Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 15, 2003 - Art Bell

02:50:46

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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Music from the high desert and the great American Southwest.
	Indeed it is.
	I bid you good evening, afternoon, morning, whatever the case may be in whatever time zone of this great world of ours you're in.
	I'm Art Bell and this is the Weekend Edition of Coast to Coast AM.
	It is an honor to be here with you and sharing with you what I did in the past week.
	This is my webcam photograph.
	If you 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 HDTV, one of those new HDTVs, 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. Bill, 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, uh, that's what I did this last week.
	We got a Hitachi HDTV and all the associated paraphernalia, including news around town system and All the cool stuff, HDTV receiver, you know, from satellite.
	I mean, it is UNBELIEVABLE!
	UNBELIEVABLE!
	HDTV 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 TEN THOUSAND WIRES!
	TEN THOUSAND 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 Ms.
	Brokaw and 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 Kosko, 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.
	bits all of that uh... beginning in a moment you know actually the uh... john leary 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.
	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 92 candidate for the U.S.
	House of Representatives.
	Huh.
	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.
	Good evening Art.
	Good evening to you.
	You're off on a little vacation or something somewhere, or what?
	I'm at a conference down near Branson, Missouri, down on 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 Greenwald.
	There are 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.
	Okay, you're going to have to speak up good and loud for me.
	Our phone connection is, hmm, so-so.
	God only knows what this telephone is like.
	Is that better?
	No, actually, it is quite a bit better.
	Thank you.
	Yes.
	So, Peter, you're at a conference, and the atmosphere then would be just right for what we're about to do.
	And this is how recent a case you and I are about to talk about.
	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.
	Oh, yes.
	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 The Phoenix Lights case that we did back in March of 1997, thanks to your program and you, we have 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.
	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, 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?
	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.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, what accounts for that?
	I mean, did some, I don't know, guru behind some giant desk somewhere decide, Okay, time for this story.
	We're gonna 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?
	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.
	Certainly, there was something at work there that kept the press from handling that case, even addressing it at all.
	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 service?
	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.
	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.
	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.
	No, he is.
	He is.
	I've got him right here.
	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 streak 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.
	Hey, Jeffrey.
	I'm here.
	You're here.
	Good.
	You're in Boston?
	Brookline, which is its own town just west of Boston, actually enclosed partially in Boston.
	I'm about a mile from Fenway Park.
	OK.
	All right.
	Exactly what were the circumstances and what did you see?
	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 was 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 fishhook 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.
	Did you have any immediate impression, Jeffrey, of what you were seeing, you know, while it was going on?
	Did you say to yourself, um, oh, that's a whatever?
	No, in fact, um, I kept saying, I'm seeing something, I don't know what it is, which kept me watching it.
	Um, you know, because I always think that the U in UFO is unidentified, you know?
	Uh-huh.
	Well, it is.
	Was there any form whatsoever beyond the form generated by the lights themselves?
	I couldn't see anything at all behind it.
	Okay.
	And, um, 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.
	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?
	No, it seemed to me, as much as I could tell, that they were lights that were of one entity.
	Okay.
	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.
	Okay.
	That I got to be watching this.
	So the lights didn't move apart or change in orientation to each other as far as I could tell.
	What's interesting also is that I can't find anyone else who saw it.
	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.
	Oh, that's very odd.
	Now, to you, does that mean that these lights were that close to you, that they would not have seen it, do you suppose?
	That's a good hypothesis as any.
	My guess is, too, thinking about it, that they were probably about the height of a very, No, it wasn't streaking across the sky.
	skyscrapers to maybe a thousand feet up or something.
	Uh huh.
	That's pretty close all right.
	Yep.
	Um, so they were, 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 or?
	No, it wasn't streaking across the sky, it was drifting the way that, um, you know one
	of the things I thought it was, or I tried to think it was, was perhaps like a flock
	could keep except of course they would like But it had that motion, that sort of movement of speed that you could see birds moving across the sky.
	So not incredibly fast at all, no streakiness.
	Well, that's pretty odd, and from that point then you lost a sight of these lights, Jeffrey?
	Yeah, but it took a while because it was just drifting away over the trees in the distance.
	Thank you for the report.
	Yeah, it was kind of like that.
	We watched it for, as I said, probably up to about three minutes from when we first
	saw it.
	Actually, I went inside and the first thing I did was call the Boston Globe to just say
	if anyone else out there saw these lights that I was another witness to them just in
	case they wanted to know that other people saw them.
	Okay, sir.
	Thank you for the report.
	Yeah, it was kind of like that.
	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 of 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.
	What do you think you saw, Jeffrey?
	Oh, that's you and unidentified.
	I don't know.
	So, a good subjective report.
	Alright, 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.
	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.
	How'd he get to you?
	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... Oh, they get you.
	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'm aware, I've been out of touch on the road for about four days now, but so far as I'm aware, not a peep in either of those two newspapers or anywhere else 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.
	About ten minutes of test.
	From the high desert, I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	roaring through the night like a freight train stay right there
	heya heya heya ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho
	heya heya heya ho ho heya heya heya ho ho heya heya heya ho ho
	the the
	hood the
	To reach Art Bell in the kingdom of Nigh from west of the Rocky's Dial Run.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222 or use the wildcard line at 1-775-727-1295.
	To reach out 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 Network.
	Indeed it is.
	We're discussing a sighting in the Northeast that Peter compares to the sighting down in Arizona.
	Certainly not 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'm going to be giving Peter the Lear test shortly.
	that's going to be incredibly interesting all directly ahead.
	Alright, we're discussing some dramatic sightings over New England and the eastern seaboard
	during the lunar eclipse just last Saturday.
	Here once again is 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?
	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, Art, 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 the I think an eight-story building or perhaps higher.
	Okay.
	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.
	Hello, Jeff.
	New York City, huh?
	Hi, yes.
	Hi.
	Okay, let's hear it.
	What did you see?
	How did it come down?
	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.
	We're basically on 23rd Street on the west side of Manhattan.
	We were, 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 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, you know, a very high-flying flock of birds, just kind of drifting noiselessly from the north to the south, several points of light Um, just kind of gently gliding down the sky, and we all kind of looked at it, and it looked a little strange, um, because it was so high.
	Um, and we watched it kind of just disappear and, you know, kind of remark 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 rigid formations, and others that were in formations that were sort of
	Changing as they drifted across the sky.
	This sounds like an awfully major event, Jeff.
	And how many of you saw this, all this?
	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.
	It was very obvious once you saw it.
	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 agreed that it was extremely bizarre.
	Nobody had any idea what it was.
	And there was one time that was, you know, extremely... One of them was really interesting.
	It was this formation that was going and then it split into two different strands of light and then reconnected.
	And that really kind of threw everybody for a loop because You know, we've been theorizing a bunch of different possible explanations, but the fact that it reconnected sort of took any sort of, you know, accidental debris or whatever scenario that we were coming up with out of the equation, seemingly.
	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.
	That's my impression too Art.
	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 eight a.m. to midnight
	seven days a week to provide the american people with a place to report the
	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 gonna get
	to the bottom of 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?
	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.
	You know, being out there.
	And, you know, I couldn't get it out of my head.
	And, you know, we kind of went back downstairs and conversation turned to other things.
	And I was a little surprised that most people weren't more interested in figuring out what it was.
	Because, and I think part of it was, you know, it was an extremely odd phenomenon.
	But from what we saw, I think you really had to be, you really had to be thinking about what you were looking at.
	To realize how strange it was.
	Okay, well how did you get from that moment to Peter Davenport?
	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 site, 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 you know, I'm glad I did, and as Peter says, I would encourage anybody who's seen this to please report it, because I just want to know what it was.
	What is your attitude otherwise, Jeff, about UFOs?
	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'd 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.
	I need to find out what it is.
	You sound credible to me, and I want to thank you for coming on the radio program.
	Thank you for having me.
	I appreciate it.
	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 we need to figure it out.
	You'll have a new attitude now, Jeff.
	Welcome to the club.
	Well, thank you very much.
	See you later.
	That was very nice, and so there you go.
	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, 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, but 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.
	They certainly do, and certainly would, and I think they did in July of last year, our 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.
	Well, but if this were made public Um, I mean, let's think about this.
	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.
	People would go, wow, really?
	At least.
	That's a big story, right?
	How come it didn't hit the national news?
	Isn't that an interesting question?
	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.
	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?
	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.
	Well, alright, 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.
	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.
	Maybe they're trying to keep the separation of church and state intact.
	I don't know what they might think.
	I sit here and for years I've talked to people throughout the Bible Belt, 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 absolutely believe that these things are of the devil.
	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.
	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.
	It 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 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.
	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 you know that
	truth was laid. 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, alright?
	Alright, I look forward to it.
	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 ten 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 postman castro 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 the
	the the
	the 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.
	East of the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach Art at area code 775-727-1222 or call the wild card 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.
	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 leader test
	one more time 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?
	I am standing by.
	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?
	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, we'll use some videos and stills.
	Our first UFO recoveries are 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 Roswell.
	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 experimenter product, if you will, of an alien race.
	We never met and really don't know who they are.
	All we know is that the Greys 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, and 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 phenomenon 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 speculated 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 in the captivity at the YY-2 facility at 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 million-fold what we had naively agreed to.
	In 1954, President Eisenhower met with a representative of another alien species at Muroc 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 is 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 Pine Gap, 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 and 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, 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.
	Uh, look like that one was a male about 27 years old.
	Uh, now that film is of dead aliens being pulled from the wreckage of their craft that crashed in Atlanta, California in the fifties.
	That craft you see over there is, uh, was over 250 feet in diameter and had to be buried on the spot.
	Uh, that site is in Utah near Dugway Proving Grounds.
	The object that you're looking at now is the Kecksburg Acorn, which was brought to Wright-Patt in the middle sixties.
	There's Frank Drake trying to force information out of a being tied down to that stretcher.
	He was supposedly from Tau Ceti.
	These pictures you're looking at now are the structures on the moon.
	That's the tower in Sinus Medi.
	It's over seven miles tall.
	And that thing there is what we call a Colossus of Agurum in Mauritius.
	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 5 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 acclimatizations 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 VP 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.
	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?
	Yep.
	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.
	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.
	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?
	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 I 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.
	Well, the magnitude of the lies that we're told, if that scenario is accurate, is so large that it would bring down any government on earth.
	Yeah.
	That part of it I accept implicitly.
	There's no doubt in my mind that what the business of big government is big lies.
	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 gonna be made public.
	Secretary of Defense, probably, in 1949.
	And... James Forrestal.
	And many others, he said.
	People who threaten us are liquidated.
	Simple as that.
	So that makes those people murderers.
	Yep.
	That makes our own government...
	Well, if you're alluding to the meeting I had with people from the U.S.
	our government depending on what you want to leave i mean you were chatting
	for a moment in the last half hour peter about what do you
	you know you were asked whether you believe that there is a shadow
	government yanking on the strings of our current elected officials uh... and how
	was it you responded to that again uh...
	if you're alluding to the meeting i had with people from the u s government they
	did ask me that question yes uh...
	my suspicion is that there are such people in our government there were
	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.
	So then you agree in large, to a large extent, with what Mr. Lear said, the severity of it even.
	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.
	And the chips might fall right squarely on, hey, 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.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	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.
	But 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 And then along with that, on the platter, you announced that there really is no God, that we were manufactured creatures.
	Peter, you'd have quite a time on your hands.
	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 It was a great radio production of October 30, 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... And that was panic.
	They were monsters.
	They were eating people.
	Yeah.
	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, so... Possibly.
	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 in a 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.
	Alright, listen buddy, we're out of time.
	Give your telephone number real quickly.
	Telephone number area code 206-722-3000 for recent sighting reports 206-722-3000 and our
	website for written reports ufocenter.com.
	All right, brother.
	Thank you.
	And have a great night, Peter.
	Good night.
	Thank you.
	Good night.
	Okay, there you have it.
	That's Peter Davenport.
	That's what he'd do.
	How about you?
	I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to do it.
	you you
	Once upon a time Once when you were mine I remember your skies Reflected in your eyes I wonder where you are I wonder if you think about me Once upon a time In Galway Call Art Bell in the Kingdom of Nye from west of the Rockies at 1-800-618-8255.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may rechart at 1-775-727-1222.
	And the wildcard line is open 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 from the Kingdom of Nine.
	All right, since I asked him to, Bart Kosko 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 Kosko's a fascinating individual, and this is going to be a lot of fun.
	One quick note, by the way.
	And, uh, 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 a kind of a rogue physicist.
	We've had him on the show.
	He's a great guy.
	Uh, I thought I had a lot of stuff, you know?
	A lot of, uh, electronic toys.
	But John sent me a picture of his He's got a porch.
	He apparently lives in an apartment, I would guess.
	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.coasttocoastam.com and look at my webcam photo.
	I slipped John Hutchinson's porch, his back porch, into 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 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 Kosko.
	Sound of a car crashing.
	Bart Kosko's 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 statistic signal processing.
	Dr. Kosko 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. Kosko 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. Kosko 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.
	Heaven in a chip.
	Heaven in a... well, believe me about that.
	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. Cosco and the first thing we're going to do is get his reaction to the Lear
	briefing.
	Did you know the average person carries 5 to 10 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. Jablonski'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, removes 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.
	800-203-8256.
	Buy two steps, get two steps free when you call now.
	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.
	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.
	9400 1-800-413-9400. Home office located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Not available in
	all states and benefits may vary by state.
	All right, we've cleared away a little commercial territory.
	So, Professor Kosko, welcome to the program.
	Hi, Art.
	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?
	Art, I would say release it.
	I do it for a couple reasons.
	First, there's the alleged proverb of Henry Kissinger 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 that goes right to the heart of how brains work, how neurons work, 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.
	Wow.
	All right.
	Let us now.
	So there's two for release.
	That's an amazing response.
	It really is.
	But all right.
	Let us 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?
	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.
	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.
	Okay, so anyway, to be clear here, you don't mean the biblical heaven.
	You mean delivery of heaven here on earth, right now.
	Here on earth in a chip, exactly.
	I mean the working equivalent of it.
	On the other hand, Art, 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.
	You know, 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 in an earlier novel, nano-time.
	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. That's a pretty good approximation to what most people have meant by heaven.
	How would you imagine that such a chip would be integrated with a human being?
	I mean, would it be surgically laid into our brains?
	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.
	An outright replacement.
	And what I've called elsewhere, an illustration of fuzzy logic, chipping away at your brain, is a way to think about this.
	When they pop off your skull, and the nano-engineers, 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 chip net 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 might come along and flip off your switch.
	Why would I not die?
	Since other biological functions apparently control the aging process, right?
	Telomeres and all these things they're looking at now.
	How would I not die?
	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.
	Professor, would it be possible to virtually download all of the information in some manner in a person's brain into an electronic device?
	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 for 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 take something as precious as you which
	is how to the speaking meet that depends on sugar sleep in the subject of stroke
	you're gonna rest all that when you could put it in a far better medium
	i just i just can't believe that well
	we are rather attached some of us to these physical the king meat like bodies
	yeah and i was which is nothing with whoever well
	uh... 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 into a machine
	You're telling me you would go for that as opposed to experiencing physical death, whatever that may or may not hold?
	In a heartbeat, but I'm not going to be the very first person in line to try out the new technology.
	But you would do it?
	Absolutely.
	It begins with the insight that your brain is a machine.
	It's a sloppy machine.
	It carries with it all the baggage of 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?
	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?
	Aren't our neurons firing faster than a Pentium 4?
	No, they're not firing faster, but more of them are firing in parallel.
	So for a while, we win that race, Art.
	Oh, well, good!
	Well, I don't know if it's good.
	I mean, with Moore's Law, 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.
	Yes, but you're telling me, aren't you, that eventually our brains will be as I now think of a VIC-20.
	Remember the VIC-20 computer?
	It was sort of just, sort of just barely a computer.
	That fading memory is kicking in.
	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 I begin to easily outstrip the human brain in most measurable ways.
	It used to be 20-30 was the usual estimate.
	Now it's 20-20.
	Really?
	Yeah, it just doesn't mean you can plug a chip into your brain then.
	And that's simply because of importing technologies.
	No, that wasn't a question.
	It was just... The processing power.
	The sheer power of 100 billion neurons doing their messy, chaotic thing.
	We'll easily pass that within 10 or 15 years.
	After all, you wouldn't want to run a race right now with a pocket calculator in terms of doing multiplication.
	No.
	What we're talking about is orders of magnitude 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 the 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 is pretty much... But we're almost there!
	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 the computational barrier.
	It's not as if in most cases that we haven't cracked the basic idea that we have.
	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.
	You're onto 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, probably had a lot of fun in the security room.
	And I believe the folks in Florida are trying to prevent that, the 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.
	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?
	From that point?
	That's exactly right.
	So keep in shape, stay alive, keep the brain active, live as long as you can.
	So that you can get the option to jump into the latest Pentium?
	Get as close to it as you can, exactly.
	Um, do you know, most people, if faced with that question, would say, um, oh, to heck with that, um, let me just die a normal physical death and go on to whatever is next, but don't put me in a machine.
	Mark, I think you're right.
	They would say that most of the time, but if they're on their deathbed, I bet they might answer quite differently.
	You really think so?
	Sure.
	If faced with the possibility of continued consciousness, even though it's in a machine, you're saying they'd take that gamble 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 is 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.
	All right, hold on, Professor.
	Professor Bart Kosko is my guest.
	And we're going to talk about all kinds of things, like heaven in a jiff, 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.
	Maybe.
	I think it's time to get ready.
	To realize just what I have found.
	I have been on the path of my end.
	It's all clear to me now.
	My heart is on fire.
	Maybe when you need a smile to help a shadow to know where you're going.
	Come to me, baby, you'll see.
	The love's too pretty, baby.
	Who's gonna hold you through the night?
	The love's too pretty, mama.
	Who's always there to make it through?
	The love's too pretty.
	Who's gonna love you, love you?
	Who's gonna love you?
	The love's too pretty.
	Who's gonna love you, love you?
	Who's gonna love you?
	The love's too pretty.
	Who's gonna love you, love you?
	Who's gonna love you?
	The love's too pretty.
	Who's gonna love you?
	The love's too pretty.
	Who's gonna love you?
	The love's too pretty.
	To recharge 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 recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	East of the Rockies 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222 or use the wildcard line at 1-775-727-1295.
	To reach out 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 Network.
	It is Professor Bart Koskos here and we're talking about the little things, actually.
	Little chips that might be implanted in your brain.
	Your brain perhaps implanted into a, within a little chip.
	I don't know.
	It's a very weird world we're facing.
	We're going to talk about fuzzy logic and nanotubes and all kinds of exotic stuff if you'll just stay right where you
	are In the nanotechnology
	world the big buzz out there right now is about nanotubes and
	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... Well, you go to 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?
	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 they reform.
	Right.
	And there's no doubt, probabilistically speaking, that there were carbon nanotubes in that soot, as there is in the soot of your chimney.
	Well, okay, what's a nanotube?
	Nano first means one billionth of a meter, whereas micro is one millionth.
	So we're down to the 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 you arrange those carbon atoms, in this case in hexagonal form, like a stop sign, makes a big difference.
	If you arrange them in a different way, you get a diamond structure, for example.
	They're basically sheets of graphite, the first ones, rolled up.
	And as you said, they're extremely strong, 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 with 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 remains to be seen, but it's as hot as it gets.
	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 billions, you said.
	But I'm not clear on what the material itself actually is.
	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 one hundred thousandth the thickness of a human hair, for example.
	They're 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.
	So you're suggesting on software orders, it could morph virtually?
	Something like that, yeah.
	Something like that.
	And so it can become different things?
	The same mass of nanotubes could become virtually different things?
	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 semiconducting 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.
	That is the master matter.
	How far might we be from, let's back away from the space elevator for a moment, and just assume that nanotubes begin to produce an extremely strong material.
	Stronger than steel?
	Stronger than, would it be lightweight?
	Would you make airplanes and jet fighters out of it?
	That kind of thing?
	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 and 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 nanodiamonds.
	When shot?
	When shot.
	Those are carbon tubes.
	So these things then already have been, at least experimentally, applied to applications like that?
	Art, the gold rush is on.
	The gold rush, wow.
	So the new gold rush isn't likely a diamond rush.
	Let me get this straight.
	Carbon, when compressed, becomes what?
	Eventually a diamond, right?
	If you have it in the form of a certain kind of tetrahedron, which is like a triangle, it'll be a diamond.
	You put it in the form of a soccer ball.
	And that's the shape they had it in in the attempt at the vest.
	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.
	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 to the carbon atoms in a hexagonal pattern, a 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 really worked that out.
	And we're just at the cusp of this, just at the very beginning.
	How does its conductive ability compare to traditional conductors like copper, silver, or gold?
	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 A Crisis of Computation Facing Us.
	We keep shrinking our chips.
	We've got to keep doing it.
	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 your name from Microsoft to Nanosoft.
	That would be the big tip-off.
	I wonder 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 two gigs is now suddenly not so hot at three gigs.
	They did something magical, and so, you know, how long?
	Great question, and no one can foresee the result of that great technology race, but so far the leading horse in that race is the nanotube.
	The announcement recently of nanochips, prototype chips, from Nantero, a company, N-A-N-T-E-R, and I have no affiliation with them.
	They claim, as recently reported in Businessweek, for example, that they'll have a prototype out next year, and along with some other companies with whom they have patents or signed 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 of very crude things, It's often the case in technology that those who make the great fortunes come along later.
	Yes.
	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 attempt to directly program matter, not just software, but matter itself, by assembling and playing with the structure of atoms, or the collection of those molecules.
	And I have to boast, like a proud parent, Please do.
	That this week, my colleagues and I have published, it's available on my website, which is available at your website, a brand new paper on nanotechnology.
	The first ever that I'm aware of on a formal use of these tubes for signal processing.
	In fact, we call that nanosignal processing.
	Stochastic resonance in 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.
	It 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 You're saying that these tubes could potentially repair a broken spine?
	It could be part of that.
	Of course, there's the 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'd have to connect.
	Assuming you can do that, 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.
	There's all sorts of things here, Arthur, that 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, 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?
	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 scope 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.
	How economically feasible is the process to create the end result?
	Right now it's not real feasible, but it's a lot better than it was a year ago. So in
	terms of looking five, ten years, unless something turns out that they're just too difficult
	to control a program and they may be.
	But that doesn't seem to be the issue.
	Like you said, one problem is that 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.
	I haven't quite figured that out yet.
	What do you mean?
	It picks up something?
	Give me an example.
	What do you mean it picks up something?
	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.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, sure.
	That's a potential big problem.
	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 a good old carbon tube.
	But the other properties, like deformation and turning into nanodiamonds 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.
	And which way do you think it shall go?
	The history of a lot of chemical research, and I'm an electrical engineer, I work largely with information processing 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 It doesn't depend on the carbon nature of the material.
	It applies to any tube.
	So you're saying we're that close, just short years before practical application?
	Absolutely.
	Several 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, we just don't know, it may be the way to really have an efficient and expensive high-definition TV screen.
	That's in hand, or your cell phone may... Figures.
	I just bought a high-definition TV this week, so I'm sure it will be totally out of date.
	Plasma will be like the VIC-20 by next week.
	Maybe not next week, but within five or ten years, let's hope so.
	You go out and buy the latest Nano set.
	That's right.
	I wonder, Phil, do you think that name, by the way, will stick to most products that get developed from this technology?
	A nano this, a nano that.
	Given the evidence of the success of the word micro, that's micro devices, Microsoft.
	In the 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 A screen, I understand a little bit about plasma and how LCDs 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?
	Potentially, would it be... Three big ones that are touted on the prototype.
	First, less power usage.
	Remember, we're a world that's sucking up more power all the time.
	Yeah, that's a big one.
	That's an issue.
	Second, more brightness.
	Brighter stuff.
	So you're more likely to see that advertising screen sitting in bright daylight.
	You know, it's kind of hard to walk outside with your computer now.
	That's true.
	And finally, wider viewing angles, the allegation.
	Now, I haven't seen that demonstrated, but that's the claim of the researchers on the Samsung and elsewhere.
	But they have the physics and the chemistry on their side.
	Boy, you wonder what people in these big companies like Samsung and Sony and Hitachi, all of them, and what they're doing deep in their research labs.
	And you're telling me This is what they're doing.
	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.
	For example, our paper will appear in print in a few weeks.
	It'll 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.
	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.
	My paper has four authors, and my other three co-authors are Chinese, so I have to be careful how I answer that.
	Are they really?
	It is still largely an American-driven game, and Europe's in there a big way, and Japan Well, I know, but we frequently seem to do the inventing, Professor, while the Japanese do the practical application and marketing.
	You know, that's happened to us a lot of times.
	That seems to be our comparative advantage.
	It does.
	Professor Cusco, hold on.
	We'll be right back to you.
	We're talking about little bitty things.
	Talking about nanotubes.
	They're coming fast, folks.
	I had no idea they were that close.
	Did you?
	Maybe I should have waited.
	About the latest nano sets.
	From the high desert, this is Coast to Coast AM.
	We are going to be doing a tour of the coast.
	A boom boom ba A boom boom ba
	A boom boom ba A boom boom ba
	In the middle of the desert A boom boom ba
	A boom boom ba A boom boom ba
	A boom boom ba A boom boom ba
	from most of the Rockies at one.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach Art at 1-775-727-1222.
	East of the Rockies 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	And the wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	To reach out 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 Nine.
	Oh, 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.
	What a very interesting future.
	As the cold rain falls here in the desert, it is indeed raining right now.
	here in the desert. It is indeed raining right now.
	Our guest is Professor Bart Kosko.
	And we're talking about the little things.
	And Professor Galana of New York City, Fast blast 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.
	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?
	Could be provided, and I think you're on to something big here, Art.
	In some sense, the great, terrible achievement of Osama bin Laden, he got us to do something that most people can't.
	He got us to effectively amend the U.S.
	Constitution.
	If it happens again, and unfortunately the odds are that it will, 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.
	Right.
	A grain of rice like thing.
	Right.
	I don't think it'll be mandatory, but I do think something like that will help 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.
	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 and courts.
	And should there be some extreme attack, some kind of nano-weapon, 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 Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth.
	Well, they're already wounded.
	They have a lot of scars around them right now.
	Yeah, I don't disagree.
	You just said nano-weapon.
	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 labs?
	Let's see.
	Gee, I bet they're working on nano-weapons.
	What kind of application might there be?
	Imagine a nano-weapon for me.
	I did.
	In fact, it's in my book, Nano Time.
	And that was a book where some folks went 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, in an oil tanker.
	It is a chain reaction.
	And within five minutes, you've got a five 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.
	It 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 and use them to goo, as it's often called.
	Goo, yes.
	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 nanoreaction that could do that.
	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.
	Well then, all right, consider this.
	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?
	No.
	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.
	I did indeed.
	You have a general question, but if you asked a real specific one, if there was some kind of ticking clock between disaster and great public necessity, I'm 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.
	So they came to you and they said, we want you to work on a nano-weapon that would eat With a voracious appetite, which would be a horrible, destructive thing, you know, this gray goo we talk about, or some variant of it, perhaps a more specific goo that would just eat... A smart goo, because it eats only certain things and not others.
	Yeah, exactly, like a goo that, let's say, eats, um... Well, I can't... It's tied to DNA.
	No, I was going to say Chinese, but I'm not, because of your associations.
	You know that... Oh, wait, my wife is Chinese.
	Um, mine's a mixture.
	Um, so, um, I, um, oh, gee, um, Iraqis.
	Ha!
	You know, it doesn't matter.
	You know that we're in some horrible... I think the only way you could morally do this, Art, would be as a defensive measure, the 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 gotta work on it.
	But to be the first one to pop that cork and look what happened With a nuclear weapon, and a cold war, and how we almost came... Well, if I were in the government, Professor, I would come to you and I'd say, Professor Kosko, 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 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.
	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, it probably won't.
	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.
	Well, we got the atomic bomb before we got reactors capable of producing electricity, right?
	Right.
	So probably this work is, would it be a safe guess to say it's going on?
	I would say it's a safe guess in the sense that we researchers and the world worried about Terrorism has to be worried about this kind of thing.
	As I said, if you want to go to the American Chemical Society's journal Nano Letters, 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.
	So we do keep pushing that frontier forward, and inevitably, in some unforeseen way, we will Alright, 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.
	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 are 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 hundred billion neurons.
	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, 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.
	But I mean, I guess the question is, is there any reason in the world why a machine could not eventually attain consciousness?
	Not if we say consciousness is what the brain excretes in its hundred billion neurons.
	If we can replicate those neurons, even simulate those in us, then it follows that we're simulating its byproducts, one of which seems to be what we call consciousness.
	Now, whether we had built into it, Art, a will to power and to replicate genes and things like that is 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.
	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.
	A waste of time, immoral, impractical, illogical judgment made by a machine.
	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 to 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.
	In effect, if you folks knew what I or it knows, you would never walk in this direction.
	So, in good faith, since I and program there my ultimate commandment look out for your
	well-being the answer is no kind of thing
	you can imagine that that would be in effect having created
	uh... a not a child but a super parent do you have any clues
	uh... about what breakthrough
	walk right up to that barrier of consciousness to that magical instant but how much
	uh... storage how much speed in a processor might equal consciousness
	I think, you know, we know that the brain uses about a fourth of its processing for vision.
	So I've heard, well, and only what, a tenth of our entire brain or something?
	Something like that.
	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, they're not there yet, but we will definitely get there someday.
	Sure.
	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 in something or the mind and beyond it.
	So that, to me, would be the litmus test.
	Do you have something that's comparable to that?
	I mean, it's a remarkable thing, Art, 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.
	At the present, let me try and restructure the question, 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, 10 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.
	I'll give you what we call in statistics a confidence interval.
	With 95% confidence, It'll be plus or minus five years, plus or minus a year, 2020.
	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 an expensive and powerful.
	Somewhere in there, that's a big enough interval that I am 95% confident You'll see powerful implants that were comparable to what it took nature hundreds of millions of years to deliver up by blind chance.
	Evolution.
	Isn't that creation?
	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.
	So, one might only have to live another 20 years or so to get to that point, and if you don't, do you recommend cryogenic suspension?
	Cryogenic suspension?
	I, as one of the members of the Science Advisory Board of the largest cryogenic outlet, 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 at 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?
	I believe you told me you've opted for it, haven't you?
	I'm an all-body patient.
	That's right.
	You're going to have everything frozen.
	All body.
	Just for sentimental reasons, I want to have all those parts.
	I may have to hang the carcass on the wall like a stuffed creature, but I'd like to take it all with me.
	When you discuss this with your family, What sort of reaction do you get?
	My daughter grew up always hearing information.
	She thought it was quite natural, as do most young people are, thanks to Austin Powers and the power of television.
	But the older generation is quite uncomfortable with it.
	Oh, yes.
	It's an expensive and obscene form of burial, perhaps.
	And worse, it's often seen as anti-religious, and that's just not logically right.
	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 a hundred years or a thousand years.
	Are you really satisfied intellectually, Professor, that being frozen in such manner would sufficiently preserve you, excuse the term, a freezer burn, you know, and whatever all else might go on in that process to actually have Your consciousness revived intact.
	Do you really believe that, or what are the odds?
	The odds at this moment are very good, but the crucial point is that the tissue, once suspended, whatever damage it incurs through the icing process, we'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 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 ones frozen will probably be the last ones thawed and repaired.
	It'll be so hard to do it.
	Sure.
	But, given the options, it's a relatively small investment in terms of With a typical funeral cost, 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, Art, you're only talking about betting on your corpse, not on your life.
	Boy, all right.
	Hold it right there.
	We've got a rockin' hour to do ahead.
	We'll get the audience involved.
	This is fascinating stuff.
	Subscribe to After Dark.
	Call toll free 1-888-727-5505.
	A way to swing.
	you He talked and he talked and I heard him say That she had the longest, blackest hair The prettiest green eyes anywhere And the recent name of his latest flame Oh, I smiled at tears inside of her grinning I wished him luck and he said goodbye
	He was gone, but still his words kept ringin' to me.
	On his list there for me to hear him cry.
	Wanna take a ride?
	Well, 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 1-775-727-1222.
	to the Rockies at 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222.
	The wildcard line is open at 1-775-727-1295.
	And to reach out 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.
	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 Kosko is here.
	he's an expert in this area of real experts in this area and what he's
	telling you you better listen to because it's your future
	the professor costco
	joe rousseau of fairbanks alaska and we're very way out there
	uh... rights following What an idiot!
	Referring to you.
	Look, we developed the atom bomb, and thank God we did.
	Yes, we used it on Japan, but the U.S.
	has to be the first one to make goo!
	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.
	Well, there's merit to that argument.
	If, in fact, another country is eminently Going to produce a viable goo weapon from 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, if we find out now, from the Soviet archives.
	Yes, well I did say that, if we survive.
	only slightly different in the cuban missile crisis became very close to
	nuclear annihilation that and would have been worth it and if you replayed that game
	in a simulation many times i think you find too many outcomes where we're not
	here to talk about it yes
	uh... well i did say that if we survive and and by the way back for a second to uh... your plan to be frozen when you
	die uh... i'm sure if you've studied this which i'm certain you
	have you know that the odds of your
	revival uh... to life are what it would be
	greatly enhanced i mean just tendously enhanced
	if you decided to go in and get frozen a little early
	to be honest with you and In other words, before you actually finally did the last guest
	If you were quick-frozen while still in a living state, your odds of a successful revival go up quite considerably, do they not?
	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.
	Oh, my.
	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 apparently try to do and the courts won't let them do.
	On the other hand, Art, 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, 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 in 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.
	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.
	That's a rough analogy, but I'd be very careful, even in the case of the severely damaged patient.
	saying there isn't enough structure in the redundant coding the synapses the brain that we couldn't restore
	Wow!
	a substantial part of maybe given the kind of mathematical algorithms around
	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 well
	I'm do you think that I'm I Well, no, 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 a The clamps on a lot of this.
	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 that 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 down to 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.
	Well, Professor, a lot of it is, frankly, driven by religion.
	Absolutely.
	Let's face it.
	Right?
	Religious belief.
	It is indeed.
	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.
	Statistically, you're right.
	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.
	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, you've got a big problem.
	When grandfather dies, because that corpse still has that unique DNA map.
	So where would he 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 it'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.
	I mean, have you considered 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.
	If you look carefully at the law on this, and I have, beginning with Roe v. Wade and the Casey case and many others, what you find is there's a moving window of so-called viability.
	Once the fetus is viable, what they used to call the quickening, I know you've used that term in a different context, but the quickening, once you can feel the baby kick in the old days, they said, well, let's not 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, Nano Time, 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.
	In either sex, the male or the female, the mother-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 is that it's not a line, it's a curve, and it's a matter of degree.
	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?
	Yes, you're absolutely right.
	This is like a boy named Sue.
	One of my PhD advisors, Professor Lafizadeh 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 that, between logic, which we think of as being precise, and fuzz, being imprecise.
	However you call it, though, we're coming down to the point of, is the world really digital?
	Take the simplest case, the phrase, grass is green, which philosophers have used for a hundred years to illustrate theories of truth.
	An implicit assumption was that you either said yes or no.
	It's either green all or green not, one or zero.
	It's perfectly okay, logically, to say it's green 80%.
	As a 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 a 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 Lotfi is an Iranian national and English was his second language.
	But we could have come up with a better term.
	So fuzzy logic, then, is what?
	The ability to go beyond yes, no, on, off.
	And to go so far beyond it as to determine a middle or some It's a percentage of toward on or toward off.
	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 approximate 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, Japan, they would advertise that as a positive feature.
	Here, it's suppressed.
	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 and 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.
	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 in 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 reasonably judge a person's guilt.
	Are we going to have to have a panel of 12 of our best scientists?
	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.
	You, I think, have to be very careful about people who don't have 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 It's 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.
	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, Art, for bankruptcy.
	That's in the Constitution, and now every federal district court has an appended bankruptcy court, because bankruptcies are complicated, and especially, for example, when they involve who owns the trademark or the copyright or the patent, but they're complicated in general.
	So, I propose, and I think we'll see, some form of science court.
	Science court?
	Some issues really need that.
	Now, right now, what'll 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 7th 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, you know, we could have some level in the what's called Vore-Dyer process of screening for that.
	But we, at some level, I think want to have the 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, in some cases billions of dollars are at stake.
	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.
	It could, but I doubt that.
	First off, I was talking the civil case.
	We're just talking law.
	I understand.
	The case of criminals is much more difficult because you have to have a 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 a 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, 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.
	Oh, here's an interesting question for you.
	Do you think that our Constitution, as it presently is with the Bill of Rights, will Will manage to survive the technological changes that are coming in the next 20 years?
	That may not be good news.
	The reason is, if you look at it, I've looked at this point very carefully, the judiciary in the 20th century 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 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 that this is 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.
	Well, there will be an awful lot of early challenges in the area, for example, of the Fourth Amendment.
	Gee.
	Late Fourth Amendment.
	The late Fourth Amendment.
	Well, when I asked whether it would all survive, it included that one.
	Yeah, in the Bill of Rights.
	And so... It has quite literally been shot full of holes.
	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, Fifty-four 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 is a lot of interpretation, but there are so many holes in it, so many ways of exceptions and alternatives to even whether you need to have a warrant, that even before 9-11, it wasn't clear what it bought you.
	A recent case was called the Kielo case, K-Y-L-O-O.
	Where the police officers used a thermal device to look at a house to, in effect, to detect whether someone was growing marijuana inside.
	Yes.
	And a narrow five to four court, surprisingly led by Justice Scalia, said, no, that went too far.
	Because we have a sanctity to 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.
	He's saying, so what?
	These are signals that you publicly emit to the public?
	They bounce off your house and 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 the Supreme Court, you don't, and the other pulses you emit, it isn't clear where they'll draw that line.
	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.
	Stay right where you are.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Well this is Coast to Coast AM.
	I'm going to be talking about the Coast to Coast.
	I can see her lying back in her satin dress, in a room where you do what you don't confess.
	I'm going to be talking about the Coast to Coast.
	She's been looking like a queen in a sailor's dream And she don't always say what she really means Sometimes I think it's a shame when I guess To recharge 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 recharge at 1-775-727-1222.
	East of the Rockies, 1-800-825-5033.
	First time callers may reach out at 1-775-727-1222, or use the wildcard line at 1-775-727-1295.
	To reach out 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 Network.
	Moving right through to nighttime.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Okay, let's officially open the phone lines for questions for Professor Custo.
	I'm Art Bell, and in a moment, we turn to all of you.
	Professor Cosco has written three books, Fuzzy Engineering, Intelligent Signal Processing, and
	Heaven in a Chip, and And Professor, if you're going to recommend which of your three books I should read first, which would you suggest?
	The non-technical one, which is Heaven in a Chip from Random House.
	OK.
	And that, I take it, projects for us what our future holds, what a chip will eventually do for us, what The final chapter does, Art, and it includes 100 pages of small font end notes with the really hard science and mathematics, but the text, yes, does summarize that as best we know it right now.
	All right, let's go to the phones.
	A lot of people want to talk to you.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hi.
	Professor, this is Michael in Norfolk, Virginia.
	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 have difficulty dealing with.
	You had a little time, more than Peter did, to think about it.
	On what point of logic did he flunk?
	Well, when we criticize anybody, 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 a negative.
	Anyone trained in formal logic would understand that it would be impossible to prove that.
	And just from a standpoint of a non- Well-trained person.
	Who do you believe?
	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.
	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.
	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 to know.
	You're arguing with a briefing.
	That's fine, but that's, you know... You're not granting the hypothetical.
	Pardon me?
	You're not granting the if part, the hypothetical.
	The whole premise was that you accepted, period.
	But you can't accept as truth something that is blatantly unproven.
	All right, fine.
	So you've argued with that.
	But, you know, then how does he fail the test?
	Well, by not testing it at its weakest point.
	Well, yeah, but you see... Okay, all right.
	Well, thank you very much for the call.
	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.
	So there was no logical error in that exercise.
	We granted a lot of assumptions, and You asked a question about conclusions.
	So there was no logical problem.
	Now, he's arguing a factual issue.
	Yeah.
	Which is not the issue before it.
	Right, exactly.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	Yes, this is Johnny from Seattle.
	Hello, Johnny.
	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 if it gets 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.
	Art, I'm afraid I can't hear the speakers.
	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, Palmer?
	Correct.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	There you are.
	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's immune system tends to tear it apart.
	That's not a foreseeable consequence right now of nanotube technology.
	It 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 to hunt down the bad.
	So I'll give you another example, Art, 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.
	Okay.
	First Time Caller line, you're on the air with Professor Cusco.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, Time Magazine had an article, they call it nano-surgery a few years back, about what the Alaska caller was referring to.
	But my question is, first of all, I want to thank you both for your time.
	Back in the 80s, I remember reading an article in Popular Science magazine, and they discussed quantum wires.
	And it sounded very similar to the carbon rods you were talking about.
	And I'm wondering if this is a precursor, but they compared it... You're wondering if carbon wires are... Or quantum wires.
	Quantum wires.
	Yeah.
	It was an article, it was right interesting, in Popular Science back in the 80s.
	They compared it like you did to a certain diameter comparison to the human hair.
	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.
	I was wondering if there were any similarities to the quantum wires, or if they ever evolved beyond what the article was talking about.
	Hold on, one thing at a time.
	Good question about the electrical status.
	Nanotubes commence in our culture formally in 1991.
	Although again, Caveman 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 buckyballs 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 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.
	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 It gave me an interesting perspective.
	They also showed a head of a pen that had been magnified, I don't know how many times, where a laser had printed into the head of the pen.
	What it was, they had actually magnified that head of the pen with 29 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
	on the head of that pen and I'm just sitting there trying how that you can't even imagine that and that was back in the 80s so that you can imagine how our ability for storage is tremendous but I'll let you go and I just wanted to... All right, all right, thank you very much.
	Professor, where are we with the storage?
	Most of us are still using the old-fashioned disk drive.
	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 million-fold, so we have terabit, trillions of bits of information, which is a big jump where we are from now.
	Okay, wildcard line, you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hello.
	Hi, this is Keith in Crofton.
	Hello, Keith.
	Hi, Art, have you ever read The Lost Book of Inky by Zachariah Stitchen?
	By Zachariah?
	Yes.
	No, I have not.
	Oh, you've got to read that.
	Okay.
	Anyway, do you have a question for my guest?
	Yes.
	My question is, I've come across a lot of people that have devices that are really revolutionary, like Troy Reed's magnetic motor, Dr. DePalma'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, 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?
	That's a good question.
	And my answer is, I put it in the public domain.
	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 chair.
	But in general, things like this, especially when I have taken some taxpayer money, I don't prefer to patent it.
	My colleagues do, and I've done that before in the past.
	But I would rather make my income in other ways.
	All right, Collin.
	Yeah.
	All right, thank you very much.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hello.
	Hello?
	Yes.
	Oh, hi Eric.
	Hi.
	This is Akiva Ontario.
	Yes.
	Yeah, I was just, um, my question is very simple for your guest.
	I have a ridiculous amount of bad luck every day, so 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?
	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!
	I've got 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 you, 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.
	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 the link in its causal chain.
	A lot of philosophers from Hume and Spinoza all the way up to the late great Willard Benjamin 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.
	uh... was to the rockies ronnie with professor costa high hello or hello professor carl
	i have a question about cryogenic we are of the belief that after the physical body died with
	the person rather rapidly goes on to the great white light
	you know eventually reincarnate through whatever how on the net
	is your spirit going to be convinced to wait around a cryogenic lab quite a few
	years until it's going to get downloaded back into the body Alright, well, I don't want to depress you with this information, sir, but there was a 60 minutes piece.
	Maybe you remember it.
	No, I don't.
	Well, okay then.
	This lady had a brain aneurysm?
	Yes.
	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?
	Right.
	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?
	Yeah.
	Well, thank you, Art.
	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.
	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.
	Yeah, so I mean, she was in every measurable way dead.
	If the soul was gonna be on its way, it should have taken off
	and, you know, we should have had a different lady.
	Well, the Rockies, we're almost out of time.
	You're on the air with Professor Bart Tusco.
	Hi, this is BQ.
	Just wondering, listening about your fuzzy logic machines and chaos engines.
	I was just wondering if you, uh, heard about the washing machine in Jap- Japan that has, uh, a Chaos Engine that works on free weights?
	What?
	It's like a- it's like you ever- you ever- remember those things you swing around and it's got the- the weight in the middle?
	That- you swing it around and it's like a chaos machine.
	My counselor was telling me about this, that it's almost like a fractal noise engine.
	I have no idea about this.
	Do you, Professor?
	Yes, I do.
	Of course, there's been a great triumph of fuzzy logic with the 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 what the caller said, act like noise.
	To achieve what goal?
	A good random mixing and making sure that particles fully diffuse throughout the liquid.
	So that, in other words, put another way to get a better wash?
	Pretty much, yeah.
	So, this kind of circuitry, is it going to be, it's going to be in more and more things 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?
	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.
	In case we do, we'll hear words like fuzzy logic and neural networks and a variety of other so-called smart technologies.
	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... Plus or minus five years.
	With 95% confidence, big things will happen.
	Well, of course, you know they said that about robots.
	I don't think it was quite that precise.
	I'm talking about chips that are comparable to the human eye.
	Could chips that are comparable to the human eye be connected to processors that are comparable to the human brain?
	That's the next step, absolutely.
	Well, isn't that giving our thinking machine eyes and then, gee, the cochlear implant, why not ears?
	Right, and it gives meaning to the sense of the eye in the sky when there's surveillance.
	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.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, and good night.
	All right, Professor Bart Kosko, 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-changin'.

▲