Art Bell

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 15, 2003 - Art Bell

02:51:05

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Nanotechnology and Fuzzy Logic - Peter Davenport - Bart Kosko

Participants

Main voices

53:57

bart kosko

53:15

john lear

08:56

peter davenport

19:34

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
art bell ▲ ● ▼		American Southwest.
		Indeed, it is.
		I mid-year, good evening, afternoon, morning, whatever the case may be, in whatever time zone of this great world of ours you're in.
		I'm Mark Bell, and this is the weekend edition of Post to Post.
		And it is an honor to be here with you and sharing with you what I did in the past week with my webcam photograph.
		If you'd care to go take a look.
		Five years ago, my wife and I decided we will splurge and we will get, maybe six years ago, you know, get an HD TV, one of those new HD TVs, and they brought me a new one, a real, real, real expensive one that many years ago.
		And we put it in the living room, turned it on, and in 30 minutes, it took 30 minutes, the tube went dark and the TV died.
		And they said, well, Mr. Bell, we don't know how to work on it.
		And we don't have any schematics for it.
		And it's all new and we don't know what to do.
		I said, well, I'll tell you what to do.
		Take it back to the store and bring me the following.
		And I got a regular old TV and I said, oh, yeah, I'll try again in another five or six years.
		And so that's what I did this last week.
		We got a Hitachi HD TV and all the associated paraphernalia, including new surround sound system and all the cool stuff.
		HD TV receiver, you know, from satellite.
unidentified		I mean, it is unbelievable.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Unbelievable.
		HD TV is amazing.
		Anyway, so that's what I did all week long and murdered my back in the process.
		I had to take out this old monster TV, you know, and behind it there were 10,000 wires.
		10,000 wires at least, which I had to virtually rip apart, then redo the whole system.
		It was really pretty cool, but it was a stress upon my aged back.
		All right, tonight is going to be a very busy night.
		I assume you've watched Miss BroCon Jennings and such and know what's going on in the world, so I won't burden you with that.
		Except to say, and by the way, in about an hour, I'll change that webcam photo.
		So if you want to see it, you'll notice my cat found it right away, and he's sleeping right there on top of a satellite receiver because it's warm.
		So there you go.
		That's the picture up there right now.
		About half an hour, I'm going to change it to John Hutchinson's porch.
		He sent me a picture of his porch.
		He says his neighbors are hassling him because of his porch.
		And I must admit, John, that as much stuff as I have around, I have nothing, buddy, that rivals your porch.
		So I'll put that picture up in, I don't know, next hour or something.
		People can see it.
		Do you agree with John's neighbors or do you agree with John?
		I don't think his neighbors are wild about the whole thing.
		When you see, you'll understand.
		But boy, I thought I had a lot of equipment.
		And then coming up in a moment is, and it's been a long time, Peter Davenport from the UFO Reporting Center in Seattle.
		And we've got a couple of witnesses for you coming up.
		So that's going to be very interesting.
		Then I've got a surprise for Mr. Davenport.
		It's sort of our reunion surprise here.
		You may remember the program with John Lear, right?
		And you remember that spectacular 10 minutes.
		Well, we're going to give, you know, I figure Peter Davenport is a major force in this country for openness, right?
		So we're going to give him the John Lear test.
		I've got that segment from the John Lear program.
		So we're going to give him the John Lear test.
		And then my next guest, Bart Costco, a brilliant guy himself, I asked him to listen as well so we can get his opinion as well.
		He'll be the second guest of the evening.
		We're going to shuffle times around a little bit.
		So all of that beginning in a moment.
		A. A. A. The End You know, actually, the John Lear interview affected me, that portion of it, when he asked me that question so profoundly that I have a copy of that segment, which I'm going to be playing for Peter later.
		And, you know, we're going to get his answer.
		And I'm going to do this to a few other guests, too.
		I'm going to call it the Lear test.
		It was so, so profound.
		So we'll give Peter Davenport the Lear test in a moment.
		Peter Davenport actually is director of the National UFO Reporting Center, has worked as a college instructor, a commercial fisherman, a Russian translator in the Soviet Union.
		That's a story in itself.
		A fisheries observer aboard Soviet fishing vessels, a flight instructor, and a businessman.
		Peter was the founding president of a Seattle-based biotech company, which currently employs over 300 scientists and technicians.
		In 1986, he was candidate for the Washington State Legislature and 1992, candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.
		Political ambitions.
		Peter has an active interest in the UFO phenomena, as you must know from his early childhood.
		He experienced his first UFO sighting over the St. Louis Municipal Airport in the summer of 1954, investigated his first UFO case during the summer of 65 in Exeter, New Hampshire.
		Peter has been witness to several anomalous events, possibly UFO-related, including a dramatic sighting over Baja, California.
		In February of 1990, several nighttime sightings over Washington State during 92.
		In addition to being the director of the National UFO Reporting Center, Peter has served as the director of investigations for the Washington chapter of the Mutual UFO Network.
		Here is Peter Davenport.
		Hey, Peter.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Good evening, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Good evening to you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're off on a little vacation or something somewhere or what?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		I'm at a conference down near Branson, Missouri, down in the southwest Corner of Missouri, a conference called the Tri-Lakes Conference, put on by the Museum of the Unexplained, not too far from the famous Branson, Missouri, just north of there.
		And I am one of several speakers.
		Stan Friedman has spoken, John Greenwalt.
		They're just any number of speakers here, and I'm one of several.
		It's been a wonderful conference, and we've shared a lot of interesting information with our audience.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you're going to have to speak up good and loud for me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Our phone connection is so so.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		God only knows what this telephone is like.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Is that better?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, actually, it is quite a bit better.
		Thank you.
		Yeah, so Peter, you're at conference, and the atmosphere then would be just right for what we're about to do.
		This is how recent a case you and I are about to talk about.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Well, let me say, first of all, I'm delighted to be back.
		It's great to hear your voice.
		I think over the years, Art, you and I, in my opinion, we have done some pretty exciting radio together on the subject of UFOs.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yes.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		We have covered some of the most interesting cases that I think have come into the National UFO Reporting Center over the last nine years.
		I could name a number of them, but obviously the one at the top of the list was the Phoenix Lights case that we did back in March of 1997.
		Thanks to your program and you, we had that information before God only knows how many millions or tens of millions of Americans.
		Before an hour had passed after the end of that dramatic sighting.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You are, of course, correct.
		Maybe in retrospect now, with historical perspective, Peter, you could tell me how it was that you and I had that.
		It was a major event.
		You and I knew it.
		Everyone knew we had a major event on our hands.
		But the press dropped the ball big time.
		And then I can't remember, Peter, maybe you can.
		It seemed like it was about a month or two or three later.
		I mean, several months later, it's like, oh, it broke in the press.
		Like, wow, this just happened in Phoenix.
		Well, it didn't just happen.
		It was months earlier.
		What happened to the American press?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		You know, people are shocked by the UFO phenomenon.
		They find it hard to believe.
		I am no less shocked by the American press and how stupid those people act in some instances.
		It was June 18th.
		It was Wednesday when the big news finally hit in USA Today.
		And then, of course, everybody had to follow suit.
		And that's when it broke, about nine or ten weeks after the event had occurred.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
		I mean, what accounts for that?
		I mean, did some, I don't know, guru behind some giant oak desk somewhere decide, okay, time for this story.
		We're going to hit him with a big UFO story.
		Let's hit him with a big UFO story.
		I mean, what the hell happened?
		How could there have been that delay?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		That confuses me, too, Art.
		You know, a lot of people would say, well, it's because the press is controlled.
		Controlled in a sense, perhaps.
		It's very difficult for me to understand how you could control tens of thousands of individuals who contribute various articles in the press.
		But certainly there was something at work there that kept the press from handling that case, even addressing it at all.
		We, the day after the event, I called the UPI office down in Los Angeles.
		They wouldn't cover it.
		I called all the major newspapers across the country, and they said, well, why haven't we seen it over the wire services?
		And that's because the wire services would not take the report.
		It's one of the most bizarre things I've ever encountered in my 55 years on this planet.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Anyway, that's why we have this program.
		I don't know what the rest of them are up to, but here we're on it.
		And as we're on what we're about to do right now.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Well, I'm really pleased to be on tonight in general, but also because I think we have a case that we'll be discussing for the next hour or more that is no less dramatic than the many that you and I have done in the past.
		We have some excellent witnesses standing by.
		Before we bring the first one on from Brookline, Mass near Boston, I would like to give just a very brief preface so our audience understands what happened just a week ago tonight.
		November 8th, the whole thing occurred during the lunar eclipse.
		I suspect we had millions and millions of Americans standing outside looking at the night sky, looking at that eclipsed moon when this event took place.
		But in short, based on what I would consider to be preliminary evidence at this point, we hope to get more reports, and that's one of the things I hope we get to do with this program, one of the things we achieve.
		But at the time of the lunar eclipse last Saturday night, a cluster of objects, it appears, streaked down across New England.
		It appears to have come down the coast of Maine.
		The cluster passed over Brookline, Massachusetts, out in the west end of Boston.
		That's going to be our first witness tonight, a gentleman who's standing by, I hope.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, he is.
		He is.
		I've got him right here.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		He got a very, very good look at that object with his two children.
		Then the object moved west over Massachusetts.
		It apparently turned south to the west of, I think, North Grafton, Massachusetts.
		It streaked down.
		It or they, I don't know whether we're talking about one object or a cluster of up to 30 objects, streaked down across Connecticut.
		They went across New York City and then down across New Jersey.
		I just got a report this evening.
		I just checked the hotline up in Seattle just not half an hour ago.
		And there's another report from Florida for last weekend.
		The objects may have gone all the way down to Florida.
		We have similar reports from Ontario, Canada, and from Colorado Springs.
		The objects may have been just east of the U.S. Air Force Academy out in Colorado Springs.
		But that in a thumbnail is just a brief description of the reports that we've received up in Seattle so far.
		We hope to get more.
		But that is what happened last Saturday night, the 8th of November.
		With that, if we could, I'd like to bring on our guest from Brookline, Massachusetts in Boston.
		Jeffrey is his name, I believe.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hey, Jeffrey.
unidentified		I'm here.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're here, good.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're in Boston?
unidentified		Brookline, which is its own town just west of Boston, actually enclosed partially in Boston.
		I'm about a mile from Fenway Park.
		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Exactly.
		What were the circumstances and what did you see?
unidentified		So it was the night of the eclipse.
		And I want to point out that I live in a very densely populated neighborhood.
		And I went out to the schoolyard right near my house to get a better view of the eclipse because I wanted to get away from some street lights.
		And we were facing east, and the eclipse is coming up.
		And just sort of north of the moon, my daughter, who's 12, said, what's that up in the sky there, that string of lights?
		And we saw a little cluster of lights.
		And if I held my arm out full length, it was maybe about as much as the length of my thumb, a little cluster of lights that looked like the letter J or like a fish hook almost in the sky.
		And the lights were of moderate magnitude.
		They weren't brighter than the brightest star and not as dim as the dimmest star, somewhere like a moderate brightness star.
		And we were trying to keep our eye on the moon because it was just about the beginning of the total eclipse, right about 8 o'clock Eastern Time.
		And the lights just kept kind of drifting closer to us and closer to us.
		They never quite got overhead, but pretty close, until the cluster of lights looked more like maybe like a third of a circle, sort of a boomerang shape.
		And it was close enough that we could actually count the individual lights, and there were probably about 30 of them.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you have any immediate impression, Jeffrey, of what you were seeing while it was going on?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Did you say to yourself, oh, that's a whatever?
unidentified		No, in fact, I kept saying, I'm seeing something, I don't know what it is, which kept me watching it.
unidentified		You know, because I always think that the U in UFO is unidentified.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, it is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Was there any form whatsoever beyond the form generated by the lights themselves?
unidentified		I couldn't see anything at all behind it.
		And the lights didn't flash.
		And what was interesting of many things was there was no sound.
		It was totally silent.
		And it got to be not quite overhead and then just kind of banked slightly in the sky and then headed towards the southwest.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, another question.
		I'm sorry.
		Did it impact you that I'm seeing a ship, an aircraft, or was it your impression these were separate lights in a formation?
unidentified		No, it seemed to me, as much as I could tell, that they were lights that were of one entity.
		Okay.
		Because they stayed in the same formation.
		We probably looked at this from the time my daughter first pointed out to me until it drifted far away over the trees, probably about three minutes that I got to be watching this.
		And so the lights didn't move apart or change in orientation to each other as far as I could tell.
		And what's interesting also is that I can't find anyone else who saw it.
		And I have lots of friends who are out looking at the eclipse, including a whole crew of people who are on a hill in a park about two miles away who didn't see it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that's very odd.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Now, to you, does that mean that these lights were that close to you that they would not have seen it, do you suppose?
unidentified		That's a good hypothesis as any.
unidentified		My guess is, too, thinking about it, that they were probably about the height of a very, very tall building, like a skyscraper, so maybe a thousand feet up or something.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Uh-huh.
		That's pretty close, all right.
		So they moved then away from you at, I don't know, it's hard to guess speeds, of course, but I mean, were they moving fast?
unidentified		No, it wasn't streaking across the sky.
		It was drifting the way that, you know, one of the things I thought it was, or I tried to think it was, was perhaps like a flock of geese, except, of course, there were lights.
		But it had that motion, that sort of movement of speed that you would see birds moving across the sky, so not incredibly fast at all, no streakiness.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's pretty odd.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And from that point, then you lost sight of these lights, Jeffrey?
unidentified		Yeah, but it took a while because it was just drifting away over the trees in the distance until it finally was, you know, beyond sight.
		But we watched it for, you know, as I said, probably up to about three minutes from when we first saw it.
		And actually, I went inside, and the first thing I did was called the Boston Globe to just say if anyone else out there saw these lights, that I was another witness to them just in case, you know, they wanted to know that other people saw them.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Down King Sarah, thank you for the report.
unidentified		Yeah, it was kind of like that.
unidentified		One of the things that's been interesting to me as I ask people about this, and I've actually done a little research talking to people in the FAA, and all is that actually no one out there actually listens much, so it's been interesting to find anyone to actually listen and try to make sense of it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What do you think you saw, Jeffrey?
unidentified		Oh, that's that you and unidentified.
unidentified		I don't know.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So a good subjective report.
		All right, Jeffrey, thank you for coming on the program.
		You're welcome.
		Take care.
		All right, Peter, there's Jeffrey.
		And what I picked from that was a completely unbiased person, not anybody even into ufology, just a straight-on report.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
		The most noteworthy thing in my book is that he did not come to a conclusion.
		Clearly, that is difficult or even impossible to do based on the data he has.
		But you'll note that he called the press.
		That's a good sign from the vantage point of a UFO investigator.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How'd he get to you?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		I think he found us on the website.
		If I'm not mistaken, if you go to Google and you type in the letters UFO, do a search.
		There are about 1.3 million websites dedicated to ufology.
		And unless things have changed in the last three or Four days, I think we're number one.
		We're at the top of the list.
		So it's not too difficult for people to find the National UFO Reporting Center these days.
		So he found us on the web, and he did exactly the right thing.
		He called the FAA, he called the newspaper, which, as you heard, is almost a waste of time.
		The irony of this case, we started talking about the press at the beginning of this program.
		The irony of this case is that these objects, and we're going to hear another very, very interesting witness who got an even better sighting of them over New York City.
		These objects went over the Boston Globe, probably, the building in Boston.
		They went over the New York Times building in New York City.
		And so far as I am aware, I've been out of touch on the road for about four days now, but so far as I am aware, not a peep in either of those two newspapers or anywhere else in the Presset kingdom.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, this whole aspect of it, Peter, is a particularly interesting aspect.
		And that's why the Lear test, which I'm going to apply a little bit later in the program, I just couldn't resist.
		I mean, Peter Davenport, absolutely a voice for openness and release of information.
		He goes out and gathers witnesses like the ones you're hearing tonight.
		Why, my gracious, somebody like that is just made for the John, what I'm going to call the Lear test.
		That 10 minutes of test.
		From the high desert, I'm Mark Bell, and this is Post to Post AM.
		Roaring through the night like a freight train.
unidentified		Stay right there.
		To rechart bell in the Kingdom of Nye, from west of the Rockies, dial 1-800-618-8255.
		East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
		First-time callers may rechart at 1-775-727-1222.
		Or use the wildcard line at 1-775-727-1295.
		To rechart on the toll-free international line, call your AT ⁇ T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with our bell on the Premier Radio Network.
		Indeed, it is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We're discussing a sighting in the Northeast that Peter compares to the sighting down in Arizona.
		Certainly not in the number of witnesses, although maybe many of you saw it on that night when the moon disappeared.
		So many were out last week watching the moon disappear that surely if it was a really big event, many of you out there saw it.
		You'll have an opportunity to join in on the reporting, courtesy of Peter, in a moment.
		Don't forget, I want to be giving Peter the Lear test shortly.
		that's going to be incredibly interesting all directly ahead.
unidentified		you Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right, we're discussing some dramatic sightings over New England and the eastern seaboard during the lunar eclipse just last Saturday here once again as Peter Davenport.
		And Peter, I've got another variant of a Jeffrey here for you.
		In this case, it's going to be Jeff.
		And where is Jeff?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Jeff is in New York City, and we'll go to him in a second.
		A couple things I'd like to interject here briefly is Jeffrey up in Boston just described to us how he saw these 30 or so little lights the size of stars moving from east to west.
		We've also talked to a witness from Grafton or North Grafton, Massachusetts, which is about, I guess, 40 or 50 miles out west of Boston.
		The people there saw the objects streak across the sky from horizon to horizon, from again east to west in about 15 seconds.
		So between Boston and 40 or 50 miles to the west, they apparently had accelerated.
		We also have a witness from Newington, Connecticut.
		I've looked at a map.
		It appears to be sort of a southern community just to the south of Hartford, Connecticut.
		People saw the objects in the eastern sky from the Hartford area.
		And our next witness got a very good eyeball on these things with many, many other witnesses from the top of, I think, an eight-story building or perhaps higher.
		With that, why don't we go to our witness in New York City now and listen to what his description is of apparently the same object?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hello, Jeff, New York City, huh?
unidentified		Hi, yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi, okay.
		Let's hear it.
		What did you see?
		How did it come down?
unidentified		Well, basically, a friend of mine lives in a building that has roof access, so he invited a bunch of people up to the roof, which I believe is the 11th or 12th floor of a building in Manhattan.
		And we're basically on 23rd Street on the west side of Manhattan.
		There were about 12 of us up there.
		And we were standing on the roof looking east, basically, at the moon, at the eclipse.
		And we got up there at about 7.30 p.m. or so.
		And I remember the first time we saw something that was not the econom that was interesting, that wasn't the eclipse, was somewhere around 10 to 8, or possibly around 8 o'clock, when several of us noticed this V-shaped formation that was flying across the sky from north to south.
		And at first glance, it looked like a very high-flying flock of birds, just kind of drifting noiselessly from the north to the south, several points of light just kind of gently gliding down the sky.
		And we all kind of looked at it, and it looked a little strange because it was so high.
		And we watched it kind of just disappear and, you know, kind of remarked to each other how strange it was.
		And over the course of the next hour or so, we saw several different formations go across the sky, all north to south, and all very similar, meaning there were clusters of,
		I would say, between 15 and 30 lights going across the sky, some of them in what I would describe as sort of rigid formations, and others that were in formations that were sort of changing as they drifted across the sky.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		This sounds like an awfully major event, Jeff.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And how many of you saw all this?
unidentified		There were about 12 of us on the roof.
		And, you know, the phenomenon that we were looking at, whatever it was, was very peculiar to anyone seeing it.
		But it was pretty high up.
		It was something that you had to look pretty hard to see.
		It wasn't, you know, it was very obvious once you saw it, but somebody glancing up at the sky, you know, I don't think would have noticed it unless you were really looking for a while and knew what to look for.
		But we all agree that it was extremely bizarre.
		Nobody had any idea what it was.
		And there was one time that was extremely, one of them was really interesting.
		It was this formation that was going, and then it split into two different strands of lights and then reconnected.
		And that really kind of threw everybody for a loop because we've been theorizing a bunch of different possible explanations, but the fact that it reconnected sort of took any sort of accidental debris or whatever scenario that we were coming up with out of the equation, seemingly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		I'll tell you, Peter, what hits me and you too, Jeff.
		We have a day when, I mean, normally people don't go outside and they don't look at the starry sky.
		They just don't do it.
		They're busy with their lives and they're looking straight ahead if they're driving, if they're smart.
		And at home, you know, they're doing whatever they're doing, but they're not looking at the sky.
		And then we have these events where everybody goes outside and looks at the sky and lo and behold, almost every damn time we get UFO reports.
		Now, to me, that means we're not looking at the sky, and so maybe it's going on more or less almost all the time.
		And if not all the time, then a lot of the time, and the only time we see it is when we look up.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's my impression, too.
		It appears to me that we have UFOs in American airspace virtually every day.
		That statement is predicated on nine years of data that I've collected, working 8 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week, to provide the American people with a place to report these sightings.
		What we need them to do is actually report their sightings so we have more data, of course.
		It means more work, but that's the only way we're going to get to the bottom of this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, so many must have seen this, and if they have, we're going to give out a phone number and address where you can report it, and we can understand the magnitude of this incident.
		Jeff, thank you for being here, but I have one quick question.
		I mean, you said there were as many as 20 of you.
		After this experience, there are the 20 of you standing around.
		You must have talked and said to each other, well, okay, what the hell did we just see?
unidentified		We did.
		We were all very curious about it, to different extents.
		I was the most intrigued by it.
		Nobody had an explanation that seemed solid.
		Some people thought it was birds.
		And some people just didn't know what it was.
		One woman went downstairs and just said she didn't feel comfortable being out there.
		And I couldn't get it out of my head.
		And as we kind of went back downstairs and the conversation turned to other things, and I was a little surprised that most people weren't more interested in figuring out what it was.
		And I think part of it was an extremely odd phenomenon.
		But from what we saw, I think you really had to be thinking about what you were looking at to realize how strange it was.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, how did you get from that moment to Peter Davenport?
unidentified		Great question.
		I went home that night and I was thinking about it and I couldn't figure out what it was.
		And I woke up the next day and I actually had to go to work on Sunday.
		But I couldn't focus on doing anything.
		I was on the Internet just searching for search terms like formation, lights, New York City eclipse, trying to find any kind of reference to what I'd seen.
		And I didn't see anything that was referring to the night of the eclipse, but I saw several descriptions of sightings of similar types of objects on a website that turned out to be Peter's, right?
		And I was about to fill out an online submission, and I figured, well, I might as well just call him because the number was right there.
		And I called Peter, and we talked right away, and I'm glad I did.
		As Peter says, I would encourage anybody who's seen this to please report it because I just want to know what it was.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What is your attitude otherwise, Jeff, about UFOs?
unidentified		Well, I would describe myself as someone who's skeptical but open-minded at the same time.
		Up until I saw what I saw that night, I had never seen anything myself that I would describe as something that I couldn't explain.
		I've always been interested in this kind of thing.
		I've always been fascinated by astronomy.
		But I would say, you know, if I was flipping through the radio and I heard people talking about these kind of events, I don't know that I would dismiss it outright, but I just would have nothing to compare them to because I've never seen that myself.
		So obviously, when you're hearing someone describing seeing strange lights in the sky and you've never seen them before, it's difficult to judge credibility.
		But it was a really very strange experience for me to be standing there and saying, you know what, I'm seeing these things, and I need to find out what it is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You sound credible to me, and I want to thank you for coming on the radio program.
unidentified		Thank you for having me.
		I appreciate it.
		And, you know, I've got to say, up until this event, I'd never said anything like it before, but it was happening.
		It did happen, and, you know, we need to figure it out.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You'll have a new attitude now, Jeff.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Welcome to the club.
unidentified		Well, thank you very much.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		See you later.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		That was very nice.
		And so there you go.
		So again, Peter, if people went out every night or every other night or so because CNN was saying, oh, something incredible is happening in the heavens, then it's my real, honest to gosh, Peter, it's my impression we'd get almost daily UFO sightings by mass numbers of witnesses.
		And so that might mean that they really are visiting a whole lot more frequently than we believe them to be.
		Gee, you'd think the military would have radar reports and chase planes would be dispatched, and they're pretty sensitive about stuff, you know, over New England and certainly over New York.
		They really take a dim view of unidentified things in our skies these days, one would think.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		They certainly do, and certainly would, and I think they did in July of last year, Art.
		There was a dramatic sighting over the Washington, D.C. area, and they scrambled four, at least four F-16 fighters out of Andrews Air Force Base, which is just about 20 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. Celebrated case, I think it was July 16th or 17th.
		I'm going on memory now of 2002.
		People can see the reports on our website, but the people in the vicinity of Andrews Air Force Base were awakened in the wee hours of the morning by the F-16s going out of Andrews on Afterburner.
		It wakes everybody up for counties around, of course.
		And people went outside standing in their robes and they saw F-16s chasing a little ball of red light across the sky that was making the F-16s look like they were standing still by comparison.
		I think our government does get concerned about these.
		And last December, I was talking to a senior gentleman in the Federal Aviation Administration back in Washington.
		He admitted to me that their offices were aware of that event over Washington just over a year ago, and they were intrigued by it.
		That was the term he used.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, but if this were made public, I mean, let's think about this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wouldn't a report that a bunch of F-16s had been chasing a little ball of red light which was outpacing them like they were standing still, to me, that sounds like a story that would have a lot of impact on the evening news.
unidentified		People would go, wow, really?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		At least.
		That's a big story, right?
		How come it didn't hit the national news?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Isn't that an interesting question?
		And I have no adequate answer, but there's something wrong with the news in the United States of America.
		These people who write the ink and produce the television script of what they call news are not covering real news.
		And it is very disturbing to me because a free people who have to vote to select their leaders and choose the issues that their government is going to face have to have access to accurate, meaningful data before they can make those decisions.
		And we're getting anything but that, I feel, through our press today, certainly with respect to the UFO phenomenon.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And if it were up to you, Peter, no matter what the truth might be, would you say that the American people should be told that truth, whatever it might be?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		I have struggled with that question for decades, Art.
		And every time I run it through the processor, I come up with the same conclusion, which is the responsibility of our government is to apprise us of this, irrespective of however good or however bad or however uncertain the outcome may be or may appear to be to our government.
		They have a clear-cut, unambiguous, unavoidable responsibility to share the truth with the American people.
		Now, maybe they know something terrible about our future.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, all right, but what about this aspect, Peter?
		Just suppose the truth was so terrible and there was so nothing we can do about it that to announce it, since we don't know all the facts, and you've got to agree we don't know all the facts, that this truth was so terrible that to release it would do way more harm than good, in the sense that some people would panic.
		I mean, who knows what the nature of the news really is?
		Maybe John Lear knows, but just suppose it was that bad, wouldn't you have to weigh, you know, possibly costing a lot of lives against information which you couldn't do anything about?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Certainly a plausible and reasonable argument, Art, but I'm opposed to it nevertheless for the following reason.
		Let's say they know the worst of the worst.
		Namely, let's say that the planet is going to be destroyed on some date certain in the future.
		I argue that irrespective of whatever the outcome of this may be, They have to let us know.
		One of the points I made during my lecture today here at the conference in Missouri was that we should challenge the government's position of secrecy on this on the basis of a First Amendment violation.
		Clearly, the UFO phenomenon has to do or might pertain to the issue of religion.
		If our government knows information that might be used to formulate our religious views of the galaxy we live in, the government therefore has a responsibility to us to give us that information, allowing us to exercise our First Amendment freedom of religion.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Maybe they're trying to keep the separation of church and state intact.
		i don't know what they might think i if it would Now, look, I sit here, and for years I've talked to people throughout the Bible, built very strong fundamentalist believers in the Bible, and it's literal word, Peter.
		And I can assure you from the fast blasts, from the emails, from the communications I get, these people are without equivocation, without any, they're at,
		And I've sort of joked before when I said if the saucer landed and the thing came down and the little alien came down the ramp, he'd be so full of fundamentalist lead before he hit the bottom that, well, you laugh, but I'm telling you, Peter, it's true.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Little round lead pellets, there's no doubt about it.
		However, I am not a biblical scholar, Art, but I would counter their argument by pointing out to them, for example, the passage in Luke 21, 11 that talks about strange things coursing in the skies above planet Earth during the final days.
		If our government knows the outcome, let's say, and I do believe to a certain degree that a lot of the teachings of the Bible are probably accurate or give us the best gauge of how we should conduct ourselves and what our future may be in this galaxy.
		I believe that this phenomenon actually verifies the contents that we read in the Bible, and therefore it is a biblical or certainly a religious phenomenon in some respects.
		One of the things I've argued for for years is that biblical and religious scholars should be included at the core of the UFO debate.
		We could learn from them what the relationship between the UFO phenomenon and religion or biblical teachings may be.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You've run for high office a couple times, Peter, so you can imagine a choice where you might be told things that you didn't or couldn't or wouldn't believe are true, but are so terrible that that truth was late.
		When we come back, I want to give you the John Lear test about whether or not you'd release the information.
		So hold tight, Peter.
		We're at the top of the hour, and when we come back, we'll give that a shot, all right?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		All right, I look forward to it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, oh, good.
		He did not originally hear this, so this will be coming to him out of the cold, and it's my little surprise for Peter.
		But I thought that the test, the questions, the information John Lear had to give, it's only about 10 minutes long, are so profound that Peter should put himself in the position of an elected leader.
		That's it, Peter.
		You've been elected.
		Vote's been cast.
		You're in office.
		And you're about to be told the truth.
		and it'll be your decision about whether to tell the American people or not.
unidentified		The American people or not.
		The American people or not.
		Wanna take a ride?
		Call Art Bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
		East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
		First-time callers may reach ART at area code 775-727-1222.
		Or call the wildcard line at 775-727-1295.
		To talk with ART on the toll-free international line, call your AT ⁇ T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And this is going to be very, very interesting.
		Listen, at this hour I was due to have Bart Cusco on, and he will be on.
		He's going to be listening to what I'm going to do right now in a moment.
		We're going to imagine Peter Davenport was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.
		He did, in fact, run.
		But let's imagine that he gets elected.
		And Peter, your assignment is to listen to the briefing that's coming up.
		That's right.
		This is going to be a briefing for your ears only.
		And after you hear the facts, and I'm going to ask you to assume these facts are true, whether you believe them or not, for the purpose of the following test.
		Listen really carefully to the facts that you're about to hear, and then it will be your decision, as Representative Davenport, to release the information.
		On your word, this information would be released to the American public, but I want you to listen very carefully to what's coming up in a moment, which I have dubbed the Lear test.
unidentified		The End One more time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		For the purpose of the following test, I would like Peter to, if he could, just sit back, listen, and assume that you are being briefed by the highest government officials you can imagine.
		So, every word you're about to hear is the truth.
		It will be your decision about whether or not to release the information to the American public.
		Ready, Peter?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		I am standing by.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Here it comes.
		So, okay, let's say the government chose me.
		They were going to use me as an outlet to release this information.
		Let's just say they did that and they took me to a briefing.
		Then what, John?
john lear ▲ ● ▼		Okay, we whisked you to, or they whisked you to Washington, D.C. You get limoed to this building, beautiful building.
		You go up into this room.
		They say, Art, you're the guy.
		If you give us the go-ahead, we're going to release everything we know to the public.
		And if you decide to go ahead, all major networks will be provided with information on all aspects of the cover-up.
		No type of information will be withheld because of the deal for immunity for all participants of the cover-up provides that nothing, no artifact, no piece of information be withheld.
		So here's what happened, Art.
		And of course, this will use some videos and stills.
		Our first UFO recoveries were in the late 30s.
		We made a couple in the beginning of the 40s, and then came Roswell, which the public found out about.
		We got two live aliens from Oswell.
		One died shortly thereafter, one lived until 1956.
		And we found out that so far there are 18 different alien species that we know about monitoring Earth.
		Some are good, some are hostile, most are indifferent.
		We found out that we are the experiment or product, if you will, of an alien race who we never met and really don't know who they are.
		All we know is that the grays are cybernetic organisms, glorified robots, if you will, who work here at the behest of their employers monitoring us through abductions.
		We were never able to find out what the experiment is all about, except that we have been externally corrected about 65 times and they, the aliens, refer to us as containers.
		There has been speculation that the souls our bodies contains is the reason for the experiment, but nothing has been proven or determined.
		Since 1938, we have lost over 200 aircraft to UFO hostilities and thousands of soldiers in all kinds of different kinds of action with aliens.
		Since that time, several hundred thousand civilians have disappeared with no trace.
		Several thousand were eliminated by us because of their chance encounters with aliens, which we could ill afford to have publicized.
		A slightly more frightening phenomena known as human mutilations have occurred on a regular basis and are similar to the cattle mutilations in that the humans or humans are taken from the street, so to speak, and returned to the same area about 45 minutes to an hour later where their rectums cored out, their genitals removed, their eyes removed from their sockets, and completely drained of blood.
		In all cases, it appears that the mutilation procedures occurred while the persons were still alive and conscious.
		One of our scientists speculates that apparently the human specimens had to be alive for the samples to be worth anything.
		Abductions occur on a daily basis throughout the United States to at least 10% of the population.
		And when we first became aware of this, we protested to the little gray being that we held into captivity at the YY-2 facility in Los Alamos.
		But a deal was struck that in exchange for advanced technology from the aliens, we would allow them to abduct a very small number of persons, and we would be periodically given a list of those persons abducted.
		We got something less than the technology we bargained for and found that the abductions exceeded by a millionfold what we had naively agreed to.
		In 1954, President Eisenhower met with a representative of another alien species at Mirock Test Center, which is now called Edwards Air Force Base.
		This alien suggested that they could help us get rid of the grave, but Eisenhower turned down their offer because they offered no technology.
		At this point, it became apparent to all involved that there was no such thing as a God, at least as the public perceives God.
		Certainly some kind of computer recorder stores information, and an occasional miracle is displayed by the aliens to influence a religious event.
		So this so unnerved Eisenhower that he had, in God We Trust, put on paper money and coins and put into the Pledge of Allegiance to reaffirm the public belief in God.
		Shortly after this, it was determined at meetings between the U.S. and Russians that the situation was serious enough that a Cold War should be manufactured as a ruse to divert attention of the public away from UFOs and towards some other scary threat, the H-bomb.
		It was also decided to keep the ruse secret from any elected or appointed official within both the U.S. and Russian government as long as it took so long to vet these officials and the ruse was easier to manage if the top people didn't know about it.
		In the late 1950s, NASA was formed to compartmentalize, containerize, and sanitize information from all space platforms and vehicles.
		We sold NASA to the public, claiming that all information would belong to them.
		Actually, they got very little, and even that was highly sanitized.
		Our first efforts were to keep the public from learning about Venus and that it's a similar planet to Earth and that its population is very similar to us, but more technologically advanced.
		We have learned a lot from them.
		Starting with the Russian Venera 1 and U.S. Mariner 2, we made Venus look like a lead-melting volcanic surface spewing sulfuric acid into a pressurized atmosphere 90 times that of Earth.
		And was often the case, we overdid it and wondered why no one ever asked how a parachute survived a descent into 800-degree air.
		We set up operations in Pine Gap, Australia to preclude any prying eyes trying to figure out what we were up to.
		We regularly eliminated, through extreme prejudice, anybody who was part of the operation and made the least little tiny threat about disclosure or satisfaction with the operation.
		Any space mission that included Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Mariner, Voyager, Clementine, and all the rest, all data initially came transmitted to PineGap, and then it was relayed to JPL or wherever after the sanitizing.
		We had a little trouble with amateur radio operators, but we figured out when they figured out how they could intercept these signals, but we managed to deal with that.
		When the Russian threat began to fade, we introduced Vietnam, which kept the public occupied for over 10 years.
		The cover-up in the Personnel to run the operation began to get bigger and bigger and required more and more money.
		We were enforced to inflate the defense budget, which soon was not enough.
		Then we got into the drug business, which was still not enough.
		We were the ones that looted the savings and loan industry and Wall Street to boot.
		It is so out of control now, most people want immunity and want out.
		But there is so much secrecy and so many double and triple blinds in place that it is unlikely that this thing can ever be dismantled.
		And even if you give us the go-ahead to spill the beans to the public, it's unlikely they will get anything more than, yes, we recovered a flying saucer, and yes, there was an occupant, but that's all we're going to tell you.
		So go ahead and roll the tape for Mr. Bell.
		What you see here are the human mutilations look like.
		That one was a male about 27 years old.
		Now that film is of dead aliens being pulled from the wreckage of their craft that crashed in Atlanta, California in the 50s.
		That craft you see over there was over 250 feet in diameter and had to be buried on the spot.
		That site is in Utah near Dugway Proving Grounds.
		The object that you're looking at now is the Kexburg Acorn, which was brought to Wright Pat in the middle 60s.
		There's Frank Drake trying to force information out of a being tied down to that stretcher.
		He was supposedly from Tal City.
		These pictures you're looking at now are the structures on the moon.
	That's the tower in Sinus Medai.
	It's over seven miles tall.
	And that thing there is what we call the Colossus of Agurum in Mary Kusayam.
	We don't know what it does, but the machine itself is bigger than Brooklyn, New York.
	Now those are videos of the domes covering the craters.
	You can see that some are in a very advanced state of decay.
	Now these are five-second slides of the 18 different alien species we are looking at.
	That one there is the most gruesome looking.
	The guards at one facility are carefully indoctrinated over a period of several months, being shown pictures similar to, but not exactly like, the alien.
	Only when they have been acclimatized, so to speak, of the horrible-looking beings, are they allowed to stand in security positions.
	Before these acclimatations were done, we had two guards die of a heart attack as these aliens came down the hallway unexpectedly.
	And this last clip is of the Kennedy assassination.
	You've heard of the second gunman theory.
	Well, this is the second camera that recorded exactly what happened.
	We had four gunmen.
	And the bottom line was Kennedy had to go.
	He insisted on releasing what little alien information we had told him about, and he was trying to withdraw troops from Vietnam, which we were using as a diversion for the public.
	After Kennedy, we never told any president anything.
	Nixon knew because he was briefed as DP in 1952.
	That's how he knew where to take Jackie Gleason to Homestead Air Force Base to see the alien bodies we had storage there.
	And that's about it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, that is about it.
		All right, so you have just been told all of that, Peter, we need to wrap up here at the bottom of the hour.
		That still gives us nine minutes.
		I want your honest reaction to that.
		If you were representing the people of the U.S. and had to make a decision after just getting all of that information, what would you do?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		That's not an easy decision, obviously.
		But I think there's no doubt in my mind which way I would go.
		First of all, I would consult with a few trusted counsel on the matter.
		That's just my nature, Art.
		I'm contemplative, I think, by nature, and would want to know more information.
		But the bottom line, if I had to make a decision right now, I would decide to square with the American people.
		That is an element of leadership.
		Now, every leader, and there are many, many leaders in this country, military leaders, police leaders, fire crew leaders, you name it, they all would like to be able to give their subordinates nothing but good news, but sometimes that's not possible.
		And I have, for several years now, I've tried to define for my own satisfaction just where my loyalty lies in this country.
		I find every time I ask myself that question, I come up with the conclusion that my principal loyalty accrues to my neighbors, my friends, the American people in capitals.
		And I think in a situation the likes of which John Lear just described, I would give the truth to the American people.
		That's just my nature.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And by the way, do you think that the truth described, or what was described by John Lear, has a chance of being substantially accurate?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it has a chance of being accurate.
		Based on the information that's come to me over the last nine years and even from before that, it's probably not as bad or as gruesome or pessimistic a picture as he paints.
		And in some respects, I'm a dedicated optimist.
		My suspicion is, in a scenario the likes of which he just described, there's always an element of hope.
		There's always a possibility that some little sixth grader is going to hear this news and he's going to come up with the final solution that's going to be able to protect us from whatever threat there may be or that we perceive.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, the magnitude of the lies that were told, if that scenario is accurate, is so large that it would bring down any government on earth.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		So that part of it I accept implicitly.
		There's no doubt in my mind, but what the business of big government is big lies.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, really big ones.
		And I mean, if you just took a portion of that, any part of that, would just Get governments overturned.
		We killed our own president.
		We killed our own president.
		Yeah, like I'm sure that one's going to be made public.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Secretary of Defense, probably in 1949 and many others.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		He said people who threaten us are liquidated.
		Simple as that.
		So that makes those people murderers.
		It Makes our own government murderers or those who pull the strings on our government, depending on what you want to believe.
		I mean, you were chatting for a moment in the last half hour, Peter, about whether you, you know, you were asked whether you believe that there is a shadow government yanking on the strings of our current elected officials.
		And how was it you responded to that again?
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Well, if you're alluding to the meeting I had with people from the U.S. government, they did ask me that question.
		My suspicion is that there are such people in our government who are pulling the strings.
		After all, when you look at the human organism, it's constantly competing, always engaged in a process of self-aggrandizement, trying to increase its wealth or its influence or something.
		I trust that people in government have figured out that it is the greatest way to amplify that self-aggrandizement.
		I'm sure there are people in government who are lying, who are perpetrating big lies for big benefits to them.
		And I think it's time, frankly, I'm very dissatisfied with the government and both parties and the self-aggrandizing dolts and satraps who seem to populate the parties so frequently.
		I think it's time for the American people to stand up and start taking a very hard stand with regard to the unstinting, unstinting flow of lies that we appear to be getting from our government and half-truths, which are even more dangerous.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So then you agree to a large extent with what Mr. Lear said, the severity of it even.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		I certainly do.
		The severity of the alien threat, he seems to address that issue quite clearly.
		I can't attest to that.
		But irrespective of however major or however minor it may be, I think it is now time for our government to square with the American people on that issue and all other issues, no matter where the chips may fall.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And the chips might fall right squarely on, hey, we can't, yes, it's happening, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.
		Absolutely.
		That's panic time, I'm telling you.
		That's panic time.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		I'm not so certain of that, Art.
		I have a profound, profound confidence in the American people.
		In rough times, they have rallied extraordinarily capably.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		And I think in our present state with the folly that we seem to engage in as a people at this current time in our history, we're sort of a soft population.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		But if we were confronted with a threat, I think we would rally as a people in a fashion that our nation and the world has never seen before.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, we're pretty good when we understand the nature of the enemy.
		If it's al-Qaeda, okay, it's al-Qaeda.
		And away we go.
		what if we didn't understand the nature of the threat?
		We just knew it was a horrible human mutilating, animal mutilating threat by a species that...
		an Peter, you'd have quite a time on your hands.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
		There would be a period of uncertainty and doubt and fright and so on and so forth.
		Interestingly, this scenario is not much unlike the situation that Orson Welles created in his great radio production of October 30th, 1938, I think it was, in which the Martians were reported to have landed in New Jersey and were working their way north.
		Yes.
		But my suspicion is...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		They were monsters.
		They were eating people.
		That was big panic.
		And this wouldn't be too far, frankly, off the mark, along with all the other major Richter 18 shocks that you'd be getting if all that were made public.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		So possibly, Art.
		But I think we would figure some way out of it.
		What scares me more than any kind of alien threat is a government that exists by dint of big lies.
		It's inappropriate in a country such as ours, perhaps under a totalitarian regime, all of that would be justified.
		In a system such as ours, in which the government purports to be representative of the interests of the people, they have a special responsibility to give us the truth.
		That is my perception of government.
		I find that's the way I conduct my life and the way I run the National UFO Reporting Center.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, listen, buddy, we're out of time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Give your telephone number real quickly.
peter davenport ▲ ● ▼		Telephone number area code 206-722-3000 for recent sighting reports, 206-722-3000.
		And our website for written reports, ufocenter.com.
		UFO CENTER.com.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, brother.
		Thank you.
		And have a great night, Peter.
		Good night.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Good night.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, there you have it.
		That's Peter Davenport.
		That's what he'd do.
		How about you?
unidentified		I gave you love.
		I thought that we had made it to the top.
		I gave you all.
		I have to give.
		I gave you love.
		Once when you were mine, I remember your skies.
		You reflected in your eyes.
		I wonder where you are.
		I wonder if you think about me.
		Once upon a time, in your one last dream.
		Call Art Bell in the corner.
		Kingdom of Nive, from West of the Rockies, at 1-800-618-8255, East of the Rockies, 1-800-8255-033.
		First time callers may recharge at 1775-727-1222.
		And the wildcard line is open at 1775-727-1295.
		To recharge on the Toll-Free International line, call your AT ⁇ T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
		This is Coast to Coast A.M. with Art Bill from the Kingdom of Nive.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, since I asked him to, Bart Cosco also listened very intently to what John Lear had to say, and we'll put him in the same position and see how he answers.
		Bart Cosco's a fascinating individual, and it's going to be a lot of fun.
		One quick note, by the way, and that is concerning my webcam, as promised.
		You know, it was about a couple hours before, maybe an hour before airtime tonight.
		I always get the cool stuff about an hour before airtime, it seems like.
		John Hutchinson, who is kind of a rogue physicist.
		We've had him on the show.
		He's a great guy.
		I thought I had a lot of stuff, you know, a lot of electronic toys.
		But John sent me a picture of his porch.
		This is, he apparently lives in an apartment, I would guess.
		You know, it's an apartment.
		It looks like it anyway.
		And he's got a porch.
		And on his porch, you've got to see this photograph.
		Go to www.coastocoastam.com and look at my webcam photo.
		I slipped John Hutchinson's porch, his back porch, in my webcam.
		And we'll have to talk to John about this.
		But apparently he's getting a little static from his neighbors who are probably wearing tinfoil hats or something.
		You might get a chance to come up there and look at that photograph.
		I thought I was over the top, but John, I'm nowhere near that.
		We'll be right back with Bart Costco.
		Bart Costco.
unidentified		Bart Costco.
unidentified		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Bart Costco is a bright guy.
		He is a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Southern California, where he teaches courses on information science, neural networks, fuzzy logic, and statistics signal processing.
		Dr. Costco holds degrees in philosophy, economics, mathematics, electrical engineering.
		He is an elected governor of the International Neural Network Society.
		Oh, my.
		And has chaired and co-chaired several international conferences on neural and fuzzy systems conferences.
		He is on the editorial board of several scientific and mathematical journals.
		Dr. Costco has published well over 100 scientific papers, has published several popular essays in venues from Scientific American to the New York Times, is a frequent contributor to the opinion pages of the Los Angeles Times.
		Dr. Costco is also the author of several books.
		Let me see here.
		Fuzzy Engineering is one of them.
		Intelligent Signal Processing another.
		And his latest, I would presume, or his earliest, Heaven on a Chip, in a Chip.
unidentified		Heaven in a Chip.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Heaven in a, we'll ask, believe me about that.
		He currently holds one of the first National Science Foundation research contracts on the new field of noise processing.
		In addition, he is a former consultant on the Tomahawk cruise missile and other, in quotes, smart weapons systems.
		in a moment we're going to speak with dr costo the first thing we're going to do is get his reaction to the lear briefing uh...
		Did you know the average person carries five to ten pounds of toxic matter in their intestines?
		This continually releases poisons in the bloodstream that can cause a variety of symptoms like decreased immune function, chronic fatigue, even dangerous disease.
		That's why I recommend Dr. Topliski's Super Detox Program, a four-step program that was designed to help cleanse your body of toxic waste.
		It helps scrub your intestines clean, remove stored toxins in your organs, fight yeast and parasites, and restores healthy bacterial balance.
		It'll help make your body cleaner, more vibrant, and healthier.
		If you want improved energy, vitality, and a general feeling of well-being, then Super Detox Program is for you.
		And as a special introductory offer, when you order steps 1 and 2 of the Super Detox Program, you get steps 3 and 4 absolutely free.
		That's 50% off.
		So call now 1-800-203-8256.
		It's guaranteed to work or you get your money back, and it's not available in stores.
		So call now, 1-800-203-8256.
		That's 1-800-203-8256.
		Buy two steps.
		Get two steps free when you call now.
unidentified		Life can be full of risks.
		If you're a self-employed business owner, you already know that.
		You take risks every day.
		Well, I'm here to remind you that one thing you shouldn't take risks with is your family's health insurance.
		If you don't have health insurance, get it now.
		If you have health insurance, call us and see if we can give you better coverage at a better rate.
		We're the mega life and health insurance company.
		We help tons of self-employed folks and small business owners every day obtain affordable health insurance.
		You can reach us 24 hours a day at 1-800-413-9400.
		1-800-413-9400.
		Don't take risks with your health insurance.
		It's not worth it.
		Without the right health insurance plan, you could be in trouble.
		For affordable health insurance designed for the self-employed and small business owner, call 1-800-413-9400.
		1-800-413-9400.
		Home office located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
		not available in all states and benefits may vary by state the All right, we've cleared away a little commercial territory.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So, Professor Costco, welcome to the program.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It's great to have you.
		I presume you heard the John, I call it the Lear test, the John Lear briefing.
		If you were, just for the fun of it, I know this is way out of your area, but if you were so briefed, how would you react if it were up to you to release all of that information?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Art, I would say release it.
		I would do it for a couple reasons.
		First, there is the alleged proverb of Henry Kissinger that if you, that he apparently told Richard Nixon, that if you have to tell the people eventually, tell them immediately.
		It's a lot less costly that way.
		But for a deeper reason, it goes right to the heart of how brains work, how neurons work, and that is when you get a lot of computing entities together, you get what are called nonlinear effects.
		You get something greater than the sum of the parts.
		And a good example of that is the future markets.
		The future markets for corn or wheat.
		There was even one proposed recently by DARPA for the terrorist market, or what would be a potential terrorist market.
		And the idea is we can learn things from marketplaces, from lots of people with their local pieces of information that no single mind can contain.
		So I would release it to the public and see what happens.
		I think they could do more with it than I could.
		There would no doubt be a lot of shock.
		But in terms of workable solutions to a complex problem like that would present, I wouldn't want to limit it to any one brain or small group of brains.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
		All right.
		Let us now.
		So there's two for release.
		That's an amazing response to me, it really is.
		But all right, let us begin.
		And I'm not sure where to begin.
		I think I want to know what you mean by heaven in a chip.
		What do you mean by heaven in a chip?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Well, first off, what do we mean by heaven?
		It's an indefinite life where we get what we want simply by asking for it or imagining it.
		We know everything we want to know.
		And if we take those kinds of properties, Art, we can approximate those in an engineering sense in something other than a brain, which is three pounds of meat, which is a signal processing unit that receives lots of signals from your surface receptors, your skin, your eyes, your nose, your tongue, etc.
		We could process them much more quickly than they're processed in your brain because it takes so long for information, electrical pulses, to travel down your nerve fibers.
		We can do that in current chips, but certainly the chips that are right around the corner, the so-called nano chips.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so anyway, to be clear here, you don't mean the biblical heaven.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You mean delivery of heaven here on earth?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Here on earth in a chip.
		Exactly.
		I mean the working equivalent of it.
		On the other hand, when you do that, when you vastly expand thinking power, computing power, that way, we may come up with some really interesting thoughts about heaven or access to it.
		I find in looking at the heaven concepts around the world, it's not real well defined, not nearly as sharply defined, for example, as concepts of hell.
		But the key thing here is just not to die so fast.
		Live, in this case, for thousands or millions of years in the sense of what I called, entitled an earlier novel, nanotime, that the processing time, even on today's chips, is so vastly faster than brain time, that since you and I have been talking in chip time, that could be hundreds of years and in future, thousands of years.
		So that's a long time to do the things you want to do, to have access to all databases at the speed of light, and to create worlds simply by thinking about them.
		And that's a pretty good approximation to what most people have meant by heaven.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How would you imagine that such a chip would be integrated with a human being?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I mean, would it be surgically laid into our brains?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Good question.
		Tough question.
		We're putting them in right now in terms of implants for the inner ear, for the auditory cortex, visual cortex, retinal implants.
		Other implants have been approved by the FDA.
		That's the first start.
		But we want to get down initially beyond just getting wet stuff to talk to chip stuff and an outright replacement.
		And what I've called elsewhere, an illustration of funsy logic, chipping away at your brain is a way to think about this.
		When they pop off your skull and the nanoengineers and cut out a tiny chunk of your brain, you wouldn't feel it.
		And they replace it with an equivalent chip that could connect up to the sensory ports that that chunk had.
		You would feel as if you maybe drank a couple glasses or cups of coffee or tea.
		And if we keep cutting out chunks slowly at a time, when we're done with this, by degrees, we have gone from brain to chip or chipnet smoothly without you ever losing consciousness.
		We have chipped you up.
		Now you need never sleep unless you wanted to shut down some of your circuits.
		And you need never die unless you run out of power or the government or somebody comes along and it flips off your switch.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Why would I not die?
		Since other biological functions apparently control the aging process, right?
		Telomeres and all these things are looking at now.
		How would I not die?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		In the sense that when you have a software program and you buy a new computer, you transfer that over, even though that old computer you eventually throw away, which, by the way, is illegal in most places like it is in Los Angeles.
		You can't just dump it in your trash, but that's an aside.
		In some sense, we are stuck with the one computer that nature gave us, and we can't trade up.
		And trade up the self, which is in the software.
		Because that hardware wears out.
		And worse, the worst trick, I think, of evolution is that we have no backup.
		And our memory decays very quickly.
		And all the findings on neuroscience and the mathematics of it confirm that.
		It's not just that it decays quickly.
		It decays exponentially quickly.
		If you really don't remember what you're doing exactly 33 hours ago, let alone three years ago.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Professor, would it be possible to virtually download all of the information in some manner in a person's brain into an electronic device?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		In theory, absolutely.
		It breaks no law of physics.
		It's just not practical to do so.
		But as these chips Get more powerful as the interface improves between chip and flesh, something a lot of my colleagues, for example, at USC and many other places are working on, but we still have a long way to go.
		That kind of thing is inevitable, and it will come a step at a time with implants, pretty much like in the movie Matrix, I think, or something like that.
		Rather than sitting through my course in probability, you can simply, in effect, upload the program to do that.
		But in theory, it's hard to believe, Art, with the coming technologies that you would take something as precious as you, which is housed in this decaying meat that depends on sugar and sleep and the subject of stroke, you're going to rest all that when you could put it in a far better medium?
		I just can't believe that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, we are rather attached, some of us, to these physical, decaying meat-like bodies.
unidentified		Yeah.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Given the alternatives, which is nothing whatsoever.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's just imagine for a second that it would be possible to download what is the essence of a person, their consciousness and all the rest of it, into a machine.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're telling me you would go for that as opposed to experiencing physical death, whatever that may or may not hold.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		In a heartbeat, but I'm not sure I'm going to be the very first person in line to try out the new technology.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But you would do it.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		I mean, it begins with the insight that your brain is a machine.
		It's a sloppy machine.
		It carries with it all the baggage about a billion years of some form of evolution.
		You just would never design an information processing device like a brain or like an eye or like an ear.
		What are those earlobes doing there?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't know.
		They seem to be there for a reason.
		But you seem to be sort of putting down the human brain.
		I'm told it's magical that the time, the processing time for your brain makes anything we have today in terms of computing machines look silly.
		Is that wrong?
		Are neurons firing faster than a Pentium IV?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		No, they're not firing faster, but more of them are firing in parallel.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		So for a while, we win that race, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, well, good.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't know if that's good.
		I mean, with Moore's laws, you know, where the doubling of the circuitry is every 18 months or so, we lose that race, whether it's 10 or 15 years.
		We used to think it'd be 20 or 30, but it's something like 10 or 15.
		That doesn't mean you can just plug in the chip.
		But after that, computer chips will forever be vastly more powerful than the human brain, doubling so each year or two.
		And the interfaces will come about, and all the kind of sensory processing that the brain does, about a quarter of your brain, including your eyes, is involved in vision, for example.
		And we'll be able to do it in a much more powerful way.
		I think at first it will be a gradual thing, especially for those who, as now, lack sight or hearing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes, but you're telling me, aren't you, that eventually our brains will be, as I now think, of a VIC-20.
		You remember the VIC-20 computer?
		It was sort of just sort of just barely a computer.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		We've got fading memories kicking in.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, there you are.
		Well, will we eventually think of the human brain compared to the best computers as a VIC-20?
		I mean, just not much of the machine.
		Where are we in that process?
		When will machines begin to easily outstrip the human brain in most measurable ways?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It used to be 2030 was the usual estimate.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Now it's 2020.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Really?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, just given, again, it doesn't mean you can plug a chip into your brain then.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		And that's simply because of importing technologies.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, that wasn't a question.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, the processing power, the sheer power of 100 billion neurons doing their messy, chaotic thing, will easily pass that within 10 or 15 years.
		And sheer number crunch.
		I mean, after all, you wouldn't want to run a race right now with a pocket calculator in terms of doing multiplication.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		What we're talking about is orders of magnitudes beyond that in terms of what really seems to characterize most of our thought, which is pattern recognition.
		Today's computers are getting better, but they still largely fail.
		Recognizing a face in a crowd, looking for that terrorist at the airport.
		It's hard to do with humans.
		We're not quite there yet with computers.
		And the reason are it is pretty much.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But we're almost there.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		We're almost there.
		And the machines are just not quite fast enough.
		But believe me, there are thousands of mathematical papers, each with a different kind of clever algorithm to be implemented and tested.
		They just need faster computers.
		It's just a computational barrier.
		It's not as if in most cases that we haven't cracked the basic idea that we have.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, Professor, I went to the Super Bowl.
		I was lucky to have done that.
		And after the Super Bowl, it was revealed that they had had a face recognition computer there looking for bad guys.
		And I don't think offhand they found any, but if they're testing devices like that, that means that pretty soon a computer is going to be better than a human at recognition.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		You're on to it.
		And the FBI now, which used to take days to do a fingerprint scan, does it now, promises a result now to police in less than two hours.
		And that kind of power, I mean, someone looked at you folks in the stadium and probably had a lot of fun in the security room.
		And I believe the folks in Florida are trying to prevent that in local councils.
		But increasingly, we live in a world where surveillance is going up.
		We're only putting more cameras in at traffic lights.
		We're not taking them out.
		And increasingly in public spaces, it started in private spaces and shopping malls and places like that.
		But on streets, and the fact is, like it or not, it does tend to decrease crime, or at least crime committed in the public.
		And so I think you'll see a lot more of it.
		It'll be much more powerful, and we really don't have the kind of laws we need to protect us from it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, at some point, once we get a machine of that magnitude, then the possibility of transferring what's in a human brain into a machine can't be that far from that, right?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		From that point?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		That's exactly right.
		So keep in shape.
		Stay alive.
		Keep the brain active.
		Live as long as you can.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So that you can get the option to jump into the latest pentium?
unidentified		Get as close to it as you can, exactly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you know most people, if faced with that question, would say, oh, to heck with that, let me just die a normal physical death and go on to whatever is next.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But don't put me in a machine.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Martin, I think you're right.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		They would say that most of the time, but if they're on their deathbed, I bet they might answer it quite differently.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You really think so?
unidentified		Sure.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If faced with the possibility of continued consciousness, even though it's in a machine, you're saying they'd take that gamble.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		I think a lot of folks would.
		They're taking a gamble right now.
		Many people think that they're going to get some kind of passage to a promised land without any evidence to support that.
		Here, there, at least there's some scientific evidence that your consciousness, improperly and imperfectly maintained, perhaps, but some form of it will continue.
		The music of your mind will still be played on a different instrument.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		All right.
		Hold on, Professor.
		Professor Bart Costco is my guest.
		And we're going to talk about all kinds of things like heaven in a gift, like fuzzy logic, fuzzy engineering, and all of that.
		All of these things that apparently are just about here.
		Live another 10 or 15 years and jump into a pentium.
unidentified		Maybe.
		Well, I think it's time to get ready To realize just what I have found I have to be no repair of what I am It's all clear to me now My heart is on fire
		Baby, when you need a time Help no shadow, no way You'll come to me Baby, you'll see But I'm too pretty, baby What's going on with you tonight?
		But I'm too pretty, my wife You'll always say to me What I do, who's gonna love you?
		Love you, who's gonna love you?
		What I do, who's gonna love you?
		Love you, who's gonna love you?
		Love you, who's gonna love you To rechart bell in the Kingdom of Nye, from west of the Rockies, dial 1-800-618-8255.
		East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
		First-time callers may rechart at 1-775-727-1222.
		Or use the Wild Guard line at 1-775-727-1295.
		To rechart on the toll-free international line, call your AT ⁇ T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Networks.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It is Professor Mark Costco's here, and we're talking about the little things, actually.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Little chips that might be implanted in your brain, your brain perhaps implanted into a within, a little chip.
unidentified		I don't know, it's a very weird world we're facing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We're going to talk about fuzzy logic and nanotubes and all kinds of exotic stuff.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If you'll just stay right where you are.
unidentified		Shhhhhh!
art bell ▲ ● ▼		In the nanotechnological world, the big buzz out there right now is about nanotubes.
		And one of the reasons why, I believe, is we discussed the space.
		Remember the space elevator?
		You get in at ground level, you push the button, and you virtually go into 22,300 miles up to a geostationary, I presume, space station, something like that.
		It would be the other end of an elevator, like an elevator in a building.
		Now, this traditionally, though thought to be possible, wasn't really possible because we didn't have anything that was strong enough.
		But now I'm told that these nanotubes would make some kind of material strong enough to actually build something from ground to Earth all the way to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit.
		Professor, welcome back.
		So therefore, we should have a good understanding of what nanotubes potentially are.
		They don't exist yet, do they?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		tubes do exist and in great abundance in art.
		They seem to go back at least until man set off that first controlled chemical reaction, chain reaction, called fire.
		You heat things up in a fire in a cave, you get soot on the roof.
		The carbon atoms come apart and every form, and there's no doubt, probabilistically speaking, that there were carbon nanotubes in that soot, as there is in the soot of your chimney.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, okay, what's a nanotube?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Nano first means one billionth of a meter, whereas micro is one millionth.
		So we're down to level really of individual molecules or things made of atoms.
		And the nanotube, the classical ones, now they've been around for about 10 years, the carbon nanotubes, they look like a piece of chicken wire that's been rolled up into a cylinder.
		But bear with me on this.
		How do you arrange those carbon atoms, in this case in hexagonal form, like a stop sign, and makes a big difference.
		If you arrange them in a different way, you get a diamond structure, for example.
		Basically sheets of graphite, the first ones rolled up.
		And as you said, they're extremely strong and can be quite long.
		I believe it was Arthur C. Clarke's novel Fountains of Paradise that postulated and expanded upon the space elevator.
		And in there, there was a wire a guy was whipping around, a nanowire, that cut off his own thumb and he could never see the wire.
		In theory, that could happen.
		And in practice, so far it has not.
		But nanotubes are around in great abundance.
		Every major university is pursuing it.
		And companies, there's several patents filed on this recently.
		A couple companies have announced a prototype nano memory chip, and you'll see much more of them.
		But they have remarkable properties in terms of their strength and their ability to conduct electricity.
		It's really that ability to conduct electricity and to change their state from metal to semiconductor or to fuzzy states in between that makes them the device of choice in modern nanotechnology.
		There's been a lot of talk art about nanotech for a long time, and it's starting to come through now.
		This is the first real workhorse.
		whether it pans out, it remains to be seen, but it's as hot as it gets.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I still don't know what a nanotube is.
		I mean, I heard you, I guess, describe it, but I don't really understand what it is.
		I understand it nano, okay, extremely small in the billionths, you said.
		But I'm not clear on what the material itself actually is.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Again, it's carbon atoms, the classical ones.
		Now there are non-carbon nanotubes made of boron and a variety of other materials.
		That may be the way it ends up, the inorganic approach.
		But they're rolled up in a cylinder, and that's about 100,000th the thickness of a human hair, for example.
		So very tiny.
		They can be quite long.
		And their length can affect how they process information.
		Their diameter can affect that, whether they're in a spiral, all those shapes, and wonderful mathematical properties determine whether it will behave like a metal or a semiconductor.
		So it could do computing purposes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you're suggesting on software orders, it could morph virtually?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Something like that, yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Something like that.
		And so it can become different things.
		The same mass of nanotubes could become virtually different things.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It could.
		That's a tougher proposition, but by controlling how you create these things, you can get different things.
		We're not at the level where we can take one tube and change the molecular structure to get a different type of tube.
		In other words, you've either got a metallic tube or you've got a semiconductor tube.
		And that may very well change in precisely the way in which you say, that we shoot it with a little bit of electrical energy or a light pulse and it transforms.
		And that's getting at the heart of the old dream of nanotechnology and really of the ancient Greeks, and that is the master matter.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How far might we be from...
		stronger than steel, stronger than...
		Would you make airplanes and jet fighters out of it?
		That kind of thing?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Great question.
		There's many proposed uses.
		For example, we might have automobile skins that are nanotube-like, in which case when you have an accident, you're more likely to bounce off the other guy than to have a crushing deformation.
		On the other hand, you might bounce a lot longer because of the elastic nature of the collision.
		There are patents and prototypes underway for nanotube-based screens for your computer and for billboard signs, perhaps.
		They seem to compare favorably in theory with liquid crystal displays for flat panels, things like that.
		Yes, they could be light.
		On the other hand, there was an attempt to use them for bulletproof Vests, and they couldn't really, the carbon tubes stand up well to the impact of a bullet.
		The tubes fractured and created little nano-diamonds.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		When shot?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		When shot.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Those are carbon tubes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So these things that already have been, at least experimentally, applied applications like that.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Aren't the gold rush is on?
unidentified		Gold rush?
unidentified		Wow.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So the new gold rush isn't like...
		Let me get this straight.
		Carbon, when compressed, becomes, what, eventually a diamond, right?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		If you have it in the form of a certain kind of tetrahedron, which is like a triangle, it'll be a diamond.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		You put it in the form of a soccer ball.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And that's the shape they had it in in the attempt at the vest.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Well, just a second.
		The soccer ball gives you the so-called bucky ball, after the Buckminster fullerene.
		That's 60 carbon atoms.
		It's very stable.
		And you can also put more than 60 or fewer.
		It's just not as stable, and you get different kinds of properties.
		But if you have linked balls, linked soccer balls, you in effect get a tube.
		That's kind of what you get.
		Now, if that pattern is like a stop sign of the carbon atoms in a hexagonal pattern, six-sided pattern, that's graphite or graphene, and that's our working carbon nanotube.
		But in the end, it is some kind of simple crystalline structure like that that's repeated even in the non-carbon cases.
		And as you said, it's extremely strong and long.
		And if you were to weave these into a nanotube braid, there's no telling the strength.
		I mean, there is, mathematically, we haven't fully worked that out.
		And we're just at the cusp of this, just at the very beginning.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How does its conductive ability compare it to traditional conductors like copper, silver, or gold?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It tends to be better in terms of heat.
		And at that small level, it's more controllable.
		This is why, as you know, we have a great Nature magazine called it Crisis of Computation facing us.
		We keep shrinking our chips.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		We've got to keep doing it.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It keeps the march of technology marching.
		But we can't keep going much further.
		In most of our lifetimes, we will see this transition somehow from the microprocessor to the nanoprocessor.
		You'll know that, by the way, Art, when they change the name from Microsoft to NanoSoft.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That would be the big tip-off.
		I'm wondering how far are we from that, Professor?
		We're moving along at a pretty doggone fast clip, I must say, with computer technology right now, and everybody wonders.
		You know, they're getting smaller, they're getting faster.
		Then all of a sudden they make a breakthrough, and what was really hot running at 2 gigs is now suddenly not so hot at 3 gigs.
		They did something magical, and so, you know, how long?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Great question, and no one can, of course, foresee the results of that great technology race, but so far, the leading horse in that race is the nanotube.
		I see the announcement recently of nano chips, prototype chips from NanTero is a company, N-A-N-T-E R, and I have no affiliation with them.
		They claim, as recently reported in Business Week, for example, that they'll have a prototype out next year, and along with some other companies with whom they have patents or assigned patents, they expect to have some mass-produced tube-based chips by 2005, and they allege that the memory chips will be cheaper than a penny.
		Now, these will be the first and very crude things, and it's often the case in technology that those who make the great fortunes come along later.
		But if you went to the patent office here or in Japan, you'd see an awful lot of filings based on nanotubes.
		And whatever comes next, this, again, this attempt to directly program matter.
		Not just software, but matter itself by assembling and playing with the structure of atoms, or the collections of those and molecules.
unidentified		And I have to boast, like a proud parent, Art, please do.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		That this week, my colleagues and I have published, and it's available on my website, which is available at your website, a brand new paper on nanotechnology, and the first ever that I'm aware of on a formal use of these tubes for signal processing.
		In fact, we call that nano-signal processing, stochastic resonance and carbon nanotubes that detect signals.
		So we've gone further here, I believe, and we've shown how to use a tube, not just, as a lot of people are, as a kind of transistor.
		It's either on or off for a bit of information, but to actually detect the presence or absence of signals.
		And many researchers are growing forests of tubes or growing carpets of tubes are called, or arrays.
		So in a small square inch, say, there could be trillions of tubes.
		Now, the trouble right now is most of the tubes, they come out all tangled up.
		It's very hard to untangle.
		But that's a technology problem that will probably get straightened out.
		You could have a shirt, for example, that could do vast signal processing.
		You might throw it away, too, and it could have literally trillions of tubes on there.
		They could be used in a variety of other places, in wireless communication to help in the replacement of a severed limb, for example, in terms of the complex neural signals in a nerve bundle.
		Ultimately, say in the spine, there's just so many signals being propagated there.
		And in theory, these bound or these collections of tubes could do that.
		Recently, there was a report.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're saying that these tubes could potentially repair a broken spine.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		They could be part of that.
		Now, of course, there's a delicate issue there of the circuitry, making sure the left foot connects to the right foot or the right knee and so forth.
		That's possible if you can work that out.
		The trouble now, any of these kind of devices, is, first off, the body is pretty tough on inserted devices, and there's just so many nerve fibers that you have to connect.
		But assuming you can do that and sort that out, and again, that's a technology question we're going to hit, that in theory you can build a bridge with nanotubes or their successors.
		But there's a recent report on creating hydrophobic tubes.
		If you coat the tips of a bunch of tubes with Teflon or something like it, you get a self-cleaning surface.
		You put water on other things and it repels it.
		All sorts of things here, Arthur, are being explored.
		But it's interesting that by changing the thickness of a tube and some very simple parameters, you can turn the tube into a metal or a non-metal and grow it accordingly.
		So as you can imagine, the patent race, the technology race is a gold rush.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I'm still stuck back on the manufacturing process.
		How do you make a lot of nanotubes?
		What is the process you use to actually create these?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		There's a lot of them.
		The classic is soot.
		A Japanese researcher found some soot and looked at it under a microscope in effect and found an atomic microscope, found these tubes.
		So there are those kinds of approaches.
		There are sparking approaches, arc lamp type approaches.
		There are gas-based methods where carbon gas is injected and a variety of chemical operations are done on it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		How economically feasible is the process to create the end result?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		You know, right now it's not real feasible, but it's a lot better than it was a year ago.
		And so, you know, in terms of looking five, ten years, unless something turns out that they're just too difficult to control and program, and they may be.
		But that doesn't seem to be the issue.
		Like you said, that one problem is it's easy to make these things, but it's hard to often unmake them.
		An example is something called a nanotube tweezer.
		You can take two nanotubes, hit it with a little voltage, a little electrical juice, and they'll pick something up.
		Something much bigger than they are, by the way, very strong.
		The trouble is it's hard to get them to let go.
		Haven't quite figured that out yet.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean?
		What do you mean?
		It picks up something?
		Give me an example.
		What do you mean it picks up something?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Well, in effect, like a little speck of dust or something, something vastly bigger than the tubes, and it can grab, you can get it to close on that and manipulate it.
		But unfortunately, as I understand where we are right now, they haven't found an efficient way to get it to let go.
		There's all sorts of physical bonding principles that kick in at that point.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, really?
		Yeah, sure.
		That's a potential big problem.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Lots of problems, but that's what researchers do.
		They love problems.
		Those are manageable problems.
		If you have a problem, art, that requires going faster than the speed of light, that's a dead end.
		But there's nothing like that here.
		And it'd be different, too, if there were some other viable alternative.
		Now, the big debate, there's always a big debate in the field, the big debate is whether we should work with carbon tubes, the classical tubes, or whether we should work with the non-carbon varieties.
		And there's a variety of these coming out, different chemical alloys and mixtures.
		And the finding so far is that in terms of conducting electricity, nothing can top the good old carbon tube.
		But the other properties, like deformation and turning into nano diamonds when shot, it may be better in that case to work with a non-carbon approach.
		And the field is wide open, and the patent office is the recipient.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And which way do you think it shall go?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		The history of a lot of chemical research.
		I'm an electrical engineer.
		I work largely with information processing, so I'm on the outside of this, but seems to favor inorganic processing over organic.
		It's much tougher to work with fleshy carbon-based things often than non-carbon.
		So my money would be on the non-carbon.
		In the paper I mentioned, we use carbon nanotubes, but the property of the tube we use doesn't depend on the carbon nature of the material.
		It applies for any tube.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So you're saying we're that close, just short years, before practical application.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Oh, absolutely.
		Large countries, large companies have patents and whole foundries underway.
		Samsung has a prototype it's working on on this liquid crystal display.
		It may be the, we just don't know, it may be the way to really have an efficient and expensive high-definition TV screen.
		So that's in hand.
		Or your cell phone may figures.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I just bought a high-definition TV this week, so I'm sure it will be totally out of date.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Plasma will be like the VIC-20 by next week.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Maybe not next week, but within five or ten years.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Let's hope so.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You go out and buy the Liz Nano set.
		that's right i wonder if they'll it Given the evidence of the success of the word micro, that's micro devices, microsoft, first order, I would say yes.
		That's true.
		All of that stuck, so why not?
		What would be the properties, if you know, Professor, for example, of a screen, I understand a little bit about plasma and how L C Ds work and all the rest of it.
		If you had a nano screen, what kind of properties would it exhibit compared to, say, what we have now?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		First, less power usage.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Remember, we're a world that's sucking up more power all the time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's about the black house.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		That's an issue.
		Second, more brightness, brighter stuff.
		So you could more likely see that advertising screen saying bright daylight.
		You know, it's kind of hard to walk outside with your computer now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's true.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		And finally, wider viewing angle is the allegation.
		Now, I haven't seen that demonstrated, but that's the claim of the researchers out of Samsung and elsewhere.
		But they have the physics and the chemistry on their side.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Boy, you wonder what people in these big companies like Samsung and Cyby and Hitachi, all of them, and what they're doing deep in their research labs.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And you're telling me, this is what they're doing.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
		And you can check that.
		Look at my paper and go to the American Chemical Society's journal Nano Letters.
		It's available online.
		And, for example, our paper will appear in print in a few weeks and will kind of be old news by then.
		At that point, they give it out for free.
		But you could just scroll down and look at what's hot this week, and they list those articles.
		And look at the institutions behind this.
		They're not all American.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, just to cheer me up a little, some of them are, right?
		Absolutely.
		Good.
		I worry that the Japanese, in fact, the Chinese soon to come, leap in front of us in some of these areas.
		And of course, they have in the past.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		My paper has four authors, and my other three co-authors are Chinese, so I have to be careful how I answer that.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Are they really?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It is still a, they're Chinese and American.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It is still largely an American-driven game, and Europe's in their big way, in Japan, and other.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I know, but we frequently seem to do the inventing of Professor, while the Japanese do the practical application and marketing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You know, that's happened to us a lot of times.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It seems to be our comparative advantage.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It does.
		Professor Costco, hold on.
		We'll be right back to you.
		We're talking about little bitty things, talking about nano tubes.
		They're coming fast, folks.
		I had no idea they were that close.
		Did you?
		Maybe I should have waited.
		The latest nano sets.
		From the high desert, this is Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified		The heart of the beat is deep and beating.
		And from the neons, turn the dawn to me.
		We're too hot to be sleeping Abunda
		Abunda Abunda Abunda We're too hot to be sleeping Abunda Can you hear my heartbeat in this morning?
		Abunda Do you know that the heart of this horse Lies the titty sire Damele Call Art Bell in the kingdom of life From west of the Rockies, at 1-800-618-8255.
		East of the Rockies, 1-800-8255033.
		First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
		And the wildcard line is open at 1775-727-1295.
		To recharge on the Toll-Free International line, call your AT ⁇ T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell from the Kingdom of High.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Ah, what an interesting future we face, don't we?
		Imagine this.
		The commercials on TV.
		Don't die!
		You can be downloaded!
		Or would it be uploaded?
		I don't really know.
		But why take a chance?
		You've got a family.
		Upload yourself before it's too late.
		But it'll be a very interesting future.
unidentified		The End Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		As the cold rain falls here in the desert, it is indeed raining right now.
		Our guest is Professor Bart Cusco.
		And we're talking about the little things.
		And Professor Galana of New York City fastblasts me the following.
		A friend insists that mandatory IDM implants are 18 months away.
		I don't agree.
		What do you think, Art?
		What does your guest think?
		I believe this has something to do with nanotechnology.
		Thanks.
		Okay, well, it's sort of a, here's a good political what-if for you, Professor.
		And right now, things are already bad.
		Buildings destroyed in New York, the Pentagon, 9-11, the whole mess.
		And we are horrendously concerned with security in America.
		And one more major incident, like 9-11, God forbid, would probably drive quite a bit over the edge.
		And one of the areas where we might go over the edge in security would be with ID implants.
		I believe that that technology exists right now.
		And do you suppose that we could be driven to something like that?
		And if the government were to come to you right now and say we need that, could it be provided?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Could be provided.
		And I think you're on something big here, Art.
		In some sense, the great, terrible achievement of Osama bin Laden was he got us to do something that most people can't.
		He got us to effectively amend the U.S. Constitution.
		And if it happens again, and unfortunately, the odds are that it will.
unidentified		Yes.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		There's no telling.
		But the ID tags of one sort in terms, at least, of a microprocessor, that's relatively routinely put in dogs at the pound so far, a little grain of rice-like thing.
		I don't think it'll be mandatory, but I do think something like that will happen in a natural voluntary process.
		A lot of our devices are so shrunken down, the signal processing devices and processors are so cheap that when you buy a gadget, they're going to be communicating, in effect, with some other database.
		And someone will have track.
		You will leave digital footprints all over, not just cyberspace, but your house and elsewhere.
		And forget the government.
		Just a hostile party or neighbor or interested corporation can track you.
		And certainly the government could.
		And it will become admissible evidence in time, in courts.
		And should there be some extreme attack, some kind of nanoweapon, and unfortunately that could happen too, yes, I think the balance between liberty and security will tilt increasingly to security.
		And that means adios to the Fourth Amendment and provisions of the 5th, 6th, and 8th.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, they're already wounded.
		They have a lot of scars around them right now.
		So I don't disagree.
		You just said nanoweapon.
		What kind of because if the big corporations are working on nanotechnology for soon applications, you know, in televisions or whatever, well, then our government.
		What are they doing in their lab?
		Let's see.
		Gee, I bet they're working on nanoweapons.
		What kind of application might there be?
		Imagine a nanoweapon for me.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		I did.
		In fact, it's in my book, Nano Time.
		And that was a book where some folks want to get rid of oil in favor of hydrogen.
		So they've produced a version of what we today have called super acids, things that are billions of times more corrosive, say, than sulfuric acid.
		And it's released, for example, an oil tanker.
		It is a chain reaction.
		And within five minutes, you got a 5 million gallon puddle of oil off the coast of Florida or Los Angeles or wherever the case may be, because it eats certain things and doesn't eat others.
		In this case, it didn't eat the oil, ate everything around it.
		And the real trouble with this art, that's so unfortunate, is that it's so much easier to destroy than build.
		And that's really the heart of the second law of thermodynamics, the increase in entropy.
		And so, yes, we can assemble molecules in theory with a lot of effort, but it's very clear, I think, that it's going to be a lot easier to take them apart.
		If we don't care about the order, we just want to disassemble things, reduce them to goo, as it's often called.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Goo, yes.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Then you've got a real potential for catastrophe because you could have something that feeds off its own energy like fire does, like a nuclear reaction, a nano-reaction that could do that.
		And I'm almost hesitant to say more.
		It's just not the sort of thing you want a lot of smart people around the world thinking about, but unfortunately.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, then, all right, consider this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If the government came to you as the expert you are and said, we want you to work on such a weapon for us, would you?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		No.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You would not?
		No, I wouldn't.
		And yet, when I read your bio, it does seem as though you've had some related type work.
		Let's see, you worked on smart weapon systems like the Tomahawk.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		I did indeed.
		So you asked the general question, but if you asked a real specific one, if there was some kind of ticking clock between disaster and some great public necessity, sure we'd all do what we could.
		But in general, to, for example, go to the government and say, give me some money so I can do some research on this or to get an increase in salary, I think that would be immoral and dangerous.
		No, I wouldn't do that.
		A smart goo, because it eats only certain things and not others.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
		Like a goo that, let's say, eats, well, I think.
		No, I was going to say Chinese, but I'm not because of your associations.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Oh, wait, my wife is Chinese, too.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Mine's a mixture.
		So I ball gee Iraqis.
		You know, it doesn't matter.
		You know, that we're in some harmony.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Maybe the only way you could morally do this, Art, would be as a defensive measure, to fighting fire with fire.
		If the only reasonable way to stop the spread of their likely nano-goo is with a counter-goo, then you've got to work on it.
		But to be the first one to pop that cork and look what happened with the nuclear weapon in the Cold War and how we almost came to the United States.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But if I were in the government, Professor, I would come to you and I'd say, Professor Costco, we have a goo gap.
		So-and-so is developing goo, and oh my God, we need a defense, or we're history.
		Because anybody who will crash an airplane into buildings in New York will surely release this in two seconds flat if they've got it.
		So I would convince you, and you would go to work on it at that point.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		This is a horrible theorem from game theory, but you're right.
		It's a consequence of what's called the prisoner's dilemma.
		It's a terrible thing, and it leads to an arms race or a goo gap race here.
		So what you don't want to do, Art, if you possibly can, is start that process.
		Will it happen?
		Unfortunately, probably.
		Well, again, because it's a lot easier to cut down a tree than it is to grow one.
		And it's a lot easier to just not worry about how you disassemble particles or molecules than to try to put them in very careful, Lego-like shapes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		well we got the atomic bomb before we got uh...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		reactors capable of producing electricity right so uh...
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		so probably this work is I would say it's a safe guess in the sense that we researchers and world worried about terrorism have to be worried about this kind of thing.
		As I said, if you want to go to the American Chemical Society's journal Nanoletters, just click on it, and there it is publicly available.
		If you're sufficiently smart and dedicated, there's no telling what great things you could do or what terrible things you could do with that information.
		And when we're at the forefront like this, we're not thinking about these consequences.
		We're thinking about surviving peer review and getting published.
		And so we do keep pushing that frontier forward.
		And inevitably, in some unforeseen way, we will very likely be pushing this.
		And other people have to be thinking about that, trying to anticipate it.
		In the course of it, they may come up with a great result.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, switch of subject here a little bit.
		When we discuss neural networks that will eventually be put together, no doubt with nanotechnology, and we're talking about are we possibly talking about what we would regard as a sentient machine, not understanding, frankly, what the human brain is.
		I mean, we're conscious of our own existence.
		We have a consciousness.
		But at some point, there's this little tiny area where, gee, if you make a machine well enough, you might run smack into the wall of Consciousness and go past a certain point, and the machine says, I am.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It could, and I think the word consciousness is such a fuzzy term.
		For example, we spend about a third of our time sleeping.
		We don't really know what's going on there.
		We have a lot of good theories, but we just don't know what's going on.
		And so, if we replicate the function of individual neurons, for example, a nanotube can do that.
		In our experiment, the nanotube is acting like an antenna, and a field of these can process all kinds of information.
		But in others, and related to ours too, they act like transistors or on-off switches, just like any of those 100 billion neurons in your brain do or throughout your body, it's hard to believe you couldn't replicate a lot of those processes.
		And that seems to be summed up in a sense of pattern recognition, that we view our brains as pattern processors.
		Our life is filled with that.
		The awakening from childhood and recognizing your parents' face and the very structure of the world, the color red for the first time, and as Plato said, from the red wagon, the red apple, and we get these generalized notions of redness, even though we've really never seen redness.
		We don't know what that is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		But, I mean, I guess the question is, is there any reason in the world why a machine could not eventually attain consciousness?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Not if we say consciousness is what the brain excretes and its hundred billion neurons.
		If we can replicate those neurons, even simulate those, then it follows that we're simulating its byproducts, one of which seems to be what we call consciousness.
		Now, whether we'd build into it art a will to power and to replicate genes and things like that, it's another matter.
		But on that sheer issue of whether it can have whatever that confederated anarchy is, often put, of different neural networks competing with each other to recognize a pattern and focus attention, which is a very key part of that, yes, and we have really tiny examples of that now.
		We're not at the level of a fly yet, but it's a matter of scale.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		If we were to get to the point that we did create a consciousness, then are there not dangers that we would not be fully in control ourselves, no matter our instructions, once you cross a certain threshold, it may be that human instructions might be judged waste of time.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A waste of time, immoral, impractical, illogical judgment made by a machine.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		And this gets back to that very first point about the question you asked me.
		Would you say yes?
		Would you release information?
		My answer was yes, because of the nature of efficient markets.
		In effect, the brain works like a market of neural networks.
		And if you extend that as some kind of super smart machine, which is inevitable, just hooking together enough of the future computational devices, it may well see so many things that we don't see.
		It would say, in effect, if you folks knew what I or it knows, you would never walk in this direction.
		So in good faith, since I am programmed or my ultimate commandment is to look out for your well-being, the answer is no, kind of thing.
		I could easily imagine that.
		And that would be, in effect, having created not a child, but a superparent.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you have any clues about what breakthrough might walk right up to that barrier of consciousness, to that magical instant, how much storage, how much speed in a processor might equal consciousness?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		I think, you know, we know that the brain uses about a fourth of its processing for vision.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So I've heard, well, and only, what, a tenth of our entire brain or something, or something like that.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		But an awful lot of those neurons and all those wires and that gray mass is devoted to that.
		When we have implants, initially for the blind, and then just for failing eyes as you age, that are comparable to the eye.
		Not there yet, but we will definitely get there someday.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		At that point, that kind of processing, you'd have to wonder what would be the effect of other implants and whether the collection of those implants don't themselves represent at least the brain and something or the mind and beyond it.
		So that, to me, would be the litmus test.
		Do you have something that's comparable to the eye?
		I mean, it's a remarkable thing, Arthur, that you're looking at something.
		I'm looking at a can of 7-up now.
		If I move my head, the whole frame of vision doesn't move.
		It's somehow held fixed in that so-called binocular vision.
		That's real tough to replicate, and there's literally thousands of researchers doing it in hundreds of proposed ways.
		And a lot of them fail simply because they can't process the bits fast enough.
		But when we get there, some of these algorithms, probably most of them, will do what our eyes do and do things that we can't do, as well as, of course, see in different modes of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can't see in.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		At the present, let me try and restructure the question.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		At the present rate of development in the chip industry, nanotechnology and all the rest of it, at the present rate of development, which seems incredibly fast, if you project five years, ten years, 15 years, 20 years out, I mean, at some point, just projecting from where we are now and how fast we're going and advancing exponentially, you can take a guess at what we call in statistics a confidence interval.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		With 95% confidence, it'll be plus or minus five years, plus or minus the year 2020.
		So between 2015 and 2025, we will almost surely have crossed a lot of barriers from the microprocessor to the nanoprocessor and a lot of other messy problems associated with that.
		Really learning how to do science and do engineering information processing at the level of molecules.
		And it'll be inexpensive and powerful.
		Somewhere in there, that's a big enough interval that I am 95% confident that you'll see powerful implants that were comparable to what it took nature really hundreds of millions of years to deliver up by blind chance.
		Evolution.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Isn't that creation?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It's a form of creation.
		It's a form of getting information ultimately out of that wonderful stream of photons that we get for free from the sun.
		It seems to be the driving force.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So one might only have to live another 20 years or so to get to that point.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And if you don't, do you recommend cryogenic suspension?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Cryonic suspension.
		As one of the members of the science advisory board of the largest cryonic outfit, ALCOR, that seems to me maybe not the best way to go, but so far the only way to do, just to keep your brain intact for some point, because most of us probably won't make it, at least to the point where computer replacements are efficient and inexpensive, it'll take a while.
		And why not do time in a bottle rather than the alternative?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I believe you told me you've opted for it, haven't you?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		I'm an all-body patient.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		You're going to have everything frozen.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		All-body.
		Just for sentimental reasons, I want to have all those parts.
		Maybe I have to hang the carcass on the wall like a stuffed creature, but I'd like to take it all with me.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		When you discuss this with your family, what sort of reaction do you get?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		My daughter grew up always hearing it from me.
		She thought it was quite natural, as do most young people art, thanks to Austin Powers and the power of television.
		But the older generation is quite uncomfortable with it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yes.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It's an expensive and obscene form of burial, perhaps, and worse, and it's often seen as anti-religious, and that's just not logically right.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		You can be just as religious whether or not you go into the tank and you get up, and I would suspect you know a lot more about first causes if you wait a while and find out what science has to say about that in 100 years or 1,000 years.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Are you really satisfied intellectually, Professor, that being frozen in such a manner would sufficiently preserve you, excuse the term, freezer burn, you know, and whatever all else might go on in that process to actually have your consciousness revived intact?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you really believe that or what are the odds?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		The odds, maybe not at this moment, are very good, but the crucial point is that the tissue once suspended, whatever damage it incurs through the icing process, they're always working to improve that, it doesn't decay.
		Whether you have to wait five seconds or five centuries when you're frozen, you can afford to do so.
		And so you're gambling against future science.
		Is it reasonable to assume that in 10, 50, 100, 500 years, we'll be able to, with a nanotech-type technology, resurrect you a molecule at a time, a cell at a time?
		Today, absolutely not.
		But there's a non-trivial probability of that right now, and that is only going to grow in time.
		Unfortunately, the first one's frozen.
		We'll probably be the last one's clawed and repaired.
		It'll be so hard to do it.
		But given the options, it's a relatively small investment in terms of what a typical funeral costs, if you amortize that out.
		And if you just look at the odds of the alternative, it's really the only game in town.
		It's not the best game, but the only game.
		And after all, Arch, you're only talking about betting on your corpse, not on your life.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Boy, all right.
		Hold it right there.
		We've got a rock an hour to do ahead.
		We'll get the audience involved.
		This is fascinating stuff.
unidentified		Subscribe to After Dark.
		Call toll-free 1-888-727-5505.
		Call toll-free 1-888-727-5505.
		Call toll-free 1-888-727-5505.
		Call toll-free 1-888-727-5505.
		Wanna take a ride?
		Well, call our bell from west of the Rockies at 1-800-6188-255.
		East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
		First-time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
		The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
		And to recharge on the toll-free international line, call your AT ⁇ T operator and have them dial 800-893-0903.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Networks.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Assuming we survive, we're certainly on a ride, aren't we?
		Can you imagine, just barely, what it would be like?
		The nano future immediately ahead of us, Dr. Bart Costco is here.
		He's an expert in this area, a real expert in this area, and what he's telling you, you better listen to, because it's your future.
unidentified		Ha ha ha.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Professor Costco, Joe Russo of Fairbanks, Alaska, yeah, we're heard way up there, writes the following.
		What an idiot.
		Referring to you.
		Look, we developed the atom bomb, and thank God we did.
		Yes, we used it on Japan.
unidentified		But the U.S. has to be the first one to make goo.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		What?
		We should let the Chinese do it first and then hope that we can counter it.
		What a liberal fool.
		You know, there's a lot of people walking around with a lot of brass on their shoulder who would probably say just about the same words.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		There's merit to that argument.
		If, in fact, another country is eminently going to produce a viable goo weapon for nanotechnology, we have to work on it.
		He's right, I think, in a lesser sense.
		We have to be the first, perhaps, to study its consequences.
		We don't want to put too many prohibitions on it.
		I think, for example, we're doing on cloning.
		We have to be careful.
		But if we actually let the genie out of the bottle first, whatever basis, limited experimental basis, the unforeseen hazards here are just too great.
		I mean, the world would be very different, apparently, we find out now from the Soviet archives, if things had been only slightly different in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
		We came very close to nuclear annihilation then.
		And would it have been worth it?
		I mean, if you replayed that game in a simulation many times, I think you'd find too many outcomes where we're not here to talk about it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		Well, I did say that if we survive.
		And by the way, back for a second to your plan to be frozen when you die.
		I'm sure if you've studied this, which I'm certain you have, you know that the odds of your revival to life would be greatly enhanced.
		I mean, just stupendously enhanced if you decided to go in and get frozen a little early, to be honest with you.
		In other words, before you actually finally did the last gasp, if you were quick frozen while still in a living state, your odds of successful revival go up quite considerably, do they not?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Several things here.
		I think you're right in this sense.
		If you could pick it, you'd like to be frozen when you're at the peak of your powers, not when you're decayed away, so to speak.
		So at the last moments, when you're wasting away from brain cancer, for example, you probably should have backed that up, as some people have apparently tried to do, and the courts won't let them do.
		On the other hand, I think that we're so far from achieving this that the difference between whether you freeze at age 40 or 60 won't make a substantial difference when this becomes really viable, and whether it's 50 or 100 or 200 years.
		Again, the crucial, crucial point that's so often missed in dismissing this is that once you're frozen, whatever harm is done to the tissue, and it's considerable, once you're frozen, it just doesn't matter.
		You're not decaying anymore.
		And you can simply wait out science.
		So it's a gamble about technology and information doubling as fast as it is and chips.
		On the other hand, think also about the number of people who would have said, once you take a hard drive of a computer and hit it with a sledgehammer or throw it away, you can't get any information out of it.
		And as you know, there are companies, if you pay them enough money, they will get an awful lot of your prior data out of that.
		And that's a rough analogy.
		But I'd be very careful, even in the case of the severely damaged patient, of saying there isn't enough structure in the redundant encoding of the synapses of the brain that we couldn't restore a substantial part.
		It may be, given the kind of mathematical algorithms around for what's called interpolation, that even between the damage components, we can fill in with pretty good estimates and maybe get something better than before.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
		Do you think that, well, let me rephrase this.
		Are you displeased that the courts in the United States and politicians, frankly, at the highest level, take a very dim view of a great deal of this area of science?
		I mean, a very dim view to the point where they make it illegal to use fetuses in certain ways, to they stop stem cell research, even though some of it is going on.
		I mean, they really are putting the clamps on a lot of this.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		I think it's a big mistake, and you touched on it before when you talked about the relative advantages between countries.
		Other countries, for example, China, which has a one-birth policy, they're not putting those kind of clamps on.
		They would love the idea of America ceding the biotech future to someone other than Americans.
		You have to be careful, of course, and most researchers are, but you can't stop the progress of science here.
		And too many people, for a variety of reasons on the political left and the political right, which ultimately, I think, boiled out of fear and ignorance, would really hamper American ingenuity, progress, the patenting system, and all that.
		The net effect is you'll have a short-term victory, a feel-good kind of victory, and you'll turn around and you'll see it coming out of other countries, countries that may be very hostile to this one.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, Professor, a lot of it is, frankly, driven by religion.
		Absolutely.
		Let's face it.
		Right?
		Religious belief.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It is indeed.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		About when there is life and how you treat life and the sanctity of life and all the rest of it.
		And I don't see the United States changing in that regard.
		In fact, I probably see it becoming more stringent.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Statistically, you're right that among the developed countries, the studies show that Americans are the most religious.
		Now, they're not fanatically religious, but they are overwhelmingly so, compared, for example, to the developed countries of Asia or Western Europe and other places.
		And you have to be very careful here.
		If you're going to assert, I mean, the logic of these positions are worrisome.
		If you're going to assert, for example, that a fetus is alive the minute it has a unique DNA map, then you've got a big problem when grandfather dies, because that corpse still has that unique DNA map.
		So, you know, what do you draw that line here?
		Why is it that the unique map is alive at one part of the process and not the others?
		Very few of these arguments hold up.
		On the other hand, as a fuzzy theorist, it's pretty clear that this is a continuum from the first or two weeks when there's just a few cells together.
		And by the end of the process, where we have the so-called partial birth procedure, then I think you can make a reasonable argument that it's alive.
		And let me have you consider this case.
		If a woman is sitting in the state of California in the abortion clinic waiting to have her abortion, she's next in line, and somebody bursts in and hits her in the stomach with an ultrasonic device that kills a fetus, he goes up for first-degree murder, even though she and the doctor were going to produce the identical result.
		And we really haven't come to grips with that inconsistency Of what we do with preemies.
		And if you look carefully at the law on this, and I have, beginning with Roe versus Wade in the Casey case and many others, what you find is there's a moving window of so-called viability.
		And once the fetus is viable, what they used to call the quickening, I know you've used that term in a different context.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I have.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		But the quickening, once you can feel the baby kick in the old days, they said, well, let's don't have an abortion then.
		But that viability window, the ability of the baby to survive without the mother, keeps moving forward every day.
		For example, in my novel Nanotime, I have a child in gestation as part of the plot in a big diamond-like egg.
		And at the bottom of the screen, the computer indicates the fuzzy degree of life, 33%, and you can make an estimate of what his or her voice will sound like at age 5 and a poorer estimate of what it will sound like at age 10 and so forth.
		And either sex, the male or the female, the mother or father, could flip the switch to turn it off.
		Drawing that line to the fuzz, I think, is a non-scientific thing.
		And what we haven't come to grips with, that is it's not a line.
unidentified		It's a curve, and it's a matter of degree.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		For the average American to understand fuzzy logic, it would have been, it seems to me, a lot better not to have called it that.
		I mean, they seem so contradictory, fuzzy and logic.
		Would you please explain 101 fuzzy logic?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Yes, you're absolutely right.
		We often say this like the boy named Sue.
		One of my PhD advisors, Professor Lafizada at UC Berkeley, he gave it that name.
		Now, the field before, in a philosophical context, was called vagueness, and philosophers still call it that.
		So vague logic wouldn't be as offensive, but it still has this tension you call it between logic, which we think of as being precise, buzz, being imprecise.
		And so however you call it, though, we're coming down to the point is, is the world really digital?
		And take the simplest case, the word, the phrase, grass is green, which philosophers have used for 100 years to illustrate theories of truth.
		And an implicit assumption was that you either said yes or no.
		It's either green all or green not, one or zero.
		And it's perfectly okay, logically, to say it's green 80%.
		As in fact, a lot of grass is green 80%.
		And they said, no, no, no, you can't do that because then we would have grass art that is both green and not green.
		That would make Aristotle very upset.
		We would have what appears to be a contradiction.
		But it turns out on analysis, that's not right, that you only have a partial contradiction.
		Now, if you did have an outright contradiction, you can't say the grass is 100% green simultaneously with the grass being 0% green.
		But you can say, Art, that it's 80% green and 20% not green.
		And we kind of do that with probability anyway.
		And it's taken us a while to absorb that.
		But the naming of it, I don't know what to say other than Lothi is an Iranian national and English was his second language.
		But we could have come up with a better term.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So fuzzy logic then is what?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The ability to go beyond yes, no, on, off, and to go so far beyond it as to determine a middle or some percentage of toward on or toward off.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
		It's the logic of gray.
		And when applied at the computer level, it's the attempt to get computers to think like we think with very sloppy proxima knowledge.
		And it boosts their intelligence.
		It's been radically successful.
		I doubt there's anybody listening to this broadcast who doesn't have a gadget with fuzzy logic in the processor.
		Now, in Japan, they would advertise that as a positive feature.
		Here it's suppressed.
		But helping your car shift gears and any of those hundred-plus computer chips in the car or helping your microwave do its job or any other household gadget that has a chip in it, an awful lot of these have fuzzy logic programmed into it.
		To take the knowledge in human experts, for example, when to downshift when you're going downhill in a car, and to encode that in, in effect, a little expert in the software or the hardware that never falls asleep, never misreads the signals, and does the best it can given the facts.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		On a list of questions that you submitted, you submitted, I thought, a very intriguing one.
		Is the average American scientifically competent to sit on a jury?
		Now, that is intriguing because right now we have experts in murder trials that march in front of juries with charts and probabilities and one and how many billions that we could be wrong about this regarding DNA and all the rest of it.
		Juries seem not to be able to grasp this sort of thing very easily.
		So if we go a step or two or three more down this road, what are we going to have to have as juries?
		We're going to have to have, to reasonably judge a person's guilt, are we going to have to have a panel of 12 of our best scientists?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		There's something to be said for that.
		But the first question, yes, on technological cases, for example, patent disputes, and I've been involved as an advisor on many of these, including to the judiciary.
		I think we have to be very careful about people who don't have, not just often a college degree, but a PhD arguing or deciding a dispute between two or three PhDs about some very fine level that even most scientists couldn't grasp because it's outside of their field.
		Now, a recent ruling in 1996 called the Markman Decision, a unanimous Supreme Court said, forget the jury, on patent questions, on interpreting the statute, the claims of the patent, only the judge is competent.
		Well, the trouble with that is, there's a recent study, and I've written about this in the LA Times and elsewhere, that when you go to state judges, at least, and ask them about how they apply the rules of evidence, which the Supreme Court says they must, overwhelmingly, they don't know what it means.
		I mean, like, only one in 10 or 1 in 15 understand the crucial idea of whether something is testable or falsifiable.
		And it's very bad.
		So there's a precedent for what are called Article I courts for bankruptcy.
		That's in the Constitution, and now every federal district court has an appended bankruptcy court because bankruptcies are complicated, especially, for example, when they involve who owns the trademark or the copyright or the patent.
		But they're complicated in general.
		So I have proposed, and I think we'll see, some form of science court.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Science court.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Some issues really need that.
		Now, right now, what will happen, some disputes, the court can bring what's called a science master and someone who's not a gunslinger for the other side.
		We really have to have that.
		The jury, I think, can still be there.
		Maybe you'll want to put a technical qualification on that.
		And, you know, if you look at the Constitution, the way the federal courts have applied it, the Seventh Amendment, which talks about a jury trial right for civil cases, doesn't apply to the states like it does in a criminal case.
		So each state can go its own way on this.
		In theory, they could abolish juries, but they're not going to do that.
		And so we could have some level in what's called Voor Dyer process of screening for that, but we, at some level, I think, want to have this science court to advise the court or at least as an intermediary level of appeal.
		Because most people just don't know what's going on, and often hundreds of millions of dollars, some cases billions of dollars, are at stake.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
		Well, might it not get to the point, though, where technologically a person's guilt or innocence would be determined, for example, by a machine.
		Well, what we would call a machine, anyway, right now.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It could, but I doubt that.
		First off, I was talking the civil case.
		We were just talking about the case of criminals much more difficult because you have the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
		But I don't think we'll ever allow that.
		I think even attempts to bring in things like lie detectors, which are mixed reliability, have not been very successful.
		There's some probative evidence there, but the courts tend to keep it out.
		But we're not just going to feed the facts into the computer and have it spit out an answer, in partly because the law is so fuzzy in itself, and every case is unique.
		The facts never quite exactly fit the law, and the judge tries to interpret the law on several abstract principles.
		That is a place I think at least will be the last resort for human judgment.
		But we will be very loath to give that part up.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, here's an interesting question for you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that our Constitution, as it presently is with the Bill of Rights, will manage to survive the technological changes that are coming in the next 20 years?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Usually it will survive.
		That may not be good news.
		And the reason is, if you looked at this, I've looked at this point very carefully, the judiciary in the 20th century art has been, I don't want to say legislating for the bench, so that's been alleged, but they've been bending over backwards sometimes to adjust to technology.
		For example, the Constitution art does not mention an Air Force.
		It mentions a Navy.
		It mentions an Army.
		And I think we're all quite happy with the interpretation of this as a living document to include an Air Force and a Space Force, which is the Fourth Frontier.
		So I think that sense of modifying these so-called majestic generalities to technological facts is there.
		The question is, after a while, though, does this just become the will of the judges?
		That's a scarier thing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, there will be an awful lot of early challenges in the area, for example, of the Fourth Amendment.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Gee.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		The late Fourth Amendment.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		The late Fourth Amendment.
		Well, when I asked whether it would all survive, it included that one.
		Yeah, in the Bill of Rights.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It's quite literally been shot full of holes.
		The search requirement, the search warrant requirement has so many exceptions to it.
		And this particular Supreme Court has taken a very dim view of, in some sense, of the exact wording of that 54-word provision, which was, by the way, our good luck that the Founding Fathers had had bad luck with the English who went in and ransacked homes under general warrants.
		And they wrote that extraordinarily precise Fourth Amendment, which led to a lot of interpretation, but there were so many holes in it, so many ways of having exceptions and alternatives to even whether you need to have a warrant, that even before 9-11, it wasn't clear what it brought you.
		And a recent case was called the Kiello case, K-Y-L-O-O, where the police officers used a thermal device to look at a house, in effect, to detect whether someone was growing marijuana inside.
		And a narrow five-to-four court, surprisingly led by Justice Scalia, said, no, that went too far because we have a sanctity of the home, and it's sort of mentioned, it is mentioned in the Fourth Amendment.
		The other side in dissent was quite consistent logically with its prior decisions, which I personally think were wrong, but in saying, so what?
		These are signals that you publicly omit to the public.
		They bounce off your house, go out to the world.
		You don't have a so-called reasonable expectation of privacy, too bad.
		And then that opens a door to each new level of penetrating technology, satellites and other gadgets.
		I mean, if you don't have a reasonable expectation in the garbage you set out on your street, which according to Supreme Court, you don't, and the other pulses you emit, it isn't clear where they'll draw that line.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Professor, hold it right there.
		Actually, that's an interesting promo for tomorrow night's program, which is going to deal with bugs, secret ways to spy on you, and technology in that general area.
		And you're going to hear some amazing things tomorrow night.
		So that's a good promo for that.
		In a moment, we'll begin to take calls for the good professor.
		So stay right where you are.
		I'm Art Bell.
unidentified		This is Coast to Coast AM.
		Recharge Bell in the Kingdom of Nine from West of the Rockies Isle 1-800-6188255.
		East of the Rockies 1-800-8255-033.
		First time colours may recharge at 17757271222.
		Or use the wildcard line at 17757271295.
		To recharge on the toll three international line, call your AT ⁇ T operators and have them dial 800-893-0903.
		This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on the Premier Radio Network.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Moving right through the nighttime.
		Good morning, everybody.
		Okay, let's officially open the phone lines for questions for Professor Costco.
		I'm Art Bell, and in a moment, we turn to all of you.
unidentified		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Professor Costco has written three books, Fuzzy Engineering, Intelligent Signal Processing, and Heaven in a Chip.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And Professor, if you're going to recommend which of your three books I should read first, which would you suggest?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		The non-technical one, which is Heaven in a Chip from Random House.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		okay uh...
art bell ▲ ● ▼		and that i take it uh...
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		projects for us what our future holds what a trip will eventually do for us what All right, let's go to the phones.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		A lot of people want to talk to you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Costco.
unidentified		Hi.
		Professor, this is Michael in Norfolk, Virginia.
		I told Art that I think you flunked the Lear test from the standpoint of formal logic.
		I don't want to discredit you.
		You're obviously brilliant, and you were given a question on the spur of the moment that most people would have difficulty dealing with.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		He had a little time, more than Peter did, to think about it.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		On what point of logic did he flunk, be clear?
unidentified		When we criticize anybody, we like to take their strongest point and their weakest point and try to find a happy medium in there to judge them.
		But the weakest point in the briefing comes down to the point of making a statement that there is no God as the public perceives God to be.
		That's negative.
		Anyone trained in formal logic would understand that it would be impossible to prove that.
		And just from a standpoint of a non-weined person, who do you believe?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, look, the whole contention was that you believe everything that was in that briefing.
		And based on that, would you or would you not make it public?
		That was it, Corner.
		So, I mean, on what point of logic did I still don't understand where the professor failed.
		There was a very great deal of information in that briefing.
unidentified		Well, the first thing, what group could come to you and say that they had no first-hand information of who our creators are, no contact with them, but our only contact has been with robots that they have created, and this is the information we have derived from those robots.
		It doesn't make sense to take that position and then take the position of saying there is no God.
		You would have to know all there is.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		you're arguing with briefing that's fine but that's you know you're what Pardon me?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		You're not granting the if part.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, the whole premise was that you accepted, period.
unidentified		But you can't accept as true something that is blatantly unproven.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, fine.
		All right, fine.
		So you've argued with that, but then how does he fail the test?
unidentified		well by not testing it at its weakest point where you have a juicy All right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you very much for the call.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		If I can comment on that, I do teach logic, and it is a good exercise to accept some premises that you know, for example, are false and just see what the logic entails.
		And so there was no logical error in that exercise.
		We granted a lot of assumptions, and you asked the question about conclusions.
		So there was no logical problem.
		He's arguing a factual issue, which is not the issue before us.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Right, exactly.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Costco.
unidentified		Hello.
unidentified		Hello.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
unidentified		Yes, this is Johnny from Seattle.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hello, Johnny.
unidentified		And my brother Joe and I have a question.
		Well, it's a two-part.
		One, we're wondering, you know, if it will be possible in the timeline that might concur to make it feasible, is it to the point with nanotechnology that they can inject it into the human body and these nanobots attack certain cancers or tumors or diseased parts of the body and take care of it.
		And once they do, you know, of course, be drained through your system.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Art, I'm afraid I can't hear the speakers.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		He's saying that it will be possible, will it not, to inject nanobots into your system that, for example, might go attack cancer.
		In other words, he wants the positive aspect of this, I guess.
		Is that right, Paula?
unidentified		Correct.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Okay.
		There you are.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		We've all hoped that.
		I wrote about that in my earlier book called Fuzzy Thinking.
		That really is pure speculation at this point.
		I said, one problem with that right now is anything we put in the body, the body, the immune system tends to tear it apart.
		That's not a foreseeable consequence right now of nanotube technology.
		Certainly doesn't mean it won't be in the future.
		And we might want to have little devices that work like killer B or T cells in our system that hunt down the bad.
		So I'll give you another example that a good way, I think, to lose fat would be to have some kind of perhaps nano signal detection device that kills about a third of your fat cells for you.
		But having free-swimming autonomous entities in you, that may happen someday, but we're nowhere near that now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		First time caller line, you're on the air with Professor Cusco.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Hello.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hi.
unidentified		Yeah.
		Anyway, Time Magazine had an article.
		They called it Nano Surgery a few years back about what the LS caller was referring to.
		But my question is: first of all, I want to thank you both for your time.
		But back in the 80s, I remember reading an article in Popular Science magazine, and they discussed quantum wires.
		And it sounded like very similar to the carbon rods you were talking about.
		And I'm wondering if this is a precursor, but they compared it as quantum wires.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Quantum wires.
unidentified		Yeah.
		It was an article.
		It was right interesting in popular science back in the 80s.
		And they compared it like you did to a certain diameter comparison to the human hair.
		And they described it as being able to take electrons in a circuit.
		You know how electrons bang off each other and create heat and wasted power.
		They would have the effect of lining up the electrons, increasing the speed and conserving power.
		And I was wondering if there was any similarities to the quantum wires or have they ever evolved beyond that, what the article was talking about.
		And one other thing.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, hold on, one thing at a time.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		It's a good question about the electrical status.
		Nanotubes commenced in our culture formally in 1991, although again, cavemen created them in soot and we do that all the time.
		So a 1980s article would not have referred to that.
		On the other hand, we're very much concerned about how electrons behave.
		And what's neat about nanotubes and bucky balls is they don't trap the electrons inside the ball or tube.
		They instead distribute the electrons along the surface of the tube.
		And that's what allows us to, what's called, quantize the properties and to transform it on the one hand into a metal or into a transistor type device, a semiconductor, or a semi-metal.
		So it's not quite the same thing, but it's similar.
unidentified		Right.
		I didn't know how that has progressed.
		I thought it might have something to do with computers becoming more and more, you know, the microprocessors becoming more and more powerful.
		But one more thing in that article I just wanted to mention that I thought just really gave me an interesting perspective of that they also had it showed a head of a pen that had been magnified, I don't know how many times, but it had where a laser had printed into the head of the pen.
		And what it was, they had actually magnified that head of the pen, that head of the pen with 29 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
unidentified		On the head of that pen.
		And I'm just sitting there trying to...
		And that was back in the 80s.
		So you can imagine our ability for storage is tremendous.
		But I'll let you go, and I just wanted to.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Thank you very much.
		Professor, where are we with storage?
		Most of us are still using the old-fashioned disk drive.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we are.
		And with the micro technology, it's doing very good.
		It's coming upon its limits.
		The prototype chip, nanotube chip, alleges that once it gets going, it could increase storage a millionfold.
		So we have terra bit, trillions of bits of information, which is a big jump where we are from now.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Wildcard line, you're on the air with Professor Costco.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hello.
unidentified		Hi, this is Keith and Crofton.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Hello, Keith.
unidentified		Hi.
unidentified		Have you ever read The Lost Book of Enki, Zachariah Stitching?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		By Zachariah?
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		No, I have not.
unidentified		Oh, you've got to read that.
unidentified		Okay.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Anyway, do you have a question for my guest?
unidentified		Yes.
		My question is, I've come across a lot of people that have devices that really are revolutionary, like Troy Reed's magnetic motor, Dr. DePalmer's end machine, the polylithium-ion plastic battery, things like that, that are really starting to change things here.
		And a lot of these guys, their technology could really push things forward quickly.
		But a lot of things that people have greed and they want to market a lot of this stuff.
		Bart, if you created something that was really going to push man forward, technology, would you give it to man or would you try to market it?
john lear ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's a good question.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		And my answer is I'd put it in the public domain.
		Now, it's not a fully altruistic answer because you stand to reap a lot of what are called secondary benefits from that.
		I give lectures and people call upon you to do things.
		And after all, if I call something really good, maybe someone will come and give USC and me an endowed share.
		But in general, things like this, especially when I have taken some taxpayer money, I don't prefer to pat this.
		And my colleagues do, and I've done that before in the past.
		But I would rather make my income in other ways.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, Caller?
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Thank you very much.
		East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Costco.
		Hello.
		Hello?
		Yes.
unidentified		Oh, hi, Art.
		Hi.
		This is Keith Ontario.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Yeah, I was just, my question is very simple for your guest.
		I have a ridiculous amount of bad luck every day until I shake my fist in the air as, you know, gesturing to God.
		My question is, if there is no God, is life pre-written?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't know that that falls in the nanological scheme of things that the professor could answer, but you're welcome to take it on.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		A degree in philosophy, happy to talk about that.
		Technically, no.
		As long as we have a universe that obeys certain scientific principles, we don't necessarily need someone to run it.
		You can argue whether we had someone to wind up the clock and set it in motion.
		That's the view, for example, of Jefferson and Franklin and deists Like that.
		But if you do that, as you know, you get this regress.
		Well, then who created the creator?
		And if you're not going to answer that, then why even posit that creator?
		And the other part I think you're touching on is the issue of free will.
		And how does that square with scientific determinism?
		I think really the philosophers have teased that out of the natural language.
		We usually mean that a person, an agent, in theory a robot is free with respect to an action if his or her, its desire, was a link in its causal chain.
		And a lot of philosophers from Hume and Spinoza all the way up to the late great Willard Venom Quine have arrived at that.
		So when the desire of the agent is part of the link of the chain, we consider that free.
		The desire itself could be as rigidly determined as you please.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Welcome to the Rockies.
		You're on here with Professor Costco.
unidentified		Hi.
		Hello, Art.
		Hello, Professor Costco.
		I have a question about cryogenics.
		I mean, I have the beliefs that after the physical body dies, the person's spirit rather rapidly goes on.
		See, the great white light, you know, eventually reincarnates or whatever.
		How in the heck is your spirit going to be convinced to wait around a cryogenics lab quite a few years until it's going to get downloaded back into the body?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		All right, well, I don't want to depress you with this information, sir, but there was a 60-minutes piece.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Maybe you remember it.
unidentified		No, I don't.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, okay, then.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		This lady had a brain aneurysm.
unidentified		Yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Oh, it was terrible.
		An aneurysm was going to kill her any minute.
		That's like a blown-up balloon of blood that's going to burst and you're dead, right?
unidentified		Right.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		And so what they did, this was now a few years ago, they froze her body.
		Well, actually, they reduced her body's temperature to the point where she had no brain wave.
		She had no heartbeat.
		She had no respiration.
		Frankly, sir, she was dead.
		D-E-A-D.
		Dead.
		Technically and legally and every way you want to look at it.
		She was dead.
		And she was dead for about, I believe, 40 minutes.
		And what they did is they took all the blood out of her body, every last drop.
		And they went in, opened her skull, and clipped out that aneurysm, which, of course, with no blood had deflated, sewed it up successfully, and brought her back to temperature.
		And she came back alive.
		And she was the same lady who had gone down 45 minutes earlier.
		But the question is, where was she for that 45 minutes?
unidentified		Yes.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Well, thank you, Art.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, you're welcome.
		Thank you.
		And so I would presume that based on that kind of reality, Professor, you're imagining that you'd be back.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		The only place I would challenge the speaker here, the caller, is the factual assertion that there was a soul that left the body.
		That's a loose way of talking, but I think you hit it right.
		When you turn off the computer, the program doesn't disappear in that sense.
		It's still encoded in the device itself.
		And in the same way, our sense of self is, the best that we know, it's largely encoded in the synapses in your brain.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so, I mean, she was in every measurable way dead.
		If the soul was going to be on its way, it should have taken off.
		And, you know, we should have had a different lady.
		He was to the Rockies.
		We're almost out of time.
		You're on the air with Professor Bartonesco.
unidentified		Hi, Art.
		This is BQ.
		I was just wondering, listen about your fuzzy logic machines and chaos engines.
		I was just wondering if you heard about the washing machine in Japan that has a chaos engine that works on free weights.
		What?
		It's like you ever remember those things you swing around and it's got the weight in the middle?
		You swing it around and it's like a chaos machine.
		My counselor was telling me about this.
		It's almost like a fractal noise engine.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		I have no idea about this.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you, Professor?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I do.
		Of course, there's been a great triumph of fuzzy logic with a fuzzy washing machine, which controls how you inject chemicals.
		But when you look at how you swish the water back and forth, things like that, you can randomize that strategy and encode the randomness in a form of mathematical chaos.
		It does exactly the color said act like noise.
unidentified		To achieve what goal?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		A good random mixing and making sure that particles fully diffuse throughout the liquid.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So that, in other words, put another way to get a better wash?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Pretty much, yeah.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		So this kind of circuitry, is it going to be in more and more things?
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that we're going to be told, that society is going to be told, or in fact, sort of misled about this technology?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		In general, I don't think it's a seamless process.
		We proceed in inches here, and your gadgets will get smarter and cheaper.
		I don't think we'll make a lot of inquiries about why.
unidentified		Occasionally we do.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		We'll hear words like fuzzy logic and neural networks and a variety of other so-called smart technologies.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, I hope that you do very, very well indeed with your books.
		And I guess, so you would recommend for everybody probably Heaven in a Chip.
		Yes, I would.
		And again, your expectation is that by the year 2020 or so.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Plus or minus five years.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		With 95% confidence, big things will happen.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, of course, you know they said that about robots.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		But I don't think it was quite that precise.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		I'm talking about chips that are comparable to the human eye.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Could chips that are comparable to the human eye be connected to processors that are comparable to the human brain?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		That's the next step, absolutely.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Well, isn't that giving our thinking machine eyes and then, gee, the cochlear implant, why not ears?
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Right, and it gives new meanings the sense of the eye in the sky when there's surveillance.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		It certainly does.
		Well, Professor, I want to thank you for being here.
		It has, as last time, been an absolute pleasure having you on the air.
bart kosko ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
art bell ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, and good night.
		All right, Professor Barkosco.
		And speaking of surveillance, tomorrow night we're going to be talking about surveillance.
		The surveillance, perhaps, of you, me.
		All of us.
		Oh, yes, the times, they're a-changing.
unidentified		The reasons don't feel the reaper.
		No, do the wind, the sun, the rain.
		We can be like this.
		Come on, baby.
		Don't feel the reaper.
		Baby, take my hand, don't feel the reaper.
		We'll be able to fly.
		Don't feel the reaper.
		Baby, I'm done.

▲