At the first blush, Art, I think there will be great fear and reaction to any of these kinds of technology.
	But on the other hand, it moves in step by fuzzy step.
	And so when we see the technology giving sight back to the blinded, boosting grandmothers' IQ after she was suffering from Alzheimer's, letting people with spinal damage walk, there's a lot of work being done on that right now to repair the neural junctions there.
	You're going to feel very differently about it.
	And if you did it in one fell swoop, yes, but I just think we're going to get there by very comfortable fuzzy degrees.
	Well, I don't know.
	We're at kind of a fuzzy junction right now with cloning, for example.
	Cloning is suddenly upon us as a society.
	The animal kingdom.
	We've been in the plant kingdom for a long time.
	Yes, but we're getting close.
	As a matter of fact, the Raelians that I told you about that are going to clone, they were sitting in front of Congress the other day trying to explain why government should not make any regulation with regard to cloning.
	Would you support that?
	A tricky question.
	I mean, there's always the issue of external effects and liability.
	I specialize in tricky questions.
	That's good.
	But to first order, this is still an issue of somebody's reproduction.
	So you want to make anybody who creates one or 50 children fully legally responsible in a family court kind of way for those offspring.
	The trouble with any new technology is it's possible, like with mass manufacturing of medicines, to make a mistake and cause great harm.
	The law has dealt with that through product liability.
	And in extreme cases, what are called ultra-hazardous activities, through strict liability.
	And I suspect, for quite a while, any kind of cloning efforts that proceed will be under the legal banner of strict liability.
	Well, you're saying we're going to get to some of this exotic stuff by 2020, 2030.
	That's not that far away.
	Cloning, right now, is suddenly upon us, and we hardly know how to handle it, whether to legislate, not legislate, leave it alone, regulate it, We don't know what happened with it right now.
	It's all about email tenure.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Well, we're going to have other moments like that as we go to 2020 and 2030, right?
	Absolutely.
	Not such fuzzy moments.
	My point is, I think we can take our existing legal system and adapt that.
	Just think about the legal system a hundred years ago adapted to the computer industry.
	It did it just fine.
	Yeah, there were a lot of cases and so forth, but it made it just fine.
	I don't think it'll be that much different here.
	There's nothing in principle different about bringing someone in We're not that far away from the ability to improve human beings.
	or through a mutual fertilization or a variety of other techniques and that shades into cloning.
	The probabilities or possibilities of damage are a different matter and the law has traditionally
	dealt with that in terms of expanding the sphere of liability.
	Yes, but we're not that far away from the ability to improve human beings.
	The genome is now unraveled, untold, and the next step, of course, is the manipulation
	of the genome and then you can begin to improve human beings.
	and then when you have improved human beings you have you have a problem
	Why?
	Well, because you have regular human beings that have improved human beings, and they're not going to like each other.
	They may not.
	I think the trouble is the unforeseen accident.
	I'm trying to allow for that with the technology.
	We don't understand.
	This has always been a problem.
	It's going to continue to be a problem deep into this century and next as technologies become more powerful.
	I've talked to scientists, a professor about cloning, and they admit there are going to be some monsters.
	There are going to be some mistakes, and some of them are going to live.
	And they have deep questions about proceeding with human cloning based on that.
	That's a fair point.
	Just as the ability to keep more fetuses alive have led to another nutrition, thanks to the children being born who might otherwise have died, The issue here, Art, is who assumes the risk.
	And if somebody's doing and imposing those risks on third parties, then I think there's a legitimate role for the state, or whatever the future of that role is, that entity is, to make sure those who reap the benefits also pay the cost.
	And liability has been the way.
	We've come a long way.
	We've had a reasonably safe nuclear power industry, not here in California, and we have blackouts to show for it.
	But France is 70% nuclear.
	Japan and all its earthquakes is 50% nuclear.
	They've done pretty well.
	Those are scary technologies.
	I think, frankly, far more scary than cloning.
	They've done intelligently and a step at a time.
	They've been manageable.
	Well, manageable, maybe.
	But if you live here in Nevada, where I am, there's this little problem of all the waste from these nuclear plants that they're going to begin trucking into the side of a mountain where it's going to have to be kept safely for Tens of thousands.
	Yes, yes.
	Well, so we feel a little disturbed about that out here.
	First time caller on the line.
	You're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hello.
	You're on the air, sir.
	Hi, how are you doing?
	All right.
	All right.
	You should be on seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
	Well, they'll get me in a machine if they can.
	And then anyway, go ahead, sir.
	I've got a couple of comments and one question.
	Professor, it sounds like You know, with the external senses, you're internalizing them.
	You know, the five senses that you do have.
	And it sounds like that you're postulating the self as the hegemony?
	Well, what I said is that the self, the current model of that, consists of a lot of neural circuits competing for control.
	For example, if you look at an image, and there's an apple in the image, and you say, now focus on that apple.
	And you can do that.
	You can say, you were looking at it before, but you didn't really pay attention.
	How does one pay attention?
	We now know that's brought about by, in effect, one neural circuit winning out in a competition versus the others.
	And that seems to be the basis of this illusion of consciousness.
	Well, it sounds like you're putting the physical hierarchy through a fuzzy logic circuit.
	Well, it doesn't have to be a fuzzy logic circuit, but they are, in fact, neural circuits.
	Well, I mean a fuzzy logic circuit in the way that the most insistent comes to the fore.
	As you're saying, there's a competition and whoever gets the biggest stimulation tends to win the competition, which is, by the way, exactly how our eyes work in processing retinal data that comes in.
	These are called lateral inhibition networks.
	If you just look at, just take that case, so if you look at the eye and the signal, whatever you're looking at right now, there's signals of bombarding your retina, light, it's getting transduced into electricity through some neural filters, goes up and down a lot, right?
	And then it goes through layer upon layer of neural network filters.
	We still don't know what's going on there.
	We have a rough sense.
	It goes to the thalamus.
	It goes all the way back to Area 17, the brain, where this illusion of the visual object is reconstructed.
	It takes about a quarter of your brain to do visual processing.
	But, man, there are an awful lot of, not just filters, but feedback loops and back and forth.
	And we can capture that now in terms of groups of neurons interacting.
	It's not that your memory of your grandmother is stored in a particular cell.
	It's distributed out in these different fields, and they do compete.
	It turns out biology, just as in neural network biology, just as in economic competition, that the organizing principle is competition.
	And you're right, that whoever tends to get the biggest stimulation wins.
	And moreover, we think what's going on is the neurons, a group of neurons, trying to predict a reward stimulus, maybe in the form of dopamine, is the current theory.
	Well, one question though.
	When do machines get awareness, self-awareness?
	How about when they get natural language and abuse it like you and I do?
	The thing is, if I'm taking your postulation and I'm saying, okay, a machine or a computer, whatever, if the mind can be downloaded or uploaded into a machine, then why not a machine having the ability to attain consciousness because of the fact that We can put the human intellect into a machine, or the human... I think it would have the same illusion of consciousness that you and I have.
	Let me, if I can, cite the great Scottish philosopher, David Hume, who opened this up for us in the West.
	Though Buddhists and Hindus were looking at this for thousands of years, a couple hundred years anyway, in the Far East.
	And that is, Hume said, whenever I look inward at myself, all I see is a perception, and nothing but a perception.
	Therefore, I'm nothing but a bundle of perceptions.
	I'm the central repository of signals flowing in, and evidence today bears him out.
	Professor Daniel up in Wisconsin asks, you know, your guest sounds as though he's studied Buddhism.
	As a Buddhist myself, he sounds like he's given up on what we can do naturally in favor of technology.
	Our brains just need to be reprogrammed.
	Well, he's right.
	I have studied Buddhism.
	I have great respect for that.
	Of all the classical religions, I think it is, for me, the most reasonable, although I can't subscribe to an organized religion.
	And don't forget, the Buddha, as far as we know, was an atheist.
	And he had a very different view.
	But the Buddha, in the end, had a very simple argument.
	He said, look, the world is full of suffering, as it plainly is.
	Life is suffering.
	Dukkha is the Sanskrit word for that.
	And he had a simple solution.
	That is, it comes from desire.
	And if you're worried about losing your life or the life of a loved one, here's a simple solution.
	Quit worrying.
	Don't value your life.
	That's kind of a cop-out answer.
	It's very clever.
	And what it really is, though, Art, is that Buddhism is not a religion, per se, in terms of spiritualism.
	It's a kind of intellectual pain pill.
	And we have better pain pills now.
	We're going to have much better ones.
	But in the end, when you're up on that fuzzy boundary of life and death, and you're looking at the last moments, I think Buddhism is something to consider.
	So you think there would be a lot of foxhole Buddhists?
	Absolutely.
	Professor, hold on.
	We're at the bottom of the hour, so we'll be right back.
	My guest is Professor Bart Kosko.
	His book is Heaven in a Chip, and before I forget about it, as we come back from the break, we're going to tell you exactly how to get this book and any others that he has written, but particularly Heaven in a Chip.
	Sounds to me like you ought to be doing some reading on this subject, because...
	Well, because it sounds inevitable, doesn't it?
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from April 4th, 2001.
	April 4, 2001.
	Oh.
	you But not without a star.
	Free.
	I only want to be free.
	Running every time these beautiful secrets fade to shine Watching in slow motion as you turn around and say
	Take my breath away Take my breath away
	There's nothing I can't break, it all ends in the break of You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from April 4th, 2001.
	My guest is Professor Bart Kosko, and we're talking about his book, Heaven in a Chip.
	That's right.
	Heaven in a Chip.
	Whether or not it's heaven depends, I guess, on your perspective.
	Though none of us have yet tried it, we know it's coming.
	We'll be right back.
	Just a couple of station-keeping notes here.
	I'm getting quite a few fast-blast messages of the following sort.
	From James in Palestine, Texas.
	Hey Art, please tell everyone in Texas to get outside and see these things.
	Now, I got a call from Mexico indicating they were having some massive sightings there.
	Apparently, they're seeing these things, whatever they are, in Texas, too.
	So, let's get as many eyes on this as we can.
	It appears to be a contemporary occurrence.
	In other words, whatever it is, is occurring right now.
	So, I guess if you're in Texas, go take a look outside and see if you see a bunch of things moving in formation.
	One direction or the other.
	I would guess to begin by looking south, based on the other report.
	But take a good look around the sky in Texas, maybe New Mexico, border states.
	Let's see what you see.
	One other thing, as we get ready to go back to Professor Kosko.
	If you're outside the U.S., we've got a toll-free line for you.
	Try it.
	Whether you're in Europe or the Orient, South America, wherever you are, Give it a try.
	There may be a sequence of numbers that you have to dial.
	You might check my website for those.
	And then our 800 number.
	Or, you may just simply get hold of the AT&T operator and have her do it for you.
	But it's a free call no matter where in the world you are.
	The number is 800-893-0903.
	800-893-0903. That's 800-893-0903 from any point in the world.
	All right, back now to Professor Kosko.
	Welcome back, Professor.
	Man, what a show.
	What a program.
	What a concept.
	What a thing to even consider.
	It's been fun.
	Well, I guess it is.
	I guess it is fun.
	Let's go here.
	What's for the Rockies?
	You're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Yes, hello.
	Hi, I had a question for Dr. Kosko.
	What is your opinion of the concept of the brain as a receiver, as a quantum receiver for mind?
	And I had a comment after that, if that's okay.
	Brain as a quantum receiver?
	Well, my... As presented by Dr. Roger Penrose.
	Ah, different story.
	Let me comment in general, then in specific.
	The idea of the brain as a quantum receiver, this reflects my colleague, Professor Steven Grossberg, one of the great unsung heroes of the mind.
	He's at Boston University.
	He has said the brain is a measurement device operating at the quantum level.
	A measurement device operating at the quantum level.
	And the example again is if you hit with a single photon of light that's recorded in your brain and potentially encoded into your neural network and possibly downloaded into those synapses.
	So in that sense, great things to be said for that.
	In terms of Professor Penrose's theory, this is a theory kind of trying to stick in the old classical linguistic notion of a free will and what are called microtubules.
	I don't think it makes sense on its face.
	I don't think he's worked out the information threat structure.
	Same kind of problem people have with SOLID.
	What's the information compression mechanism here and the coding decoding?
	But worst of all, there's been absolutely no evidence for it and no critical test proposed on how to refute the hypothesis.
	I think so far, so bad.
	My comment would be...
	That for me anyway, I know it doesn't hold any weight with you, but for me it's a matter of experience that consciousness precedes materiality.
	I suggest that experiences such as out-of-body experiences, past life remembrances, and direct conscious telepathy work against the claim of meat as creating consciousness.
	Let me rebut that.
	I publish in my book, Fuzzy Thinking, a Mechanistic theory, a neural network-based theory of the sense of seeing the life flash before your eyes right before you have a traumatic accident.
	Now, there's been a tremendous amount of evidence of people reporting this experience, and I don't want to deny that, but let's think about that for a minute.
	Why would it be the case?
	And we have a really easy way to explain that with neural networks.
	The basic idea is when you're in a tight spot, when the adrenal hormones flow, and you're in a fight-flight scenario, like seeing a Mack truck coming straight at you, We would expect the following, a massive search through your associative memory for anything that could save your butt.
	The effect would be in your mind's eye, not of your life playing out in serial like a movie, but rather a flash in parallel of similar incidents in your past that could have some probative value, some value in helping you find a solution to that problem.
	And so a psychological effect that is well documented can be explained in this case with simple neural circuits.
	Well, I think that I have a motto for this sort of thing is that an infinite, infinitesimal amount of direct experience is worth an infinite amount of theory.
	And I remember about 50 lifetimes, or I remember my last lifetime on this planet, which is about 10,000 years from now.
	And we will have one machine of, this is just, take it at whatever you feel like taking it as, but we'll have one machine on the planet.
	Uh, which will be a machine of loving grace, as they say.
	And, uh, it'll take the form of an old woman.
	An old woman?
	An old woman who is basically our grandmother figure.
	There'll be about 40 people left of the planet.
	Uh, the whole planet is conscious.
	Everyone's uploaded?
	The whole planet is conscious with one intelligence, a vast, almost omniscient consciousness, as far as the planet's concerned.
	And yet, it was extremely sad, because it knew something was missing.
	So, that's all I have to say.
	All right, well, I appreciate that, and I'm sure the old woman does, too.
	Scientists are really lousy at selling books, so I'm going to take time here, and we're going to sell your book.
	It's Heaven in a Chip.
	Now, I presume it's available nationwide?
	Yes, it is.
	Is it in bookstores?
	In bookstores, and I have a lot of bookstores.
	Amazon.com is your website.
	It's the easiest way to go to get them.
	If you want the hardcore stuff, I have textbooks, you know, with mathematics and problems in it.
	You can take a shot at it if you're an instructor.
	You can even get a solutions manual.
	My guess is, though, that a lot of the audience is going to want to read Heaven and Earth.
	It's designed, is it not, not as a scientific paper, but it's written about, I guess, it's a kind of future shock, right?
	To some extent.
	And the text is straightforward.
	The footnotes are complicated, should you choose to explore that.
	And my website at USC, which people can access, has That as well.
	Also, again, for those looking for a little homework, you can download some recent technical papers that are there as well.
	But Heaven and Ship is by far the simplest way to get this and to see the vast literature on almost all the points that we've talked about.
	You'd be surprised how many scientists have covered this ground well.
	Okay, well, off you go again.
	It's available on Amazon.com, through my website.
	We've got a link, obviously.
	But how about an 800 number?
	Do you have one of those?
	No, I don't.
	You don't have an 800 number?
	Wow.
	You really are from trusting random out here.
	So we point everybody then at Amazon.com where you get a really cool discount until someday they can't afford it anymore and they got out of business.
	Right now though, Amazon.com will sell it to you very inexpensive.
	How much is it?
	I think it's around $14.
	Quality paperback.
	Wow.
	$14.
	All right.
	Amazon.com folks.
	Go to my website.
	Go to tonight's guest info, and there'll be a trail to buy the book right there.
	I can't imagine you wouldn't know.
	Here's something that I want to bring up with you, Professor.
	I've interviewed another man that a lot of people love to hate, whose name is Matthew Alper.
	And I want to discuss what he believes with you for a second.
	He says that mankind has always worshipped something.
	A god.
	The sun.
	If you go and you find a tribe in the deepest, darkest Amazon that nobody has ever been around before, they probably worship the sun.
	They worship something that mankind always will worship, something that mankind's greatest fear is the fear of death.
	And to assuage that fear, our brains, as a matter of continuing evolution, have concocted what Matthew Alper calls a God part of the brain.
	A part of the brain that demands worship, demands a belief in the afterlife.
	I have this feeling that you might agree with that probability.
	Yes, I do.
	There are several points there.
	The crucial one is whether there's some genetic basis for the uniform belief in religion.
	Let's look at the evidence.
	At the beginning of the 20th century, with men like Bertrand Russell and all the scientists I mean, in rediscovering mathematics and the results of Einstein and quantum mechanics, there was a feeling among scientists that science would kill religion.
	And if you look at the evidence, it didn't.
	In fact, religion is stronger now more than ever.
	I mean, it was communism that fell.
	The Falun Gong is working its way through China.
	It is something that, for better or for worse, it's there in a deep way.
	The question is why.
	I think you can make a case for genetic basis.
	No question of fear of death.
	But I think that the better answer, the broader answer, Is that we have in us evolved genes for obedience to authority, to slew up the chain of command.
	And that's the kind of way of doing that, putting up to the chain of command of religion or the state, usually very closely coupled throughout history, maybe not so much in this country.
	But even, you know, look at the Taliban blowing up those Buddhas in Afghanistan.
	And the question you would ask is why, and the usual answer is that even a brutal system can stabilize a hierarchy.
	And somebody in a hunter-gatherer scenario doesn't want to stop, and if you ask Woody Allen-like existential questions, he's more likely to get eaten by the beast than to eat the beast and not pass on his genes.
	So I think you can make a case that we have obedience to authority.
	I mean, I'll give you another example that really disturbs a lot of us who are fans of Thomas Jefferson.
	People talk about the president running the country and having things like drug czars and now a faith czar.
	You know, this concept of a king or czar comes from Caesar.
	People in the media love to personify complex political processes in one person, whether it's Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton or whoever.
	There is a sense to have a visible, palpable leader.
	There is a real will to follow.
	It has to have a genetic basis.
	Dave asks, and maybe it's a good moment for it, why are 99% of scientists nihilists with no ethics nor morals?
	Well, I don't know.
	It's just not true.
	But what we do know is that a study taken about 100 years ago found to the shock of
	polite Victorian society that only 40% of scientists profess belief in a god or afterlife.
	And then the same study taken about five years ago also shocked folks because it's the same
	number.
	Still about only 40% of scientists believe that.
	The people thought it was much lower.
	But the majority, a good number of scientists maintain these beliefs.
	I'm not one of them, but the number who do.
	Well, one would imagine that Mr. Alper's scenarios would pretty much cross the board and that
	would include scientists as well.
	They all have families, they all have loved ones, they all have hopes for some sort of conscious continuation.
	And you think the best bet for that is in a chip?
	Chip and as a backup, let me tell you one other thing, looking at the data on this, if you look at the scientists polled, of those who are most skeptical, And those who are most believers, the most skeptical, are biologists who kind of work with flesh and Darwin.
	And the least skeptical, the most fanciful, in terms of religion, are mathematicians.
	All right.
	First time caller on the line, you are on the air with Professor Cusco.
	Good morning.
	Hi, this is Charlie in Seattle, and I got a question and a comment for Professor Bart.
	All right.
	He was talking about cloning a little while ago, and I want to ask him, if I was to clone you, Professor, would your clone have the same soul as you?
	Well, it would have the same psychic capacity and behavioral capacity, I think, that you call the soul.
	Now, these are terms of art, or terms of last resort, terms like soul and mind.
	We try to define them.
	We can't.
	We give some behavioral attributes.
	We don't really have it.
	It's the same thing again in miniature.
	If we look at the watch, the watch stops moving, and where did the motion go?
	This kind of animism projected.
	But don't forget, if you really had a soul, you've got a big problem, because it doesn't obey laws.
	A ghost in a machine is a very dangerous thing.
	Okay, you guys were talking about just now about how they worshiped the gods back when mankind started, I guess?
	Yes.
	And what I find weird is like back, way back, they started out like worshiping a bunch of gods, and up until now, it narrowed down to one god.
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah, there's kind of an efficiency there.
	What's that?
	There is a kind of efficiency, a kind of competitive influence among gods, and they coalesce into one, like many physical forces into one.
	Yeah.
	Monotheism has been the trend, that's right.
	All right, thank you.
	Again, I'm getting reports from Janie in Edmond, Texas.
	Art, there are a bunch of light balls flying near the coast.
	You can see them even with the street lights.
	Is there some sort of meteor shower tonight?
	There's some kind of mass sighting going on in northern Mexico and the southern U.S.
	You might want to take a look.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Dr. Bart Kosko.
	Hi.
	Good morning.
	Good morning, Art.
	Yes, good morning.
	You know, it's an honor to be on your show.
	Thank you.
	Where are you?
	I'm in Minneapolis, KSTP 1500.
	Alright.
	And, you know, it's a really honor, really amazing topic going on here.
	Well then, contribute.
	Do you have a question?
	It reminds me of that movie, Demolition Man.
	And, you know, it's kind of the perfect scenario.
	The guy gets woken up from the cryo-freeze and he's the same guy he was before, you know?
	He's perfectly intact.
	He can actually run after he's unfrozen, which is just completely unrealistic.
	Is it, Doctor, completely unrealistic that you would be cryogenically frozen, chronically
	revived?
	I'm sorry, I'm never going to get that right.
	Chronically frozen and then 100, 200 years from now revived and whatever was wrong is
	now fixed.
	You're either uploaded, or your body is now perpetually healthy.
	They've managed to do something about immortality.
	Several things.
	Whatever.
	This movie is an interesting movie.
	Wesley Snipes is the bad guy, and he's frozen, and the cop goes after him, so Wesley's alone.
	They both come back, but the caller is correct.
	I mean, it's unrealistic to think you'd pop right out, and five minutes later, resume where you left off.
	Right.
	But to your point, though, Art, whether you would have your old capabilities, Remember this, though.
	Most of us think that the way it will work is if you save part of your tissue, like your brain, that will reclone the body from the head stump, if you really want the body.
	And so it's not so much keeping the little parts around, because after all, the kind of nanotechnology or molecular engineering you'll need to fix the eye's damage and do a lot of other things at the cell level for the brain, that trivializes the science involved to grow a body back from the DNA material.
	Isn't that going to be Is it concurrently possible or even possible before the uploading of a brain, that is to say, growing a new arm, leg, liver, heart, individual organs?
	I think for transplant it will, but if you lose your arm and you want to see it kind of grow back versus three inches long and it grows out to the full size, I think that will take longer and just because information is so efficient and working with matter and flesh is so relatively inefficient that I would bet on the information technology happening first.
	All right.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Good morning.
	Yes.
	Hello, Art and Dr. Kosko.
	I started out with two questions, but I think you've already answered the first.
	It was a brief one, basically on your theological beliefs, but I believe I've heard enough to kind of get an idea there.
	I can say everything about theology in two words.
	No evidence.
	All right.
	Your second question is?
	Well, my second question was more of an essay question to let you kind of go off into the wild blue yonder.
	I was wondering what your thoughts were on the possibility of these, I believe you said sugar cube sized brain repositories or mind repositories, possibly being the start of a true diaspora.
	Where individuals could transfer into this with whatever kind of, you know, maybe possibly nuclear, who knows what, power source, small vessels, and spread in all directions from the Earth and basically explore, who knows, the universe.
	I think you touched on a wonderful word, the diaspora.
	I think that once we're, for example, doing time in a bottle of liquid nitrogen, whoever of you out there, join me in the thousands who signed up to do that, we sort of are people without a home, without a country, maybe without a society.
	We are a great diaspora of nothing but suspended minds.
	And so once you bring them back in whatever form, information form, And you may very well not want to inhabit a body or bounce around up to Mars or have copies as backup on Mars or somewhere else.
	And that could over time look like a spread of almost a disease or some kind of new life form throughout the solar system, maybe beyond.
	You could certainly, for example, take the information in these chips and just shoot it up in a bit stream into deep space.
	So maybe that's our key to eventual interstellar travel, eh?
	Never thought about it that way.
	Well, lots of material to do another program.
	What a pleasure it has been to have you here.
	You've held up after a three-hour lecture, and then coming on here and doing what?
	A four-hour lecture, virtually.
	You're holding up pretty well at this time of the morning.
	You must be a late... You must be a night person.
	I typically am.
	It's been a lot of fun.
	I appreciate it.
	Thank you very much.
	Good night, Doctor.
	Good night.
	Let me just take one second to mention that we have massive sightings And I mean massive sightings going on during the program.
	In fact, right now, people are still seeing these things out across the entire Southwest U.S.
	Now, we are hampered here in the desert by, believe it or not, clouds.
	We have clouds out there.
	Dammit!
	So, I'm going to depend on a lot of you out there to grab your cameras, grab your Video cameras with night shot.
	Grab whatever you've got that will capture the images and send them to me.
	And no doubt tomorrow night we'll have something of a discussion of what's been going on tonight.
	I'm a little sheltered in here, but I do have access to a lot of information, and I'm telling you, we've been getting hundreds of reports.
	So something's happening out there.
	We'll find out, no doubt, by tomorrow what it was.
	For tonight, I'm Art Bell.
	That's it from the high desert.

▲