Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 24, 2004 - Art Bell

02:51:01

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Bart Kosko - Nanomaterials

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	♪♪♪ From the high desert in the great American southwest,
	I bid you all good evening, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you may be in the world's 25 time zones,
	all of them covered like a blanket by this program, Coast to Coast AM.
	I'm Art Bell, honored to be with you for the weekend, and it is gonna be a wild weekend.
	I mean really wild.
	I've got a lot of very unusual stories for you tonight, I mean real honest-to-God mysteries, and I'm gonna begin With what I just put up on the website.
	If you would be so kind as to scroll over to coast2coastam.com and perhaps you can explain to me and everybody else what it is we're seeing because I sure can't explain it.
	It's called the Japan Incident.
	I guess they decided to call it that.
	At any rate, there are two pictures, satellite pictures, one daytime One, obviously, nighttime of an area around the Sea of Japan.
	Now, somebody was kind enough to draw circles for us.
	One of my listeners, who's got some relatives on an island or something over there, has run into something that defies immediate explanation.
	I mean, it really defies immediate explanation.
	The day shot of the area in question shows the open area between parts of China, Vietnam, and so forth, and Japan.
	It shows a large, open, clear area.
	You might see a couple of islands in there, but basically it's desolate ocean.
	That's all.
	But, in the nighttime satellite photograph, directly below it, you will see, you will see lights And from a satellite, you've got to bear in mind, we're looking from satellite.
	These lights rival easily the intensity of the lights that come from Tokyo or Seoul, and you can verify that for yourself.
	Now, I don't have the slightest idea how this could be, what could be out there creating this kind of intense light.
	I don't have any idea.
	In other words, what we're looking at is impossible.
	So, I would like to certainly thank the listener that sent it in.
	Some of you may possibly, you know, be able to explain what this listener from Las Vegas has demonstrated to us graphically with photographs.
	Maybe, you know, I'm sure some of you will say, well, somebody did a Photoshop job on it, but I don't think so, and I think these can be retrieved and verified.
	Therefore, what is the light out in the middle of nowhere that would rival that of Tokyo or Seoul?
	That's impossible.
	And yet, there it is.
	So we'll let that start the evening off.
	News-wise, very quickly, John Kerry apparently narrowly, only narrowly, trails President Bush in the battle for 270 total electoral votes, which is what you need to get into the White House.
	Let's see, Kerry has 14 states and DC, that means 193 electoral votes.
	Bush, 217.
	Indeed not an overwhelming lead for Bush in electoral votes.
	It's going to be a tight, it's going to be a very Interesting tight race.
	I mean, the polls have these two contenders in a virtual tie.
	So, anybody's game at this point.
	The Iraqi interim Prime Minister urged Egypt on Saturday to stand fast in the face of the kidnapping of one of its diplomats.
	Obviously, with the limited success of the Iraqi dissidents have had in kidnapping people and telling countries to get the hell out or else they're going to do it again now.
	The White House of course is urging Egypt to stay the course on terrorism.
	We'll see.
	Without promising what specific steps he's going to take, President Bush is committing his administration to relying on the recommendations of the September 11 Commission in waging the war On terrorism, quote, the danger to America has not passed, end quote.
	That came out in the Saturday radio address.
	Now here's a strange one for you.
	Salt Lake City.
	A woman who disappeared when she reportedly went out for a jog remained missing on Saturday after days of police efforts That have included cadaver dogs, a search of a municipal landfill, Salt Lake City Police.
	Detective Duane Baird met for more than an hour Saturday with a family of 27-year-old Lori Hacking, who's been missing since Monday and reportedly is five weeks pregnant.
	Now that story resonates with me.
	That's in the current Associated Press lineup.
	The reason it resonates is because since Monday, actually we were notified on Wednesday, but since Monday, I believe she is a 67-year-old lady here in Pahrump, not far from where I live in fact, just walked out of her house on Monday, sometime Monday, left her purse, all her personal belongings, and Disappeared off the face of the earth.
	They have been doing the same thing here.
	Searching with police, with dogs, helicopters.
	They've had search groups out the Sheriff's Department.
	Rescue people have all been out looking for this woman since Monday.
	She's just gone.
	Just gone.
	And so the moment I saw that story in Salt Lake, I flashed on what's going on in our little town of Pahrump right now.
	Just same thing, disappeared on Monday.
	We've been having days here that range between 107 and 109 degrees.
	A human exposed to that would last maybe 48 hours.
	A human exposed to that would last maybe 48 hours.
	Maybe a young and healthy person might last 48 hours, and that's pretty iffy.
	If you're a Star Wars fan, Final One is coming out.
	The final Star Wars prequel is just going to be called Episode 3.
	That's it!
	Episode 3.
	No other name, but they don't really need it, do they?
	It is an assured bet.
	Every Star Wars movie that comes out is an automatic, probably multi hundred million dollar winner in a moment the news gets even stranger I've got a little coast-to-coast am style breaking news for you here
	This just showed up.
	It's about to appear in the New Scientist magazine.
	The headline is, Seth Shostak.
	You know Seth.
	He's been on here a number of times from SETI.
	Seth Shostak, colon.
	ET first contact within 20 years.
	If intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, advances in computer processing power and radio telescope technology will ensure Listen to that word, ensure we detect their transmissions within two decades.
	That is the bold prediction from a leading light at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute.
	Seth Chostak, the SETI Institute Senior Astronomer, has based this bold prediction on accepted assumptions about the likelihood of alien civilizations existing, combined with projected increases in computing power.
	Joe Stack, whose calculations will be published in a forthcoming edition of the space science journal Acta Astronautica.
	He first estimated the number of alien civilizations in our galaxy that might currently be broadcasting radio signals.
	For this, he used a formula created in 1961 by astronomer Frank Drake, which factors in aspects such as the number of stars with planets, how many of those planets might be expected to have life, and so forth.
	Showstack came up with an estimate of between 10,000 and 1,000,000 radio transmitters in the galaxy.
	That's really something.
	Think about that.
	Seth has come up with an estimate of between 10,000 and 1,000,000 radio transmitters in the galaxy.
	To find them will involve observing and inspecting radio emissions from most of the galaxy's 100 billion stars.
	The time necessary for this formidable task can be estimated from the capabilities of two planned radio telescopes, such as SETI's 1-hectare Alien Telescope Array and the internationally run Square Kilometer Array, and expected increases in the power of the microchips that sift through all this information.
	Now, Seth is basing all of this ...on processing power continuing to double every 18 months, as it has so far, until the year 2015.
	And if that occurs, he predicts that within 20 years, we will have contact.
	Now, the flip side of the coin is, and Seth has said this, he mentioned the 50-year mark, I believe, but he said, you know, eventually if we don't detect alien life, we're going to have to make some kind of statement.
	This kind of follows on that, and I thought you'd want to hear it just breaking tonight.
	Now, what I'm about to read you, I find utterly, totally riveting, and strange, and impossible to believe, I know.
	What I'm going to read you is from Pravda.
	Now, so that you don't know it's just some sort of fake, I have I sent the Pravda article on to www.coasttocoastam.com.
	You will find the link up there so you can read for yourself what I am about to read.
	Bear in mind if it sounds a little strange, it's a translation from Pravda and so bear with that as you listen.
	You know a little bit sometimes is lost in translation but my god I read you a story, or a portion of this story, one previous time, though this is dated March 14, 2004.
	The title of the article in Pravda is, Time Can Be Turned Back.
	And you're going to hear a little of what I reported before, and a lot more, the rest of the story, as Paul would say.
	Here we go.
	Time has been one of the most complicated and less studied scientific issues since ancient times.
	Eight years ago, American and British scientists who conducted investigations in Antarctica made a sensational discovery.
	U.S.
	physicist Marianne McLean told the researchers noticed some sort of spinning gray fog over the pole on 27 January, which they believe to be just some sort of ordinary sandstorm.
	However, The gray fog did not change form and did not move in the course of time.
	The researchers decided to investigate the phenomena and launched a weather balloon with equipment capable of registering wind speed, the temperature, and air moisture.
	But the weather balloon soared upwards and immediately disappeared.
	In a short while, the researchers brought the weather balloon back to the ground with the help of a rope which had been attached to it previously.
	They were, to say the least, extremely surprised to see that a chronometer set in the weather balloon displayed the date January 27th, 1965.
	27th 1965 the same day but 30 years ago. The experiment was repeated several times
	after the researchers found out the equipment was indeed in good repair but
	each time each time the watch came back it displayed the past time.
	In other words, whatever time it was, except 30 years earlier.
	The phenomena was called, or they called it, the Time Gate, and they claim here it was reported to the White House.
	Today, investigation of the unusual phenomena is underway.
	It is supposed the Whirl Crater above the South Pole is a tunnel allowing something to penetrate into other times.
	What is more, programs on launching people to other times have been started.
	Bear in mind, you're listening to a translation.
	The CIA and the FBI are fighting for control over the project that may change the course of history.
	It is not clear When the U.S.
	federal authorities will approve the experiment.
	Famous Russian scientist Nikolai Karazov conducted an experiment to prove that moving from the future to the past was possible.
	He substantiated his views with the hypothesis on instant information spreading through physical characteristics of time.
	He even supposed that time could execute the work and produce energy.
	An American physics theorist has arrived at a conclusion that time is what existed before the existence of the world.
	Now keep listening.
	It is known that each of us feels a different course of time under different conditions.
	Once lightning hit a mountain climber, later the man told That he saw the lightning go into his arms, slowly moving along it, separated the skin from the tissue, and carbonized his cells.
	He felt as if there were quills of thousands of hedgehogs under his skin.
	Russian investigator of anomalous phenomena, philosopher, and author of numerous books, Gedi Belomov, published an article under the headline, Time Machine, First Speed On, whatever that means, in the newspaper.
	On the verge of impossible, he described unique experiments conducted by a group of enthusiasts led by Vladimir Chebronov, the man who began creation of time machines, devices with electronic, make that electromagnetic pumping, in 1987.
	Today, the group of enthusiasts can slow down or speed up the course of time using special impact of the magnetic field.
	The biggest slowing down of time made up 1.5 seconds within an hour of the equipment's operation in labs.
	It gets stranger.
	In August 2001, a new model of the time machine, meant for a human, was set in a remote forest in Russia's Volgograd region.
	When the machine operated on car batteries, it had low capacity, but still it managed First change time by three percent.
	The change was registered with symmetrical crystal oscillators.
	Now at first, the researchers spent five, ten, and twenty minutes in the operating machine.
	The longest stay lasted for half an hour.
	Vladimir Cherbinov said, the people felt as if they were moving into a different world.
	They felt life here and there.
	At the same time, as if some space was unfolding, I cannot define the unusual feelings that we experienced at those moments.
	Now that's interesting with what we're beginning to learn about quantum sciences, isn't it?
	Where something can be in two places at one time.
	Neither TV nor radio companies reported the astonishing fact Gennady Belomov says that the Russian president was not informed of the experiment.
	However, he tells that already under Stalin there was a research institute of the parallel world.
	In other words, they were researching parallel worlds, even under Stalin.
	Results of experiments conducted by Akhmedishin's Kirchhoff and Eye-off, and you'll have to do the best you can, I'm slaughtering these names, can now be found in the archives.
	In 1952, head of the Soviet secret police organization initiated a case against researchers who were participating in the experiments.
	In other words, a criminal case, as a result of which 18 professors were executed by shooting, 59 candidates and doctors of physical sciences were sent to camps, The Institute recommended its activity under Khrushchev, but an experimental stand with eight leading researchers disappeared in 1961, and buildings close to where the experiments were conducted were ruined.
	After that, the Communist Party Political Bureau and the Council of Ministers decided to suspend researchers of the Institute for an uncertain period.
	The program was resumed in 1987, when the Institute already functioned on the territory of the Soviet Union.
	A tragedy occurred August 30th of 89, an extremely strong explosion sounded at the Institute's branch office.
	The explosions destroyed not only the experimental module of 780 tons, but the But the island itself that covered an area of two square kilometers.
	According to one of the versions of the tragedy, the module with three experimenters collided with a large object, probably an asteroid, in the parallel world or heading toward the parallel world.
	Having lost its propulsion system, the module probably remained in the parallel world.
	The last record made in the framework of the experiment and kept at the Institute Archives says, and I'm going to quote here.
	Listen very carefully.
	We are dying, but keep on conducting the experiment.
	It is very dark here.
	We see all objects become double.
	Our hands and legs are transparent.
	We can see veins and bones through our skin.
	The oxygen supply is going to be enough for 43 hours.
	The life support system is seriously damaged.
	Our best regards to family and friends.
	Then, the transmission suddenly stopped.
	I'm Art Bell.
	La dee da da da da da La da da da da da
	La da da da da da I'm a girl
	La da da da da da You left your mind and soul behind
	I'm a girl La da da da da da
	La da da da da da I'll tell you what's wrong before I get off the ground
	Don't bring me down You're always talking about your crazy nights
	One of these days you're gonna get it right Don't bring me down
	I don't know, know, know You left your mind and soul behind
	I'll tell you what's wrong before I get off the phone.
	Come with me now.
	Don't break me down.
	Ain't gonna break me down.
	Don't break me down.
	Ain't gonna break me down.
	Ain't gonna break me down.
	Don't break me down.
	Ain't gonna break me down.
	Don't break me down.
	Ain't gonna break me down.
	You're looking for a girl.
	you One of these days you're gonna break.
	To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
	The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
	To talk with Art Bell from east to the Rockies, call toll free at 800-825-5033.
	line is area code 775-727-1222. To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free
	at 800-825-5033. From west of the Rockies, call Art at 800-618-8255.
	International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country Sprint Access
	number, pressing Option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
	From coast to coast, and worldwide on the Internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Rockin' in the nighttime.
	Good morning, everybody!
	Open lines this half hour.
	Those are the numbers.
	Bear in mind, they're a little different on the weekend.
	I just have so many strange stories.
	But that one takes the cake.
	You know how I feel.
	You know how I feel about time travel.
	So if you want to check it out, check it out.
	We've got it on the website.
	It's from Kravda.
	In what used to be the Soviet Union.
	Is it true?
	I don't know.
	But maybe.
	The Russians are doing an awful lot of experiments in that area.
	All right.
	Well, you know, every now and then, a ship, even very large ships, as we all know, just simply disappear at sea.
	Even large supertankers just disappear at sea.
	It happens.
	Strange things happen at sea.
	And now we're finding out that they may not be as unusual as we thought, or once thought to be myth.
	These giant 100-foot waves Guess what, folks?
	They're real.
	Rogue waves.
	This comes from Reuters, by the way.
	Rogue waves that rise as high as ten-story buildings, and indeed can sink large ships, are far more common than previously thought.
	Now, all of this comes from the European Space Agency, or ESA's satellites.
	They just discovered this as part of a scientific project initiated by the European Union in December of 2002.
	ESSA satellites monitored the world's oceans in order to test the frequency of monster waves that were once dismissed as nautical myth.
	Guess what?
	Three weeks of data from the early months of 2001 showed more than 10 individual giant waves around the globe over 80 feet in height.
	Previously, Esa said, scientists believed, this is a famous line, previously scientists believed that such a large wave occurred only once every 10,000 years.
	Having proved they existed in higher numbers than anyone thought, the next step is to analyze if they can perhaps be forecasted.
	He said, Esa said, the spokesman, that severe weather had sunk more than 200 supertankers and container ships exceeding 650 feet in length over the past two decades.
	Did you know that?
	200 supertankers and container ships have gone down over the past two decades and rogue waves are believed now to be the major cause of such accidents.
	Current ships and offshore platforms are built to withstand maximum wave heights of only 50 feet.
	So, just looking down at any single period of time, they found as many as 10 Let's do it.
	I've got so much more.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hi, Art.
	Yes.
	Yeah, I was wanting to ask you, if someone did go back in time 30 years, wouldn't we already know about that through history books and such?
	I don't know, sir.
	I don't know.
	I mean, you take this article, for example.
	It's from Pravda.
	just released an air you know you hear of this kind of thing and i'm sure it'll
	go you know for some people in one ear and out the other but that article was
	incredible so maybe maybe
	well i don't know maybe that it pretty well
	also i want to tell all the other truckers out there that time travel will not hold up in court or a lot but by late
	Ha ha ha ha ha ha. No?
	No?
	You just ruined a lot of days, I'm sure.
	Thank you very much.
	Time travel will not work as a logbook violation, or it will no doubt engender one.
	You can give it a try if you want.
	I wouldn't recommend it, though.
	We all know those trucker logbooks are meticulously maintained.
	And never could an entry be inaccurate.
	Never.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hi, Art.
	Hello.
	Yeah, I originally called in to make a comment on SETI.
	Oh, yeah, SETI.
	Getting back to the rogue waves, I called in A few months ago when your show was coming out, and I went to see it.
	Oh, you mean the day after tomorrow?
	Day after tomorrow, and I called in about the storm that I was in when I was on board USS Glacier, AGB-4.
	I took part in Operation Deep Breeze, and in 1963 we hit some gigantic waves down by the Roaring Forties.
	Yes.
	And anyway, I made the comment that in the trough of the wave, the whole ship was swallowed up.
	In other words, our ship was over the size of a football field, over 300 feet long.
	And I climbed up to the metal mast that we had where we had a conning tower, and I still have to look up at the waves, so I know the waves were at least 150 feet high.
	And I think if you went back to that ship's history, you could find out more information about it.
	Well, apparently this discovery, sir, by the ESSA satellites...
	First of all, it is indisputable.
	Second of all, it now probably accounts for the majority of losses of these large supertankers and ships at sea.
	Why is it thought to be myth?
	Well, because once a hundred foot wave has consumed a ship, there are none to tell the tale.
	That's one.
	Another is, if there are any witnesses at all to this kind of incredible event, I'm sure they're regarded like people who tell ghost stories and other things that are sort of relegated to the category of myth, but this is not myth.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Yes, hi Art.
	I just want to make a comment about the lights in Japan.
	Not Japan, but that large area of sea.
	Sea of Japan.
	Yes.
	Well, I'm not quite sure when this information was gathered, but I was in Japan several weeks ago, and I'm back here in the States, obviously, but very connected to the land and the culture, so I've been dreaming about it every single night.
	Last Tuesday I had a night where I had a dream that I was standing in a On the shore of Japan with several other people and there were a lot of ships up in the sky.
	E.T.s.
	And, uh, the fascinating thing to me was that, um, and I've had dreams like this before, but the fascinating thing to me was that they emanated such light in such a scattered pattern that everything around us, including our bodies, turned to light.
	Well, that's quite a dreamer.
	I thank you.
	But look, You know, this is inexplicable.
	Now, somebody called up a little while ago and said, well, maybe the light of ships, you know, there are a lot of ships in that area.
	Okay, fine, but even if that entire area were packed with ships, which it is not, though there are many, it certainly is not packed, they could never attain the kind of brightness Of a city, for example, like Tokyo or Seoul.
	Not even close.
	And if you look at this photograph, the light there does indeed compare to the light from Tokyo and Seoul.
	And where is it coming from?
	What is that we're looking at?
	Is that some sort of Photoshop thing?
	Otherwise, and I think not, by the way.
	I think both of these photographs can be confirmed.
	You know, they come from satellites where they have web pages, and I'm sure one of you will do that, but I would like to have this explained.
	There is no way that what we're seeing can be, at least with any conventional explanation that I could consider.
	A wild card line?
	You're on the air.
	Hello.
	Yes, Mr. Bell.
	How are you?
	I'm all right.
	You sound like you're on a cell phone at the edge of the earth somewhere.
	Uh, what's up?
	I was curious if you'd ever heard of a UFO shaped like a dirigible?
	Um, I've heard rumors of that, yes.
	Uh, well, I can't remember exactly where it was, which is odd in and of itself, but I was down, I think, in Texas, and I was passed by a U.S.
	government, one of those little installations they have that's all razor-wired in.
	Yes.
	But there were no people anywhere around, and there was a kind of a dirigible-looking, Almost like the Goodyear Blimp, except for it didn't have any windows on it, and no former propulsion.
	It wasn't tied to the ground, but it didn't move.
	It was like hovering there just inexplicably.
	Well, maybe, though, maybe it was exactly what you just suggested.
	It might be a dirigible.
	It might have been some sort of lighter-than-air craft, which would certainly account for the lack of apparent propulsion.
	It could have been an observation Turn your radio off, please.
	I just did, sir.
	military we're doing all kinds of things like that right now in our military
	we've got all sorts of uh... robot drones as a matter of fact we're gonna be talking with bart cosco
	about a lot of that sort of thing tonight
	new technology the military has that sort of thing that might be in that category is for the rockies you're on
	the air hello
	turn your radio off please how you doing
	i'm doing fine Okay, uh, do you recall the Cherish of Time Tunnel?
	I beg your pardon?
	Remember Time Tunnel, the great television series?
	Vaguely?
	Yeah, Time Tunnel.
	Oh, Time Tunnel, yeah, sure.
	Yeah.
	Uh, I heard, I'm not sure if it's true, I figure anybody would know if it is.
	Was it, in fact, a government program where they had been experimenting with time?
	Oh, I'm sorry, you have tapped the shoulder of the wrong person, I don't know.
	But I'm sure somebody in the audience will, and fast blast me or something.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air, hello.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	How's it going?
	It's going, it's going.
	Right on.
	I was just wondering, I'm kind of curious, why can't some countries, for example the United States, carry nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and some countries cannot?
	And if they do, they're persecuted or treated differently than us.
	That's actually, I suppose, a very reasonable question.
	Why can our country and others that have it, have it while... You know what the real answer to that is, sir?
	What's that?
	The answer is that once you've got them, who's going to take them away from you?
	Whoever is stronger.
	Yes, but once you've got them, sir...
	Then to take them away would engender a nuclear conflict.
	You see what I'm pointing out here?
	Once you've got them, it's too damn late.
	Everybody who has them now wants to stop other people from having them.
	Yes, you want to limit the number of people in the club.
	I see.
	Kind of that elite thing again.
	That's right, but you see, once you get into the club, once you have exploded your first couple of devices, then everybody Says, well, welcome new member!
	I mean, that's the way it works.
	Yeah, it seems a little hypocritical.
	It seems like a little hypocrisy.
	Yes, it is.
	Nuclear hypocrisy.
	But it's just the way the world works.
	Once you've got an atomic or a hydrogen bomb, then you have respect.
	And you have become a member of the club before that.
	You are a rogue nation working on nasty things and all sorts of things like, oh, trade, you know, trade barriers and economic sanctions and even withholding of food and other stuff and trade.
	All of that is done against you while you're trying to get the nukes.
	But once you get them, then, baby, you're a member of the club.
	International Line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	to hear from our yes turn your radio off okay dot com the hazards of that and i'll create a yes okay go ahead and
	talk about that time in my favorite subject to win yes uh... and i'm
	thinking uh...
	election and thinking that they should be a lot easier now that we have maybe uh... the black hole that they could
	back well
	world and they're about black holes are but we cannot get get to one
	At this point we can't.
	Although I imagine maybe we can.
	I'll tell you why.
	Why?
	Okay, you remember the moon landing?
	Yes.
	And that little pod took off from the moon and came back to Earth.
	It didn't have much of a power backup, huh?
	Yeah.
	So, you know, the big rocket that took it off the atmosphere from the Earth.
	This is Saturn, yes.
	But it didn't really matter much from the Moon.
	So it doesn't really take that much.
	That's because the Moon doesn't have that much gravity.
	No, that's right.
	But once you're in outer space, what I'm trying to say is it shouldn't be that difficult to reach the speed of light.
	Well, it may or may not be.
	Certainly a gradual propulsion would eventually get you there.
	You know, they talk about light sails and things like that that would get you up near the speed of light.
	Theoretically, so far, we don't know of a way to exceed that.
	And since you cannot exceed it, it would take more lifetimes than I can calculate to get to the first black hole.
	It would take many, many lifetimes.
	And then there's that problem of exceeding the speed of light.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Hi, Art.
	How are you?
	I'm spiffy.
	I've been a student of metaphysics for quite a few years and I've listened to a lot of your shows.
	I have been a student of metaphysics for quite a few years and I have listened to a lot of
	your shows and have enjoyed a lot of them.
	I wanted to share with you some information that I thought was something that your listeners
	might be good to hear.
	Some years ago, you had Elizabeth Clare Proffitt on your show.
	Right.
	Discussing a lot of the different things that she talked about, and I wanted to share with you some of the things that I think would be of interest that have actually been released as part of the unfolding of some of the information that she had had.
	What kind of telephone do you have?
	I'm working on it.
	What is this?
	This is, I think, a 2 gigahertz.
	I'm telling you, the state of our telephone production in the world right now is regrettable.
	Anyway, sir, proceed.
	We don't have a lot of time, so... Okay, I'll make it quick.
	Anyway, a couple of the tidbits that I wanted to drop there are with, for example, some of the teachings that have been released were that, for example, the Asteroid Belt, which is out there, had actually been As a result of a planet that had existed there, and I know scientists have thought for some time that it actually was there, but there was a destruction of that planet as a result of warring factions that had literally destroyed that planet.
	Some of the things that have gone with that, though, was also an understanding of reincarnation and what happened with those life waves that were actually on that planet that destroyed themselves.
	So, for example, the top 2% of those people were allowed to re-embody on Earth.
	Well, to me that passes from the plausible to the implausible.
	In other words, you could imagine a planet was blown up accounting for all that material, but then you jump into the metaphysical suddenly.
	Yeah, I don't know how to put a heart on it, but it's based on the Akashic Records and things like that, and of course there's a little bit of Yes, we broke up AT&T.
	that was a obviously some of the subject that you guys have talked about the
	numbers well one never knows yeah I believe it bears
	you know better research into this and I'm grateful for the opportunity to talk
	to you well I appreciate your calling sir thank you and I would
	like to again publicly regret the state of telephones in the world
	yes we broke up AT&T by the way I've heard that recently AT&T has said
	that they're going to I could be wrong about this but I believe maintain their
	current uh... customer base of long-distance customers but not solicit
	Now, I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.
	And they attribute this to the competition of all the baby Bells out there.
	Well, one facet of this breakup of a very good monopoly, you know, phone company was a very good monopoly in my opinion.
	One very grievous side effect has been the quality of telephones that we now have in America.
	I mean, it's reprehensible.
	Absolutely reprehensible.
	From the high desert, in the middle of the night, I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	Rockin' through the night!
	You get a shiver in the dark, it's rainin' in the fog, but meantime... Sound of the river, you're stumblin', you're holdin' everything.
	A band is growing Dixie double ball time You feel all right when you hear the music
	Now you step inside but you don't see too many faces Coming in out of the rain they hear the jazz
	And they're all gonna be there when you step inside but you don't see too many faces coming in
	So Some velvet morning when i'm straight
	Is I'm gonna open up your gate
	And made me tell you about Phedra And how she gave me life
	And how she made it in Some velvet mornin' when I was trained
	Flowers growin' on a hill Drivin' flies on daffodils
	Learn from us very much Look at us but do not touch
	Phedra is my name you
	To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
	The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
	To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll free at 800-825-5033.
	line is area code 775-727-1222. To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free
	at 800-825-5033. From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
	International callers may reach Art by calling your in-country Sprint Access number,
	pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
	From coast to coast, and worldwide on the Internet, this is Coast to Coast AM, with Art Bell.
	Well, you're in for a real treat right now.
	Professor Bart Kosko.
	...is in fact a professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Southern California, where he teaches courses on Information Science, Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic, and Stats Signal Processing.
	Dr. Kosko holds degrees in Philosophy, Economics, Mathematics, and Electrical Engineering.
	He is an elected governor of the International Neural Network Society, has chaired and co-chaired several international conferences on natural 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 LA Times.
	Dr. Kosko is also the author of several books, 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 smart weapons systems and You know, we've got, I suppose, a lot of traditional discussion to do.
	But, you know, when a guest, before a guest comes on the show, they provide, you know, a lot of possible topics and questions and that kind of thing.
	And if you go to the very back of what he's saying, he's got a section he calls optional section.
	Big and far out questions.
	Can the government monitor even control your thoughts in a chip?
	How many civil liberties did we lose in the US Patriot Act from two years ago?
	Is the average American scientifically competent to sit on a jury?
	Are judges scientifically competent?
	Why do you criticize faith as an unwarranted belief?
	I put a big number one by that.
	What is the evidence for heaven?
	Religious, in the Bible, kind of heaven?
	And it just goes on and on and on.
	He has given me so much meat in the big and far out questions section that I'm tempted to go to that right away at any rate in a moment.
	Professor Bart Kosko.
	I really like your alternate end page, Professor.
	I really like the questions in there.
	Shall we begin there?
	Yeah!
	Well, actually, not quite.
	No, there is one thing, Professor.
	I read a lot of science fiction, but the kind of science fiction I generally read is sort of, oh, I don't know, futuristic military type submarine or fighting type science fiction.
	I read a whole lot of it.
	They're beginning to really speculate in a lot of these techno type military books about future fighting armor and you know this real futuristic stuff that would allow a man to virtually be a Superman machine aided and body armor and that kind of thing and you do know something about body armor, right?
	Something about that.
	I also have a book called Nano Time about what a World War III might look like ...year 2030, but we're a bit of ways away from that, but I have recently completed an experiment with two colleagues on modeling the effects on your body if you get shot while wearing a bulletproof vest, and that leads quite naturally to speculations on what happens when we improve the materials involved with, say, nanofibers.
	Yes.
	I guess it's incumbent on us to explain in a way the average person might be able to understand what a nanofiber is.
	Nanofiber right now looks like it'll be something woven from a bunch of long nanotubes.
	A nanotube itself looks like chicken wire made out of carbon atoms arranged largely in hexagon patterns.
	At the end there's some pentagons in there.
	But it's rolled up about a hundred thousandth The size of your hair, and it's super strong.
	It's a great conductor, and all the electrons are on the outside of it.
	Some very recent findings show that you can create very long tubes, and when you get that, it's like strands that you weave together in cotton fibers and other structures to get larger strands, and ultimately you can weave those in to materials.
	How big is a nanotube?
	Some of these are turning out to be pretty long, but they're At the level of just a few atoms, really.
	Atoms.
	It's important people understand the basis of where we're beginning here.
	It's the manipulation of atoms to create these tubes, isn't it?
	Or something like that?
	Exactly.
	Okay.
	So, they create these tubes, and these are then super strong.
	How long have we made one, do you know?
	In the year... Well, we've been making those since we've been making fire.
	So, Capon made them in the carbon suits on the roof, but in 1991, At NEC Labs in Japan, a Japanese scientist inadvertently created one, a carbon nanotube or nanostructure.
	It likely has been around for a long time, but he identified that there's been an explosion in research.
	This has become the real workhorse of applied nanotechnology.
	A lot of the books you talked about in science fiction are way out there in terms of directly modifying atoms, but as a practical matter, if you go down to the offices, The Patent and Technology Office, and count the patents in nanotechnology, and they're exploding in the last two years.
	The majority involve nanotubes.
	Okay, folks, so that you might understand the strength of what we're talking about.
	There's been actually a proposal to NASA, or that NASA is considering, for building a space elevator.
	That is to say, an honest to God elevator that would go from Earth The other part of the research is to move away from carbon nanotubes and look at non-organic tubes, but something like that, just as Arthur Clarke postulated in his book The Fountain of Paradise, I believe it was, 30 years ago.
	The other part of the research is to move away from carbon nanotubes and look at non-organic tubes, but something like
	that, just as Arthur Clark postulated in his book, The Fountains of Paradise, I believe it was, 30 years ago. Absolutely.
	It's hard to even consider.
	As far as I can point out in that book, the fellow who's demoing the technology, the little fiber, in the end gets his thumb cut off because he can't even see the fiber.
	It's so fine that he whips it around and cuts his thumb off.
	The same way, if you were a bird, you would not want to run through one of those fibers in the elevator.
	Professor, if something like that could be constructed, How heavy would it be?
	How strong would it be, this elevator into geosynchronous orbit?
	That's an interesting question.
	Of course, gravity is much weaker out there because of the great distance.
	Gravity falls off at the inverse square of the distance, if we can say that.
	Yeah, but a big part of the elevator is just the inherent strength of the cable itself.
	The conjecture is that the nanofibers would be sufficiently strong to withstand, in effect, their own... They wouldn't break under their own weight.
	Even with reduced gravity.
	I don't know the exact number on that, but I don't think anybody does.
	But in theory, extrapolating from the experiments in the laboratory in the small, those kind of fibers might be doable.
	Now, it's another matter to have the kind of energy source you might need sitting at the top of the elevator.
	Yes.
	All right, but conceivably, once you have that, the energy could come from below.
	It really wouldn't matter where the energy came from.
	Come from below?
	It might be some kind of mirrored system from the sun?
	Can you tell me, for example, how much tensile strength something like that might have compared to our best right now, you know, steel or whatever?
	Well, it would be a kind of a diamond weave.
	So many thousands, maybe perhaps millions, possibly even stronger times in tensile strength.
	I don't know how to quantify that at that level.
	Again, I'm not sure anybody else does either.
	All we really have are very tiny experiments.
	Three months ago, we had a genuine nanowire and Many new sources show the fellows at Texas University holding that little nanowire up.
	And we're extrapolating from that.
	Whether that really holds up at that length, I don't know.
	But the central point is, so far as we know, little nanotubes are the strongest fibers created by man.
	They're many orders of magnitude stronger than ordinary stuff.
	So strong that you can't even estimate it.
	Well, I don't know about that, but I mean, the sense of extrapolating all the way out to a space elevator, that's...
	That's beyond what my pocket calculator can do right now.
	Or what about weight as compared to a traditional very strong metal, like woven steel or whatever, I don't know.
	Would it be very light?
	It'd be very light.
	And again, no way in that kind of mass of actually estimating a weight, huh?
	I wouldn't say a way to estimate it.
	To do it accurately, I don't have a calculation in front of me and I'm just sufficiently skeptical I don't know right now.
	Okay, good enough.
	Alright, now with respect to body armor, will body armor, will it stop a high-powered rifle?
	No, no it won't.
	It will not?
	I can just tell you how this came about.
	One of my colleagues at USC, Professor Frank Jannerson, who's the father of gene replacement therapy, where you modify genes in the body and cure disease.
	He also works for the FBI and the LAPD on forensic analysis, and he couldn't find an answer to the question What happens when you get shot wearing body armor?
	A lot of soldiers worry about this, a lot of police officers, security officers of many types.
	There was just no good science on it, and we searched the literature.
	One of the first things you find were people wearing soft body armor, a typical police officer getting shot by, say, a .30-06.
	The .30-06 usually won't penetrate the body armor, but it will push it back or distend it 3 or 4 inches and no crusher.
	Your chest and your heart, so it usually will kill you or cause severe damage.
	So you're still dead?
	You're still dead.
	So the soldiers right now in Iraq, they have to have hard ceramic-type or metal-type materials inserted.
	They're not worried about handguns.
	We were looking at handguns, and that's what most soft body armor is.
	And we tried to find something that was simple, and we found in the end, after fiddling with this for a long time, this was an unpaid project, I'll point out, no taxpayer money, just curiosity from some tenured professors and PhD student Ian Lee, And we found that you could make a real good comparison with getting hit with a baseball just on your bare chest.
	And roughly speaking, getting shot while wearing body armor by a .22 caliber, a very tiny bullet, is like getting hit with a baseball going 40 miles an hour on your bare chest.
	Something that's happened to a lot of us as kids.
	Whereas getting shot with a .45 caliber wearing armor is like getting hit with a baseball going 90 miles per hour.
	Something more like you'd see in the big leagues.
	Yes.
	And in between, it falls out pretty evenly.
	It's a linear plot, and anybody listening is welcome to go to my website.
	It's posted on your website.
	You can download the paper that just appeared recently.
	And that's how we did it.
	There's a very tight statistical correlation between how a baseball in a batting cage hits and deforms plumber's putty, so we measured it, versus taking that plumber's putty, wrapping it with soft body armor, and shooting it.
	And very similar impact.
	It's almost a one-to-one relationship.
	So you can tell policemen now and other folks that this is a baseball comparison.
	So that's how they're going to feel if they get shot?
	It's an estimate.
	Because what really happens is there's a bruising effect.
	That soft tissue gets damaged, traumatized, and the bruise spreads out.
	And it doesn't usually even tear the flesh, though it can.
	And we were trying to model that as well.
	It's much more sophisticated.
	Oh yes, and right on up to and including eventually intelligent body armor.
	What would that be?
	What does intelligent body armor mean?
	Usually when we throw that favorite adjective, smart or intelligent, we mean something that responds appropriately to changing stimuli.
	So if the heat changes as an input, the armor will somehow change.
	If suddenly there is a big impact, a lot of energy comes crashing in, a lot of kinetic energy, a lot of momentum, it will change.
	So for example, there was a An announcement just two or three months ago from the Army Labs of something called Shear Thickening Fluid used to potentially add to the Kevlar in the current vest.
	This is a kind of a nanostructure.
	It's a polyethylene glycol.
	So you get a gooey liquid plastic.
	You drop into it some silica particles, which is silicon dioxide, and make it hard.
	And it behaves somewhat like quicksand.
	That is, quicksand, if you hit it real hard and fast, it's like a solid.
	Hit it slowly, of course, you sink in it.
	Like water.
	Exactly.
	So if you shoot, if you shoot this shear thickening fluid, what they found was that suddenly it becomes rigid and absorbs the shock in that way.
	And then when that energy dissipates, it goes back to being soft.
	And a lot of the conjectures of many people looking at nano kind of structures to aid body armor have that same principle that you have a lot of, and we're looking at that as well, a lot of local decision-making units And when there's a big change in the environment, like a bullet or heat or who knows what, or even a poison, that there's an appropriate change in the vest.
	So some models propose using different kinds of metals distributed around the fibers.
	You have to understand another thing about carbon nanotubes, Art, is that they can behave depending on how the chicken wire is twisted, either as a metal or as an insulator, even, or as a semiconductor.
	So you could achieve that by weaving appropriate nanotubes in or using other methods.
	Professor, how is the knowledge to act programmed into the material?
	How does it know or understand to make that decision?
	What have you done to give it that capability?
	To encode that memory structure.
	It's very much like litmus paper, which encodes the physical properties or responses to acids and bases, and it's very structured.
	If you had something that responded only to high energy, For example, if you distributed some metal throughout and there was an appropriate magnetic field, perhaps through another sensing device, then suddenly it would become very rigid and perhaps repel the bullet or whatever it is, the baseball bat that's striking the vest, depending upon the timelapse.
	But you program it in advance.
	For example, we found in our paper that also at the website on nanotubes, and using those for little antennas, And studying how you could modify those to detect different frequencies.
	A lot of work done that by changing the length of the tube, you can change the kind of frequencies it codes for.
	Now, bear in mind, Art, that a little latch or patch, they call it, of nanotubes, a one-inch square, will contain trillions of nanotubes.
	And a lot of labs grow these all the time.
	They get all tangled up, because of what's called a Van der Waals force.
	But everyone's working on that to straighten that out.
	There's a lot of tubes there.
	You can technically encode the information you want in the length of the tube, in the kind of chemical bath that you give the tube.
	So is it a material reaction that we're observing when it adapts?
	Is that an actual material reaction, or is it some decision-making process that is made in some way I don't understand?
	A material can make any decision.
	I'm pretty reductionist about this, Art.
	I think it's both, but I think that what would appear to be some distributed Ghost-like intelligence would really turn out on closer inspection to be these local responses to physical properties.
	They can be very complicated, and they can recruit other physical properties to get various collective effects.
	For example, like hardening and responding, or changing color, or providing... I mean, you can buy right now something called Nano Pants from Eddie Bauer.
	Really?
	Yeah, it's more of a gimmick, but it does have some Teflon or other particles in it.
	And what do neon, or nanoparticles... Nanoparticles, little ceramic-like particles, basically, are woven into the cotton fibers, and they feel fine, but they don't really stain.
	That's their advantage.
	It's not a big breakthrough, but... They don't what?
	They don't stain.
	You know, the coffee pretty much pours off as if the pants were rubber.
	Oh, no kidding!
	Oh, no kidding!
	I haven't worn them.
	I know folks who have, and they're very, very comfortable.
	You have tennis balls now, for example.
	Wait a minute.
	Hold on.
	If coffee spills on them, you have merely to wash them with no fear of a stain, or it somehow repels it, or what?
	It does repel most.
	I wouldn't say no fear, because there may be some residual luster.
	But overall, it's like Teflon.
	Basically runs off an equivalent of rubber pants, just without looking like rubber, feeling like rubber, and they feel just like, because they're cotton fiber still.
	And you can buy these now?
	You can buy them.
	I have no affiliation with Eddie Bauer, but they sell them.
	Have you seen a pair?
	Have you worn a pair?
	No, but I've talked to folks who have, and they're quite well known in the nano world.
	It's not a big application, but... No, it's a pretty good one, though.
	I mean, there's a company called Nanotech, T-E-X, that makes these and works with Eddie Bauer.
	They've been out for a while.
	All right.
	All right, hold on, Professor.
	Well, all right, pretty cool.
	That's already out on the market, then.
	Pants that scoff and laugh at a cup of coffee dumped on them.
	Or whatever.
	Any sort of staining material.
	Now there's a real, honest-to-God, out-in-the-marketplace application for nanotechnology.
	And believe me when I tell you, oh believe me, this is only the beginning.
	of the nanotechnological revolution.
	Even people like Michio Kaku have begun to talk about nanotechnology in kind of hushed tones, like it's a big one.
	And it's coming.
	Real quick.
	From the high desert in the middle of the night, I'm Art Bell.
	Here when you need a smile, to help the shadows in the way, You come to me, baby, you'll see.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Who's gonna love you, love you?
	Who's gonna love you?
	Do Talk With Art Bell. Call the wildcard line at area code 7.
	The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
	To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll free at 800-825-5033.
	line is area code 775-727-1222. To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free
	at 800-825-5033. From west of the Rockies, call Art at 800-618-8255.
	International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country Sprint Access
	number, pressing Option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
	From coast to coast, and worldwide on the Internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	And Professor Bart Kosko, and I'll tell you what, this is really going to be an interesting program.
	Nanotubes!
	Have application in computer chips.
	Moore's Law is looming on the horizon.
	I think pretty soon.
	In fact, we'll ask here in a moment.
	But it says, shows facts.
	Estimate of contact with another civilization within 20 years depends on Moore's Law not coming down, the curtain coming down for at least, well, at least until the year 2015.
	And I wonder if it'll really last that long without nanotechnology.
	we'll be right back incidentally folks just a quick note sort of a current
	affairs note We are being bombarded by the sun right now.
	A series of M and X class flares that are now producing solar storms here on Earth, so serious that radio communication, shortwave, has been significantly disrupted.
	It is causing at low southern latitudes Incredible auroras.
	Ken from Winnipeg, Manitoba writes, wow, aren't amazing northern lights here tonight.
	Multicolored, moving curtains of light.
	Absolutely awesome.
	Well, what's happening on the sun right now certainly is awesome.
	And you may well, in the northern latitudes, want to take a stroll out and see if you get the beautiful show tonight.
	That would be the Earth's magnetic field dealing with incoming.
	Professor, welcome back.
	All right, let's talk nanotechnology.
	By the way, Art, I found an answer to your question about the tensile strength of a nanotube.
	Oh, really?
	Okay.
	Of a carbon nanotube, because of the carbon bond, so this is not for the newer inorganic tubes, on the order of 45 billion pascals.
	That's about a million times atmospheric pressure.
	That's pretty tough to break one of these.
	So that compares in how to, I don't know, steal or some strong thing.
	What is the magnitude of that?
	That's incredible.
	A very high melting point.
	Alright, there's going to be a lot of application for, apparently, for nanotechnology and computer chips.
	Seth Shostak from SETI made a really fascinating statement about being in contact with another civilization within 20 years, just so long as, for one thing, we continue to double our processing power every 18 months until the year 2015.
	Now, do you know if that's possible, or is Moore's Law going to bring the axe down long before that?
	I think as Moore's Law slows, it will so drive the research as it is now, that we will switch over, maybe not smoothly, be disruptively to a nano to base technology i want to
	point out that just two months ago my colleagues at the university of california
	who's the first really fast nano to transistor uh... this can turn a switch on a just a nano to between
	two gold detectors sort of thing that we use in our experiment
	reported that a letter to the paper period in the orders want to go
	Yes.
	But a nanosecond's a billionth of a second, and in that time it can turn it on or off ten times.
	That's pretty fast.
	Wow!
	How does that compare of the decision-making capability of silicon?
	It's not the same, but you know, we're talking 2.6 gigahertz type chips, so it's amazing that quickly they've been able to come up with a real working example of a nanotube transistor.
	There's other companies that promise, still promise, A nanotube chip with similar, I presume, technology.
	You can look at their patent at the PTO.
	They haven't, Nantero and some others, they haven't put them out yet, but they've got a lot of really good people and good patents and good venture capitalists behind them.
	So anytime now, we're expecting to see memory chips and processing chips at least begin to weave that in.
	Some of the best nano researchers, for example, at Harvard are in collaboration with Intel.
	And again, if you check the patent office, this has been explosive in two other things about how big this is.
	In December, President Bush signed the Nanotech Initiative, which was more than $3.5 billion for nanotech funding.
	That's more money, Art, than given for directed research at any time since the space program.
	I know, Professor, that it is caught on like wildfire.
	And yesterday.
	And yesterday, Art.
	What you may not know is that Bush signed the Executive Order 13226, setting up the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.
	Wow.
	If you go to the White House, as everybody should do, by the way, check the White House webpage.
	They do publish, as does the Federal Register, the executive orders.
	And that's 1-1-3-2-2-6, right?
	1-3-2-2-6.
	Now, it's another issue whether the executive branch will be making law, but the fact they do, and the most recent one on the books of this republic, turns out to deal with nanotechnology.
	Why has it caught fire so suddenly and dramatically, Professor?
	Why?
	On the one hand, as you say, everyone sees the incoming to classical Moore's Law principles for silicon chips.
	In other words, the estimates even in the year 2010 that chip foundries will cost $20, $30, $50 billion, and that becomes infeasible even for very large corporations.
	So you just can't keep speeding up the horse and buggy in some sense.
	You have to change vehicles.
	Professor, do you know You know, it should be mathematically easy to calculate if you keep doubling from where we are every 18 months.
	Right.
	When is it going to get to be impossible?
	When?
	You know, roughly.
	We hate to say impossible, because unless you're breaking the speed of light or something, it may be impractical.
	But the latest estimates that I've seen on that very period, the 18-month doubling, says in the year 2010, the current techniques are not likely to be commercially feasible.
	And everybody knows that, and they're working very hard now to find something else.
	It may not be nanotubes, but there's a good bet that it will be.
	This has become, I think, the single biggest thing at universities.
	For example, at USC, it's the sort of thing we're vigorously hiring in, along with quantum computing and things like that.
	And we reflect every other university and government lab around the world.
	This is a big deal.
	This is the final assault on matter.
	And we've been confined largely to the first 92 elements in the periodic table.
	How is the U.S.
	doing compared to the rest of the world?
	If it's that big a deal, and it certainly obviously is, then how are we doing compared to others?
	equatorial periodic tables but it's a it's a
	gold rush time the transitional period i think in the history of science
	how is the u s doing
	uh... compared to the rest of the world if it's that uh...
	big a deal and it's certainly obviously is then how are we doing compared to
	others we're doing well but yet
	europeans are stupid They're very good scientists.
	For example, this past week or two out of the Max Planck Research Laboratories in Germany, the Germans created the first nitrogen diamond.
	It will take the nitrogen gas that's in your lungs right now into gas, where the bonds are so strong because they're triple bonds.
	The only way you can break those naturally is through lightning flashes, or volcanic eruptions, or some plant enzymes.
	And those nitrogen-fixing plants like clover.
	So under great, great temperatures and heat, they were able to create a structure like a diamond in terms of its cubical arrangement of single-bonded nitrogen, and possibly a whole new way of fiddling with matter.
	So the Europeans are doing well.
	As I said, the first nanotube was discovered by a Japanese researcher at NEC.
	The Japanese have really been aggressive in filing patents.
	They're pretty good about patent filing anyway.
	And if you look at the The roster of people in nanoletters, in the journal Nanotechnology, it's a lot of scientists from Korea, from China, from India, as well as from the U.S.
	So it's a big game.
	And we're squarely, at least right up there with the top contenders, with the Japanese... We lead in general with the university.
	This is largely university-driven work, although there's lots of companies.
	I'm sure there won't be the same companies in existence.
	A larger number of them will be gone in five years, there'll be more coming out.
	But it still is largely an academic game.
	And we have, I know this is biased, USC, but we do have the best universities in the world.
	But those universities and research centers depend heavily upon foreign talent.
	And everyone sees it.
	Some countries, like Japan, have invested quite heavily in nanotech.
	The other thing we have, Art, that no other country really has, we have a venture capital system.
	And we just don't have that sort of thing in Europe, let alone in other parts of the world.
	Quite true.
	And that's made a big difference to many other technologies.
	As here, the trouble here, though, Art, is when it intersects with biotechnology.
	In this way, the U.S.
	ties its hands.
	And this may be getting too quickly to some of those big issues, but I think we all want to see diseases cured and life extended and things like that, but when we go out of our way to outlaw cloning, right now the Senate is still sitting on the final prohibition on that, where other countries are not doing it.
	Some have.
	England has, but it will be It will come to pass whether the Americans take the lead in it or not.
	How serious is it?
	It's all research and right down the list.
	Even, you know, anything related to... Back to cloning for a second.
	How serious will it be if the U.S.
	is unable to take advantage of exploration there?
	We're talking about the very nature of procreation and the ability to have, you know, when you're sick, to have replacement tissues grown.
	We're severely hampered by what I believe is little more than superstition.
	It's finding its way to the political system and to the House and Senate, and in this case, the administration.
	But I've heard arguments, Professor, that cloning is not going, full cloning, is not going to be necessary to pursue organ growth and replacement, that sort of thing.
	True, you can go around it, but here's the trouble, the so-called chilling effect, like with free speech, when the government intrudes in research, especially at this literal embryonic age.
	It's never done that before that I'm aware of.
	It's one thing to create the first nuclear bomb, so you have to regulate.
	That's quite reasonable.
	Here to come in just on spec and start regulating isn't, I don't think, reasonable at all.
	Especially when you look at the arguments for it.
	From cloning to stem cell tissue.
	So you're going to be hesitant if you're a company or a researcher to get too close to that fuzzy boundary of what somebody says is legal or illegal.
	It's going to affect funding and a variety of other things.
	I think the U.S.
	has made, in my opinion, a deep strategic mistake.
	And tying his hands at this level.
	It's much better, for example, I think, to take the Supreme Court at its word that you really have, via the Ninth Amendment, a right to procreation.
	That cloning is a suspension of that.
	Uh-huh.
	That's an interesting approach.
	And why should, you know, subject to the ability that you take care of, that you're a responsible parent, that sort of thing.
	Yes.
	Why shouldn't you have your own clone if you wanted?
	I haven't heard a good counter-argument to that, and it's real tough to see why two parents who Can't conceive, or who just lost a child.
	Well, the arguments, of course, are the horrors.
	The possibility that people would be cloned and, you know, hung by strings in mid-air, nourished.
	Well, as I said, through little tubes.
	Exactly.
	If you create a black market, as we used to have, for example, in abortionist countries, you get a lot of medical students practicing it, you get a lot of bad science done and not good information, you're going to have a lot more of that kind of thing.
	And the kind of countries that will be taking the lead will not be those If you rationally regulated this, if you had to go get a doctor's approval in effect, or a team of doctors before you had that clone child, I think we can avoid the Frankenstein problem.
	Okay, doesn't it come down, you said procreation, but really it's creation, and it's belief in creation, and religion, and faith, and All the rest of that that's putting the clamps on this, because we're getting into into the area of creation.
	They see us getting into the God area.
	Exactly.
	I wouldn't say it's God.
	It's people's view of religion.
	Very different thing.
	But yes, it's exactly that.
	Yes.
	It's that good old time religion.
	And, you know, religion, love it or hate it, has lost an awful lot of ground in the last 200 years, Art.
	And it's primarily lost it whenever it tries to do science, when it tries to explain things, from thunder and lightning to Life forces and things like that.
	If you look at the arguments against stem cell research in this country, they're really quite silly.
	Suddenly the soul is supposed to enter the little zygote or blastosphere at 10 days or 15 days or 20 days.
	They can't quite draw that binary line sufficiently to do that, but it is an attempt to limit future science based on very, very old pre-scientific beliefs.
	A manager of a radio station I work for in Las Vegas, a wild lady, she used to say, life begins with hiya babe.
	With a twinkle in your eye?
	Yeah.
	But so, all of that is going to clash, and how do you see that clash going right now?
	The religious faith versus scientific I guess, for us, stagnation in some areas, eh?
	I think it's very bad, Art.
	I mean, when Congress is going out of its way to ban all types of cloning.
	Now, there's some argument about that.
	Some are not willing to go that far.
	It's past the House.
	It's right now sitting in the Senate.
	It's likely to pass.
	Now, maybe not before the presidential election.
	But both the Democrats and Republicans, I think, are terrified to oppose this, again, because We're a very religious country, and for whatever reason, our religion says something about who created what, when, and that's tied into stem cells.
	And even, you know, Mrs. Reagan has come out now in favor of stem cell research in direct opposition to President Bush.
	Yes, I'm well aware.
	I'm well aware.
	Do you think that President Bush will give on this issue, or not a chance?
	Not a chance.
	If he's willing to amend the Constitution to oppose gay marriage, I think there's no chance he would give on Well, I think he's willing to say he would amend the Constitution.
	I don't know of anybody who realistically believes that's actually going to occur.
	No, it got shot down in the Senate, but they gave it a good faith try.
	The numbers didn't work out, and they knew that.
	Well, that's right.
	They knew damn well it wouldn't work out.
	So, he's willing to say it, and that's sort of, you know, just, I don't know, cheering on the faithful a little, I guess.
	He sort of knew it wouldn't happen, so he had to make the attempt.
	That looked like a poll driven.
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's right.
	He had to make the attempt.
	So what do you think?
	Will gay marriage ultimately be proven constitutional and spread across America?
	You know, I think the answer is an easy yes.
	I think it'll go beyond that, Art.
	I think when you look at Justice Scalia's argument last year about the Texas case of a law against sodomy, which was overturned, he said, well, look, if we walk down this road, then we're going to have polygamy and things like that.
	Yeah, we probably will have polygamy, a big deal.
	As long as it's peaceful, nobody gets harmed, and it's between consenting adults, it's very hard to prohibit that.
	With the actual text or usual principles of the U.S.
	Constitution.
	There are many who feel that might fall under the category of pursuit of happiness.
	You got it.
	This is such an exciting field.
	Nanotechnology really is an exciting field.
	If you all can imagine a window that on your command would suddenly go from something you couldn't see through solid to suddenly a window that is spotless and you can You wouldn't even know it's there.
	I mean, all these magical... It's become a metal.
	It's like magic.
	It's like magic, isn't it?
	Yes, it is.
	It could suddenly go from being a metal, as you say, to being a transparent glass.
	How many years might we be from something of that magnitude?
	I don't think that one's that hard.
	I mean, it's easy for me to say, but that's within people's grasp right now.
	It's on a drawing board.
	Actually, some patents, I understand, have been filed.
	I don't know if they've issued on that attempt to Program matter, usually it's what's called an artificial atom.
	But that, I think, is... The issue is whether it's economically feasible, and that's a tougher call.
	Well, if it's doable... It's laboratory feasible.
	Uh-huh.
	Well, then eventually it's probably going to be economically... Probably will.
	Yeah.
	How many years would you guess?
	A decade?
	Two decades?
	Three?
	To have that kind of very simple, programmable Matter, I think, certainly a prototype within 10 years, maybe sooner.
	My goodness.
	No wonder it's lighting up the way it is.
	Are nanotechnological companies beginning to draw support from investors?
	In a very big way.
	I was involved in the neural network field, as I still am, in the fuzzy field.
	These fields were exploding 10, 15 years ago.
	VCs came in, companies were started.
	You have a lot of products now with both of those technologies.
	It looks just like that now, only bigger for nanotechnology.
	And the other thing, Art, is after the dot-com bust, venture capitalists were skittish.
	So there's a huge backlog, or pool, of available venture capital.
	And one of the ways it's being spent is not so much on dot-com software kinds of things, but on things like nano-ventures.
	Well, there's the fool me once thing, too, though, and so that's held a lot of people back, I suppose, right?
	It has, but again, this is a very different thing than an internet web-based company.
	It's usually based on a concrete patent that's been filed.
	Alright, what about the good old US military?
	Now there just must be a million applications conceivable for nanotechnology in really smart bombs, really smart weapons, really smart armor, really smart lots of stuff.
	So I would think the military would be hot on this nanotechnological And they are, both in terms of funding it, and their own government science.
	As I said, the sheer thickening fluid breakthrough of shooting a gelatinous structure that becomes hard and soft again was done in the Army labs.
	Oh.
	And they're working and looking very carefully at the different kinds of weave to put in Kevlar or other substances, and you shoot them for vest and a variety of nanodevices.
	Actually, there's one, I believe, at least in the prototype stage, that can detect various poisons that you would expect from a terrorist attack of The usual kind.
	So, in effect, artificial noses distributed out through materials in terms of how they respond to certain chemicals.
	Artificial noses.
	All right, hold it right there.
	Professor Bart Kosko is my guest, and we are going to go to that final page and hit him with some hard stuff.
	This is a guy who's the real McCoy.
	Professor Bart Kosko.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Stay right where you are.
	It's 2 a.m.
	and the beer is gone.
	It's 2 a.m.
	Back off, you. It's 2 AM.
	It's 2 AM, and here is not.
	It's 2 AM.
	It's us for a while.
	It's time to take a chance.
	Yeah, let the storm loose.
	Siren's in my head.
	Yeah.
	It's time to...
	Oh, baby, don't feel the rain.
	Baby, take my hand.
	Don't feel the rain.
	We'll be able to fly.
	Don't feel the rain.
	Baby, I'm your man.
	La la la la la la la La la la la la la la
	La la la la la la la Valentine is gone.
	Here for the time that comes.
	Romeo and Juliet, All together in eternity.
	Romeo and Juliet, 40,000 men and women every day.
	Romeo and Juliet, 40,000 men and women every day.
	Remind me every day.
	40,000 men and women every day.
	And be like they are.
	Come on, baby, don't feel the rain.
	To talk with Art Bell, call the Wildcard line at...
	The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
	To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll free at 800-825-5033.
	line is area code 775-727-1222. To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free
	at 800-825-5033. From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
	International callers may reach Art by calling your in-country Sprint Access number,
	pressing option A.
	option five and dialing toll-free eight hundred eight nine three zero nine zero
	three from coast to coast and worldwide on the internet this is coast to coast
	am with art bell military forces are created and maintained by nations all
	across the face of the globe to do a couple things break things and kill
	people that's what they do And I wonder how many uses and imaginative ways the
	military has in mind that people might be killed using nanotechnology.
	Once again, Professor Bart Kosko.
	And Professor, I wonder, gee, the military, you must have some idea.
	I mean, they're going to turn their attention toward how you would use nanotechnology in a weapon, meaning to kill people.
	So in what way can you imagine nanotechnology could be used in something weaponized or a weapon to kill people?
	Hard.
	There are so many ways.
	First off, before you kill them, you have to find them.
	Right.
	To find them, you have to track them.
	Yes.
	So already, there's great efforts to use a variety of signal processing algorithms called hyperspectral signal processing, where satellites can look down and detect the nature of that thing you're smoking.
	Is it a cigar?
	Is it a joint?
	Is it some kind of terrorist gas?
	And throughout the research world, there's a tremendous effort to improve the pattern recognition technology For example, with neural networks or fuzzy systems, things that we take for granted, recognizing a tank in a desert is pretty easy to do.
	Recognizing a tank in the hills outside of Sarajevo, that's difficult to do.
	And we really have to store, typically, thousands and thousands of images of the tank.
	And to do something like that, you need something with vast memory capabilities.
	And search it very quickly and process it quickly.
	Back to the computer.
	Back to the computer.
	And so nanotechnology helps in that sensing regard.
	And networks of sensors and things like that.
	Then what do you imagine?
	That it might be possible to identify where an individual is on the face of the globe?
	I think they really wanted to identify where you are right now.
	They could do that.
	To do it in an economically efficient way is a little different.
	And especially when you have someone on the other side with very smart nano-camouflage.
	Art, recently I was snorkeling in Maui.
	A lot of fun there.
	Yes.
	And playing with an octopus.
	Uh-huh.
	And if you've ever done that... No, we all get our kicks in different ways.
	Okay.
	You know, playing with the octopus.
	Alright.
	And the octopus would dart around from different colored corals and instantly change its color to match the coral.
	Oh yes.
	How does it do that kind of thing?
	That's the ultimate.
	It's smart armor in terms of camouflage and it has to do with chromospores and it's kind of like your retinal cells distributed throughout its skin.
	So there's that.
	So we will have more power More roving eyes in the sky and elsewhere.
	Very small things elsewhere looking.
	At the same time, there'll be smarter camouflage.
	But the weapons capability, for example, I mentioned that the Germans recently, this past month, have created nitrogen diamond.
	And that has the potential to greatly increase explosive powders and other structures like that.
	So, another thing, and I talk about this in my novel, Nano Time, we already have super acids.
	But if you could program the acid to only destroy certain things and not others, and in my novel it destroyed various metals and not oil, so it melts an oil tanker in five minutes through an exponential process, and this leaves a vast puddle of oil floating in the Gulf Stream.
	Things like that are likely to come because it's so much easier.
	Why couldn't it be more efficient and eat the oil, too?
	Clean up after itself.
	Well, this was the Senator Pricker political message.
	Oh, I see.
	Is something like that doable?
	That is doable.
	The reason, again, is the second law of thermodynamics, that it's easier to cut down a tree than to grow a tree.
	Much easier to break the egg than to create one.
	All right, well, let's talk about egg breaking at its greatest level, and that would be the good old famous gray goo.
	You know, the whole concept has fascinated me.
	I assume that essentially destroying an oil tanker and leaving just the oil would be a variation of Grey Goo, eh?
	Sort of.
	Grey Goo's been beaten up pretty hard lately in the literature.
	Well, let's establish once and for all, do you believe that Grey Goo, in its most Terrible, terribly described form.
	That is, it virtually eats everything on the globe up, and everything on the globe becomes grey goo.
	Is that honestly technologically conceivable?
	Well, we're going to play with the definition of conceivable, but within the usual realm of probabilities, no.
	I think at this point, Professor Richard Smalley, at Texas, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry recently for the discovery of the fullerene, Precursor to the nanotube, the buckyball, mixed the carbon atoms together with hexagons and pentagons exactly like a soccer ball.
	He had a published debate with my colleague Eric Drexler, the fellow who introduced the term nanotechnology, about this subject in molecular manufacturing.
	Smalley's argument is that there aren't, he called, sticky fingers and hands.
	It's hard to manipulate atoms at that level.
	The debate It quite literally rages, and you can go to the American Chemical Society website and look at the debate where it currently stands.
	But the out-and-out grey goose scenario, I think, is a little far-fetched at this point.
	What I had in mind, in terms of selective destruction of matter, I think isn't so far-fetched, because you can program, for example, just nanotubes to respond in very different ways, just, again, based upon the twist or the length of the tubes and a lot of things like that.
	That's a lot easier, too, than And to build something.
	So, destruction with nanotechnology, I think, yeah, that's a big growth area.
	Let's imagine the destruction of an aircraft carrier.
	Might as well pick on a major asset, an entire aircraft carrier.
	If you can get an oil tanker, you can get an aircraft carrier, I would think.
	In what manner is it being destroyed?
	The nanotechnology is being instructed to do what?
	To take the material of the aircraft carrier, the various materials, And turn it into something else?
	Is that how it occurs?
	Well, it's simpler to break chemical bonds and to dissociate molecules, to reduce to complex molecules, to simpler molecules, or even perhaps individual atoms.
	Of course, that takes a lot of energy.
	The trick is figuring out how to set up a kind of chain reaction like fire, or like a nuclear chain reaction.
	But the matter actually remains.
	It just becomes converted in some manner, does it not?
	Well, sure.
	Like H2O, split in hydrogen and oxygen.
	So you might turn an aircraft carrier... Neither one of those are good for you, by the way.
	You might turn an aircraft carrier into water.
	Yes.
	I'm not saying that you would do that, but that's the principle.
	You would transform it into a different set of Lego blocks.
	But that's a very specific thing, and I think it's, hate to say it, but potentially feasible, because of the nature of the metals involved, and all you have to do is get a sufficiently big hole, and it's done for.
	And what confines its destruction to our example aircraft carrier?
	I'd like to think it's easier to deal with the simple alloys involved in metals than, say, human tissues or concrete structures.
	Maybe it's not.
	Again, the trouble here in the Grey Goo scenario is getting that chain reaction going.
	I sure hate to foster any research in that direction, but if you could do that, then you've got the Grey Goo.
	But that, you know, will run up against getting something for nothing principle.
	Would you be in favor of laws, Professor, that would prevent that line of research?
	That's a tough question.
	Since you expressed that so strongly, I thought, well, let's go back for a second to, you know, earlier statement.
	Here's the trouble with that, is that the applications that will probably produce that will be so unforeseen, so incidental, what the researchers had in mind.
	To try to reasonably limit research early on that will have these unforeseen effects down the road at the pinball fashion of applications.
	I don't think, on the other hand, Art, if somebody specifically files for a patent on Grey Goo, that makes sense.
	I think they should be forwarded to a special department.
	And if we should ever produce that, it may happen.
	We will have to treat it like a nuclear bomb.
	I do think it makes sense.
	In this case, to use the force of government.
	Well, let's ask you, as a scientist, if you were on the trail of even what you thought would be a restricted or controlled form of grey goo, what are the chances for, should humanity worry, that in the process of that investigation, a terrible mistake could get made?
	Sure it should worry.
	Right now, of course, we're not anywhere near that, but in other words, you can't say to someone, you've just proven a mathematical theorem, Mr. Einstein equals mp squared.
	We're going to have to put limits on that, because 30 years down the road, it's going to be turned into a nuclear bomb, and that's really hard to foresee.
	But if somebody's close, and we may be, or if somebody says, I now see that with a reasonable set of steps, I can achieve a basic Grey Goose scenario, I think they have a duty to turn that over to the government.
	I'm not a big fan of government.
	I think at this point the hazards are so great, and for no other reason so that some responsible people can look at it and start thinking about it.
	I don't think they should put it in the open literature.
	And we do have, you know, we really do have some exceptions from the First Amendment principles.
	Alright, let's be sure the audience understands.
	When we're talking about Grey Goo, we're talking about the ability to manipulate Adams for example, and finally end up with something that would be instructed to virtually eat, just eat any material for example in the case of pure grey goo I guess, anything it comes in contact with and to reproduce itself with those materials.
	In other words, an endless chain of little machines eating up everything.
	In the same principle, to have like a fire, a chain reaction, so that the energy produced in the release is used in the next phase to break up more molecules.
	And all you're left with and done is a bunch of unstructured matter.
	Goo.
	Gray goo.
	Turning the world into gray goo would spread, uh, well, there's a really good question.
	Exponentially fast, if you got it.
	Exponentially fast.
	So, theoretically, if a scientist dropped a vial of this foul stuff on a lab floor, uh, in Cincinnati, How long would the people in Moscow have?
	I don't know what the rate of reaction are, but you know the principles of geometric compounding here.
	You put a dollar in the bank and if it continues to compound in a few years, you'll break any bank.
	Yes.
	And if we have things happening at nano-speeds, in principle, I don't think it's likely, fortunately, but in principle, it could be not just a matter of hours, but days or something within your lifetime.
	It would be a big problem.
	Maybe we can put some kind of nano-fence around it.
	No.
	That's something that, if we ever get close to it, I do think that research will have to be prohibited.
	It's so big, and the downsides so large, that it warrants even prior restraint in publishing.
	Wow.
	So you have your limits, too?
	Sure.
	I think government serves a purpose for certain kinds of public goods, like public safety here, Or national defense, and you're really talking about something like that at that point.
	Well, true.
	Of course, it would be irresistible for our government.
	It would be irresistible, I suppose, for any government.
	But here's something I worry about.
	You know what?
	That would be truly the ability to instantly, more or less, destroy ourselves as though we never were here.
	And, you know, they've been looking for alien civilizations for a long time now with SETI, and they're getting a little nervous.
	And they're beginning to say, well, you know what?
	If we don't find one in about 50 years, we're going to have to make some harsh remarks about the possibility of there being any life out there.
	And isn't it possible, I mean, just possible, that any life form will eventually achieve perhaps the gray goo Breakthrough point.
	And that's it for them.
	I mean, so no wonder we're not hearing from anybody.
	They all destroy themselves.
	Certainly possible.
	One would like to think, though, that would be so sophisticated a level of science that they would concomitantly at the same time be finding nano fences and other ways to limit it.
	But if it really is the case that this is physically possible, I don't think it is.
	I hope it's not.
	But you don't know.
	Nobody knows.
	If it is, then sure, a civilization could blink out.
	And if you look at the history of the universe, We're quite recent arrivals here.
	If there are other civilizations, they've probably been around for a very long time.
	Some could have come and gone by now, for that very reason.
	Or more likely, perhaps, if there were some kind of conflict between them, it would make a terrific weapon.
	Well, could nanotechnology, for example... I mean, they talk about this all the time with biological terrorism, There eventually might be a way to make a virus or a something that would target a certain, for example, ethnic group.
	Sure.
	Or national group.
	Or any group with distinct... Or any pattern of the genome.
	Exactly.
	We, you know, I mean, a lot of sciences are converging on this almost at once, aren't they?
	Absolutely.
	That's a more likely scenario of targeted, targets in that way, of targeted Well, we seem to have a lot of people in the world right now bent on destruction and killing because of belief systems.
	I mean, that's it.
	Because of belief systems.
	matter, and the chemical iterations with that matter, to obliterate.
	Again, it's a lot easier to destroy than build.
	That's all that requires.
	Yes.
	Well, we seem to have a lot of people in the world right now bent on destruction and killing
	because of belief systems.
	True.
	I mean, that's it, because of belief systems.
	That's why we're being attacked, because of what we believe and what others believe, and
	being a Zestriah, that's what it's all about.
	This whole terrorism thing we're going through right now, it's what somebody believes and what we believe.
	What it comes down to.
	So, I mean, there's no shortage of people in the world, Professor, willing to give their own life or commit virtual suicide.
	So, the use of something like this, if it did exist, Isn't it almost assured?
	I mean, is social progress in any way keeping up with science, or is science going to get out there too far, too fast, for us to be able to deal with it?
	That's a tough call.
	One thing that worries me about that, Art, is the fact that everything we're talking about here is available for free on the internet right now.
	I mean, it's just the nature of it.
	We've increasingly gone to online publishing.
	I think it's a wonderful thing, but it has this potential of a dedicated adversary, or a bunch of them.
	Be able to take almost all the underlying basic principles, or to go to the Patent Office, you can do that online, study the patents that have been issued, and use that against us.
	So that makes it very difficult to defend against that.
	I don't see an easy way to do it.
	On the other hand, one good thing I think, Arne, is that with nanotechnology and increasing with the digital age, more countries are getting richer.
	For example, India now has a real stake in helping us maintain property rights.
	Japan is pretty good about property rights.
	In fact, it's real tough now in enforcing... NEC is talking about it.
	It's one of its nano-tube patents.
	It's supposed to be bringing out a notebook PC next year, using a battery based on nanotubes, and it's got a whole slew of nanotube patents on that.
	Wow!
	China, on the other hand, has become quite a pirate state, and it has not really lived up to the obligations of the World Trade Organization, and hopefully as it becomes richer, And more inventors emerge that it will have a stake in the game.
	Well, you know they'll eventually be making cheaper nanotube products in China.
	That's what they'll do.
	And knock-offs.
	Will happen.
	Yeah, I'm sure.
	You know, all of this is so mind-boggling.
	It really is.
	And it seems to be moving awfully fast.
	And again, I really have to ask, are we prepared socially?
	Has the human race evolved Anywhere near far enough to begin dealing with the consequences of what's staring us in the face here.
	That's a really important question.
	All right, with the levels of crime and war, there's about 30 wars being fought on the planet as we speak of one species or another.
	Just the inherent violent nature of man.
	We are hominids after all.
	We have hormonal systems and things like that.
	I think that part looks like Mr. Freud was right.
	There's a very dark side of mankind and And it gets to control the levers.
	So I guess that's a no.
	It's a fuzzy no, yeah.
	Fuzzy no.
	I think we've not caught up with that.
	Yeah, fuzzy no, that's what it was.
	You would think in an enlightened age, aren't there, we simply wouldn't have petty thievery and things like that, but that really hasn't abated.
	There's more to steal now.
	No, I would say people are every bit as ready to die for their belief systems as they ever have been in all of history.
	I don't think that has changed very much.
	In fact, what's worse is with the Internet and TV, we have the clash of belief systems that we didn't have before.
	So if you're living in a tyrannical country, say in Arabia, the neck of the planet, and you don't have a very Low standard of living, and you look at the American freedoms, for example, or European, I think that creates a kind of envy there.
	I think that's, as you pointed out, what's driving this.
	In addition to the fact, it just doesn't seem as if the American scientists are supporting a lot of the claims of certain beliefs, like Islam or any other religious belief.
	All right.
	All right, Professor.
	Hold it right there.
	We are at the bottom of the hour.
	Talking about nanotechnology, of course.
	And this is pretty scary stuff.
	We'll get into some more esoteric kind of stuff here shortly.
	We're up against it anyway, because it really all does come down to these belief systems and religion.
	Yeah, what people believe.
	from the high desert to the high desert
	to the high desert to the high desert
	to the high desert You don't count these heads
	You know you don't count these heads You don't count these heads
	You know you don't count these heads How to play your cues
	If you wanna see the blues And you know you don't count these heads
	You don't have to shout or leap the vowels You can even play them easy
	Forget about the past And all your sorrows
	In the future or the past It will soon be all tomorrow
	I don't ask for much I only want to trust
	And you know it don't come easy To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
	The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
	To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll free at 800-825-5033.
	line is area code 775-727-1222. To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free
	at 800-825-5033. From west of the Rockies, call Art at 800-618-8255.
	International callers may reach Art Bell by calling your in-country Sprint Access
	number, pressing Option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
	From coast to coast, and worldwide on the Internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	Oh indeed, and Professor Bart Kosko, absolutely the real McCoy, Definitely well-credentialed scientist.
	He's written three books, by the way, and you may well want to go research some of these.
	They're titled, Fuzzy Engineering.
	That's right, Fuzzy Engineering, Intelligent Signal Processing, and his, I believe, latest, or was it the first, we'll ask, Heaven in a Chip.
	I really like that name, Heaven in a Chip.
	professor costco fascinating
	One of the questions is here, is the average American scientifically qualified to sit on a jury?
	And then the similar question with respect to whether judges are even scientifically competent.
	And that's a very good question.
	I would take it then you believe the average American citizen, which would be possibly in a jury, is simply not scientifically competent.
	Art, when the NSF, the National Science Foundation, recently finds that more than 50% of American adults don't know that the earth goes around the sun and takes a year to do it, I think that's fair to conclude that.
	I've seen cases, as a consultant before, complex patent litigation about the nature of a computer chip with jurors that did not, in some cases, complete high school.
	I don't think that those jurors are qualified, and I think what we need This country are science courts, at least in the federal courts where patents are prosecuted.
	We have already, as you know, we have bankruptcy courts, which are very complicated courts under Article 1 of the Constitution.
	Every district court has one now.
	And there's been some effort out here in the Ninth Circuit looking at the concept of some way to add a scientific element instead of just the dueling experts that so many court cases have come to.
	cases in california superior court over eighty percent actually go to trial involve an expert and a typical number of experts is like three per trial they try to break it down uh... is it your view that the average american for example cannot digest uh... the possibility that it's only one in honor of others pick figure twenty five million chance that this person would not have been identified by some sort of genetic evidence.
	I mean, they always throw numbers at the jury.
	You don't think they can understand the significance of those numbers?
	Studies show that, and the federal rules of evidence and most state rules of evidence have been adjusted and interpreted to, in effect, preclude those kinds of probability statements.
	They can be done if you have to very carefully work with them.
	You saw them in the OJ trial, for example, DNA.
	but in general uh... it's it's difficult to argue your case with those
	kind of numbers and fish with some of the other side challenging it is a
	very famous case that i go over in my statistics class
	who about ten plus more than twenty years ago it went all the way the supreme court dealing with a
	statistical regression it's funny
	are to watch district court raffle with this mathematical concept yes it
	passes the buck to the appeals court which passes the buck the supreme court
	and on a five-four decision. The question there was simply this.
	If you're in the South, and if you're a black man, and you kill a white cop, are you more likely to get the death penalty than, say, if you were white and killed a black cop?
	I think most of us would probably say, yeah.
	And the evidence sure looked like that, and there was a big multivariable regression with over 100 variables.
	But by a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said no.
	Do you think the Supreme Court made a scientifically sound decision?
	Absolutely not.
	In the standard books on statistics and the law, which I looked at... On what basis, other than mathematical and scientific, certainly did they make that?
	Part of the decisions as they went up the chain of legal command were to say, well, this has a very technical property that would undermine the results, something called heteroscedasticity, for example.
	And things like that.
	And so the Supreme Court would wriggle and try to say, we're going to not call this on the merits.
	But in the end, they did.
	They still had to conclude that this wasn't a substantial showing of the data.
	And if you look at the way typical cases are resolved, complex issues of probabilities, which is what this was, rarely do they have real statistical support like this case did.
	But they really went in there.
	And the question was, is this big math model with the reams of data That was very carefully presented to the court.
	Is it valid?
	Is it reasonably accurate?
	Therefore, in court cases, and there are many of them these days, high-profile cases and others where experts are introduced with this sort of evidence, give me an example of how you would then qualify a potential juror or judge in your new scientific courts.
	I think the idea is there would be a level where one party The litigation would say, we want to make an appeal, that this be heard by the science court.
	And, and or, the judge, Sue Esponte, on his own motion, could say, this is above my pay grade, let's kick it over out of jurisdiction.
	Rather than trying to come and do that, as I said, there was a recent study, and I wrote an op-ed about it, it's available on my webpage, appeared in the LA Times and many other places, about just how competent are judges.
	And this is because in 1993, the Supreme Court, a very famous case called Daubert, He said that all federal judges must be gatekeepers for science.
	In other words, they must make a decision whether the expert is qualified.
	And they laid out a bunch of factors.
	And the main one, Art, is something that goes back to Sir Karl Popper.
	What is the nature of a scientific statement?
	And Popper said, whether you can test it.
	And whether you can falsify it.
	Whether there are a set of facts that, in principle, could knock it down.
	So, for example, if somebody says, the English language weighs five pounds, You say, now wait a minute, I can't in principle test that.
	There's no conceivable set of facts that would refute it.
	Indeed, it's a logical category mistake.
	The judge has the job to make that threshold decision.
	He's quite literally called that, in the rules of evidence, the gatekeeper.
	And so somebody said, let's see if they're competent.
	So very detailed interviews were done with judges and went back a second time.
	This was done in Utah.
	And the finding was only 6% Of judges understood the concept of testability or falsifiability.
	Only 1 in 20.
	And these are smart people.
	Federal judges, not state judges.
	And so the presumption is that the state courts, where the judges tend not to be as sophisticated as the federal, are probably at least as bad.
	So it's something of a crisis here.
	And it involves great transfers of wealth, and involves great inhibitions on research.
	Like say right now, last year there were 8,000 patents approximately filed involving nanotechnology.
	A good number of those, if not the majority, involve nanotubes.
	And who's going to make a decision about that in a case?
	In 1996, the Supreme Court unanimously... Very good question.
	...said, in 1996, that in interpreting the claims of a patent, that it would not go to the jury, that the judge would do it because they're like statutes, was the claim.
	And so it's put more of this on the shoulders of judges, and law schools don't contain science curricula, nor do they have basic training in statistics.
	It's a real crisis we have in this country, in the land of science.
	Well then how, typically today, does a judge, faced with making that sort of decision about a patent, for example, research how he should rule?
	He's got to educate himself, obviously, to some degree on it.
	What resources are there for existing judges to, or even for that matter, attorneys or anybody else, what are the resources for them to Typically, there's two things for a judge.
	We're talking now, all patents by the kind of Article 1, Section 8, must go through federal courts.
	So, the district court judge will look very carefully at the claims of the dueling experts.
	And the first example, make sure that they have degrees that they claim, and both sides will try to destroy the other experts.
	And most of these litigations, and it runs to the millions of dollars, involve trying to tear apart the credibility of the experts.
	So you can just look, Art, at the opposing counsel's argument and get a good feel for it, because they've hired a lot of experts to explain it to the other side.
	The second thing the judge can do, judges do have the power, under the federal rules of evidence, to bring in outside experts and pay them a reasonable fee.
	And that's happening, which I think is a very good idea.
	That's happening increasingly.
	That would seem fair.
	But at the same time, you know, that's a long process, an expensive process, isn't always done.
	And at some point, I think we simply need to get more competent judges.
	And so a way to do that would be to have, again, for certain kinds of cases, especially patent cases, that we would have something like a science court, where one party could argue this has really got to go to a court of competent jurors or judges.
	But you're talking about such a profound change in the structure of our justice system that, well, frankly, it would be unconstitutional I don't know if it would be unconstitutional.
	If you look... Jury of peers.
	Jury of peers.
	Maybe that would work, actually.
	Give an example.
	If you made them what are called Article 3, Article 3 of the Constitution.
	The Constitution has seven articles.
	It deals with the judiciary.
	That might be.
	So what Congress did when it dealt with the bankruptcy judges was make them what are called Article 1 judges.
	Article 1 gives power to the Congress.
	So these judges don't have lifetime tenure, which may not be a good thing.
	You may want them to have that to avoid the Politics involved and so forth.
	Yes.
	So under Article 1, Congress has the power to appoint on, say, a 10 or 12 year basis, like with the bankruptcy judges and other judges in administrative law agencies, to appoint interim or science judges or committees or bodies like that.
	As I said, the Ninth Circuit is looking at this right now.
	That's incredible.
	Well, I didn't know any of that.
	All right.
	All right.
	Let's see if I can't get you in a little bit of trouble here.
	You criticize faith as an unwarranted belief.
	That's quite a position to take.
	Faith is an unwarranted belief.
	And from, I guess, a strictly scientific point of view, faith is what?
	It's the belief in something you can't prove.
	That's right.
	Belief without evidence and, quite often, our belief despite evidence on a proposition.
	But that's its definition, and doesn't just apply to religion.
	We have all kinds of faith.
	We take things on faith all the time.
	For example, I was just in Las Vegas recently.
	As you mentioned, I teach statistics and probability.
	And with a couple exceptions, maybe poker hands, among experts, every game in the house is set up so that the odds are negative, or what's called expected values negative.
	That's why casinos really never lose money.
	They may for other reasons, how they're managed, but they always make money, unlike So, why is it that a human being would rationally walk into a casino and gamble?
	Vegas has become, as you know, the world's number one vacation site.
	Now, there's more than gambling, but that's still the heart of it.
	Why would a human being rationally gamble?
	There's a deep streak of irrationality in this.
	If you do not maximize payoff, Do not increase your wealth by throwing craps, which by the way, at a straight pass line bet, is the best odds you can get.
	It's about 49 to 51.
	I always believed that craps was your best shot.
	Or, right close to that, if you simply play roulette and just bet on all black or all red, there's no skill involved beyond that, you're almost to 50-50.
	Over time, you will go bankrupt.
	But the question is, why would someone do that?
	So there's a, you're taking it on faith, the average person going there, that you can beat the house odds.
	And you simply cannot do that.
	That's the nature of faith.
	And if you look at the very specific claims, say, of religion... Yes, that's where you'll get in trouble.
	Well, let's get in trouble.
	I mean, we have to be rational about this.
	That's right.
	Go ahead.
	And if you look at the particular claims of religion, the first question we ask is, what's the evidence for it?
	Whether it's an afterlife, or a soul, or anything like that.
	At some point, you've got to come clean.
	And if you can't do it, it's not enough to say, well, I'm taking it on faith.
	That's just to reassert the very proposition at issue.
	It's literally circular reasoning.
	In a scientific sense, it's beyond unwarranted.
	It's improper.
	Well, yes, but there is some basis of reason for faith in Christianity, for example.
	There are things to tie yourself to, like the Bible, for example.
	Well, I don't want to tie myself too closely to that book.
	I mean, if you look at its authorship, it's the product of at least a thousand or two years of editorship and rewriting and absorption of many cultures, different kind of beliefs.
	Editing then, after that, the selection in 325 A.D.
	at the Council of Nicaea.
	These books shall be in the Bible and these books shall not.
	Really a political decision.
	We've written several times since then.
	They're not historically accurate in many cases.
	You know, we have some evidence that Jesus lived.
	Not very good evidence, for example.
	Absolutely no real evidence of alleged miracles, or... But there was some evidence that that man walked on earth, and... It's secondary evidence.
	Josephus and a few other people wrote about it, and they were, in effect, recording hearsay data.
	And we still don't have a direct witness.
	Maybe there's a scroll somewhere that we'll find down in the desert.
	And people would hope to find that in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	They didn't provide it.
	We don't have a direct transcription of someone saying, I was there, I saw this would happen, and find.
	The Bible, the best estimates of the scholars that I've looked at, the Gospels that are drawn upon in the recent movie, The Passion, for example, can be written 40 to 80 years after the death of Jesus.
	There's all kinds of inconsistencies among them, as well as similarities.
	But it's hardly a historical document, hardly evidence for anything other than the existence of a man who made certain claims.
	And if you look more closely at that particular issue, you find there were several, several would-be messiahs walking the earth, all the way up, famously until 1667, with Shabbatai Zev, who said he was a messiah, and a lot of the Jews living in the But aren't you somewhat concerned, and I'm sort of tracking with you here, Professor, just that aren't you a little bit concerned that no matter where you go on the face of the earth, it doesn't matter what people believe, but almost universally
	There is a belief.
	In other words, a need to worship.
	People found, never having come anywhere close to modern civilization, all believe in something.
	They have this un...
	documented uh... faith uh... strong religious faith uh... whether it involves ritual sacrifices or you know what whatever across the globe they believe in something and and uh... that must mean something it doesn't hurt and it looks like it's uh... of a of a piece with the belief that you can beat the odds in a casino or most people believe that the sun goes around the earth not otherwise you really have to think about that too to convince yourself it isn't the case and look at the evidence but if you look at the scientists the studies show The overwhelming majority do not so believe in any country, but in particular in this one.
	And there seems to be a direct linear relationship here with education, and people have looked at the issue that religious faith is less, and in fact, if you parse it more finely in the U.S., the least faithful among the scientists turn out to be biologists.
	The most faithful are mathematicians.
	Oh, isn't that interesting?
	The most faithful are mathematicians.
	Why?
	I think there's a sense of Platonism.
	What is the number one?
	Does it exist physically?
	Does mathematics have some kind of tangible existence?
	That's a good question.
	You can't really answer that easily.
	So there's a kind of spirit.
	I myself have promulgated the idea of what I call the Mathmaker.
	Something that would go beyond the device or personage or power that created this ball of energy with the laws we have.
	You could wipe out the universe and We should still be able to have the laws of mathematics present.
	So if you could find, and there may not be such a thing, if you could find a power that created math or could destroy math, now that would be something.
	Hence, the mathmaker.
	It would be something.
	What do you think that something might be, Professor?
	I don't know, but in the tradition of the old philosopher's con, I just can't believe that something aren't tied to energy or matter or something that transient.
	I do think the Platonists are right about this, the mathematicians.
	You have to account for that.
	This is the belief all the way back to Pythagoras, who said that the world is number.
	So then really, you're not all that different than anybody else.
	For you, it's just math.
	But I don't rely on that in a social sense.
	I wouldn't use that to affect my behavior.
	It's something, when I sit in an armchair and smoke a cigar, that I reflect on sometimes.
	But I would never go to war over it, or anything of the sort.
	It's just, it's a philosophical speculation.
	It's reasonable art to speculate about origins, but that's all they are, speculations.
	Well, there are a lot of questions that, I mean, after all, scientists cannot explain that instant part of the Big Bang.
	They just go, I don't know.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	As it is now.
	And that seems a lot like an act of creation.
	And it is not all that unreasonable to imagine it was an act of creation, maybe even ongoing.
	But you can imagine, people have speculated, that there was a prior system of what are called super spaces, and this was just one little bubble that came into existence.
	You then still ask about the bubble factory.
	But I think you can posit stuff, Art, before the Big Bang.
	You can't test it, though.
	I may never be able to test this.
	We'll always be, like, for example, a lot of the components of string theory may always be beyond our ability to actually conduct a test that we could grasp.
	All right, hold it right there.
	Professor Bart Kosko is my guest.
	Are you tracking with all this, folks?
	Do you understand what he's saying?
	Ah, scientists.
	All but the mathematicians.
	The mathematicians, they're a little fuzzy on all of this.
	From the high desert, I'm Art Bell.
	this is coast. Interested in a trip to the moon?
	Thanks for watching.
	you Be it sight, sound, smell, or touch, there's something inside that we need so much.
	The sight of a touch, or the scent of a sound, or the strength of an arc when it loops deep in the ground.
	The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac to the sun again.
	Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing.
	To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sink and all these things in our memories soar.
	My memory's all of them, they used them to help us to survive!
	Ride, ride my seesaw, take this place, on this trip, just for me!
	Ride, take a pillow, take my place, on my seat, it's all free!
	Wanna take a ride?
	To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
	The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
	To talk with Art Bell from east to the Rockies, call toll free 800-825-5033.
	From west to the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
	International callers may reach Art by calling your in-country Sprint Access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll free 800-893-0903.
	From coast to coast and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell.
	And Professor Bart Kosko.
	Again, he's written any number of books that you might want to look into.
	You definitely want to look into.
	How about that?
	If this has fascinated you and you want to know more about nanotechnology and about signal processing and engineering, heaven in a chip.
	...is one of his books, Intelligent Signal Processing, Fuzzy Engineering.
	He's... ...a first-class scientist, no question about that, but... ...we're talking about religion at the moment, and a firestorm has begun.
	You should see them.
	Oh, well, you know, I'll read a couple of them here in a moment.
	Some of the computer messages that inevitably would come... ...fast-blasting their way in.
	We'll do that in a moment.
	You know, this is so much fun that I've often wondered, I really have, why they pay me for it at all.
	Um, here's a couple of messages that have come in, uh, in the last few, well, I don't know, 20, 30 minutes, you know, like, since we, the conversation took the religious turn.
	Um, from Mars in Gilroy, California.
	Art, your professor is full of crap!
	There's a mountain of evidence to support all the major stories in the Bible, such as the flood, creation, the Tower of Babel, Sitchin to take them apart.
	Let's see then, Ryan in Vancouver says, Hey Art, ask this Joker what he's living for, and why didn't he put himself out of his misery?
	So, I would have asked it...
	You know, in a more gentle way.
	I mean, if somebody believes as you believe, Professor, wouldn't you believe in life at any cost?
	And let me make a specific example.
	Your technology, or the technology, is eventually perhaps going to make possible Downloading a human brain into a machine, maybe a nanotechnological computer of some sort, for example.
	And so, instead of physical death, which you apparently regard as the end of the line, if you were given the opportunity to secrete yourself, download yourself into a machine and continue to function otherwise, as you are intellectually and mentally, I take it you would easily make that choice.
	You bet, Art.
	And, in fact, I've, in effect, done it now.
	So have you.
	We're living in a machine made of three pounds of meat.
	Unreliable machine.
	Unreliable meat.
	Unreliable meat that will decay.
	As you know, I'm a cryonicist, and happy to be on the Science Advisory Board of Alcor, the main cryonics outfit in Arizona.
	And I have signed up for all-body suspension as a kind of backup, because I may well not live long enough until computer technology ...has afforded this jump of uploading or downloading, especially the difficult technology of porting directly from the chip.
	Yeah, the numbers are probably against you.
	Against me for now, perhaps, but the crucial argument for cryonics is that there's essentially no... there's damage when you freeze in liquid nitrogen, but there's essentially no decay, no passing of time for you to worry about.
	Whether it takes a hundred years or a thousand years, as long as they keep pouring a little liquid nitrogen into the tank, you could do time in a bottle.
	Maybe.
	And maybe you just get freeze or burn.
	It's hard to say.
	But I suppose, given the alternative, you consider it worth a shot?
	Worth a shot?
	The cost of this is comparable, if you amortize it out to a major medical proceeding and maybe even expensive burial.
	But again, the alternatives are no chance whatsoever through a typical burial or certainly a cremation.
	Again, I'm not at all convinced I'll live long enough to see a sufficiently powerful computer age that can back up.
	I am convinced that day will come.
	And so far as I've seen of the evidence on freezing, there's obviously some damage there, but the basic synaptic patterns remain.
	And for a neural network guy like me, I think I am my synapses.
	So I'd like to preserve that brain if at all possible.
	Because otherwise, as far as you're concerned, that's it baby that is that there's absolutely no evidence
	art i've stressed these two words
	no evidence but there's anything beyond
	this mortal coil and yet one of your questions further down is what is the
	evidence for religious heaven if our maternity i'd say judge already
	aston answered uh... or or is it
	question any even even the asking of that question is problematic
	It's alleged to be the soul, the kind of information compression algorithm you need to transition.
	We don't see that, and all sorts of problems about the nature of material pleasure with an immaterial soul in that world, but there's no evidence of it.
	Certainly not up in the sky, whatever that would mean on this spherical planet.
	Do you see any evidence or have any hope for any form of heaven at all?
	Even one not necessarily as the Bible describes?
	I think as an engineering approximation, what I've called heaven in a chip, and it's also in the novel Nano Time, that if you can make that transition from the flesh computer, the meat computer, Into a working chip, almost surely some kind of nanotechnology chip at that point.
	Probably.
	That you would have a sense of omniscience with real-time access to all databases, or at least those you had a ticket to belong to.
	You would have a kind of omnipotence of power, because when you imagine something, it would be real in your imagining.
	So you could be your own god in your own chip.
	And you would last on nanoscales.
	Remember, we're operating millions of times faster than we are right now.
	So a few seconds of our time, meat time, slow neural time, based on how fast electrical impulses move around your body, a few seconds of that time constitutes years or even centuries of nano time, or time in a chip.
	So it's a kind of an engineering approximation of eternity.
	It's not infinite.
	You ultimately have to run out of gas sometime, but you could substantially increase the world, the quality, The very notion of self and memory, the merging with other such intelligent entities.
	And what do you imagine as the main reason for justifying your existence in such a state?
	Just mere existence itself?
	What would qualify as a reason to be alive under those conditions?
	That's a good question.
	In some sense, you could ask that of any person right now.
	Why not just die?
	I mean, it's a classic philosophical It's a philosophical question, and if the pain substantially exceeds the pleasures of life, some people actually opt for that.
	So I think in a different way, just the untapped pleasures, the untapped vistas of experience that you could have, sensory or simulated sensory experiences, the thought.
	I mean, you and I think in a very primitive way compared to what you could be doing if you were at chip time.
	Able to really interface with other computer systems, the kinds of music that you would find interesting, for example, and what would make you laugh at a joke would, I think, be very different than what would do so today.
	Tony, there are a couple of questions.
	You're going to be peppered for that one.
	There are a couple of questions that I have to get in before we go to the phones, and I do have to get to the phones, but these really must get in.
	You made a comment, a lot of people want to know about it, about civil liberties and how many we lost with the USA Patriot Act.
	Two years ago, and so they want your comments on that.
	Proceed, please.
	We lost a lot of liberties in exchange for, I think, some very dubious securities.
	But one small example would deal with what's called FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was set up after the Nixon era to limit the ability of the government to spy on people.
	And the FISA structure is a strange thing.
	It's a group of judges in Washington, D.C.
	where there's no legal representation.
	They issue search warrants, the big kind, electronic search warrants.
	Right.
	And so far as I can see from the data they've released, they've never turned a request down.
	Now, the FBI, when that was set up, that was only for foreign investigations and terrorist-type things, but a very one or two-word subtle change to the The text in the Patriot Act to that statute now allows the FISA to issue such search warrants for any criminal activity.
	Think about that.
	Here in the U.S., domestically.
	Right.
	And we just don't know because there's no way to get access to it.
	This is where there's no sunshine law applicable, unlike most cases in the government.
	It's a very scary thing.
	Now, maybe they can save this.
	We don't know about some terrible terrorist plots, but to allow that to Extend to law enforcement.
	I was involved also, and you can see this on my website in the op-eds, a lot of folks in opposing the expansion of power before 9-11 of the FBI and getting search warrants and what's called the carnivore system and others.
	And in the FBI, as good intention as they are, at every step was always pushing the fuzzy logical limit.
	The language of text that limits them, because they want to get what they feel are the bad guys.
	Of course.
	And I'm sure in a given case they're right, but the effect of that is to continually expand government power, and to the point now where a variety of searches are obtained simply by someone in the government claiming it's quote, relevant is the word, relevant.
	to an ongoing criminal investigation.
	Professor, how else is the government to keep up with terrorists?
	That's the question.
	That's a fair question.
	The Patriot Act consists of a lot of material that the FBI, for example, their agency had tried to pass through for years, and it all passed through, in effect, a couple days after 9-11, the first version of that.
	It was basically a cut-and-paste effort, and they got everything they wanted.
	The Senate voted almost unanimously.
	It didn't deliberate like it's supposed to do.
	And some of it is reasonable, like the ability to search different phones.
	If you get a search warrant for John, you could follow him on different phones he uses.
	But you're talking about hundreds of pages of statute modification here.
	And no one's really argued it through.
	They're not all sunsetted to go out, and most of those sunsets will likely be extended.
	And the ease with which the lowering of the bar to get all kinds of search warrants and The ability of the government to get this directly from phone companies now, I think that's a legitimate concern.
	I know.
	It's really, I know.
	But again, just for the sake of the balance of the discussion, we are faced with things we've never been faced with before.
	And you could take it either way.
	I mean, they're having hearings now about why we didn't do this and why we didn't do that and where all the shortcomings were and what the hell's wrong with our intelligence.
	You know, I read part of that 9-11 report.
	I didn't read the whole thing.
	I read the executive summary and then went to the report.
	It's a big thing.
	It's on the web.
	Everybody should read that.
	Right.
	And again, I think there's no doubt that some modifications to electronic surveillance made sense to keep up with the new wireless technology.
	That does not mean that everything the federal government wanted is now okay.
	It should be like this.
	It should be very difficult to justify an expansion of power.
	And here we had a big wholesale grant of power.
	It wasn't really thought through.
	It certainly wasn't debated.
	In fact, I think politicians were scared to death to oppose this act.
	Only a handful, didn't they?
	Oh, I'm sure you're right.
	And so, it's okay, I think, to respond in a reasonable way to a reasonable threat.
	And we have made reasonable responses, but I think we've gone way beyond that.
	The other thing that's part of this is the linking of databases, which is really problematic.
	And that's where the real loss of the privacy.
	Once you're in there, you don't get out.
	And there have been estimates that your name runs through government databases and commercial databases at least a hundred times per day.
	That will only This kind of expansion of power doesn't go the other way.
	And we know there will be other attacks, perhaps not from Al-Qaeda, but from someone.
	And after two, three of those, what we end up with, Art, is really the terrorists rewriting big parts of the U.S.
	Constitution.
	That's what's happening.
	You're absolutely correct.
	It's underway.
	Think about that.
	There's been only 27 amendments to the Constitution, but bin Laden amended it.
	No, you're absolutely correct.
	You're absolutely correct.
	And eventually, I suppose, at the end of this, should it continue, and it shows every sign of continuing, it's going to deepen and it's going to get worse before it ever gets better.
	If it ever gets better.
	You just point out as an evidentiary matter, since we apparently were wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it may turn up.
	But as it is now, the evidence is we miscalculated.
	Is it also possible that we have overestimated The terrorist threat.
	Obviously there's a threat.
	But have we overestimated?
	And if you're always going to argue, be better safe than sorry, you know, then we'll be living in a police state.
	So I think that given that and the political nature, let alone the presidential election, of the context, I think there's a real case to be made that we overdid it.
	And as bad as that is... And we're overdoing it now.
	We're overdoing it now.
	And when the next one goes off, whatever that is, it could be tomorrow, it could be ten years from now, But when it goes off, it will only ratchet up the level of surveillance and those activities to catch an occasional criminal.
	If you just look, though, at the error rates, for example... Well, you just said, when it goes off.
	I mean, the clear implication there's going to be a biological, chemical, or nuclear attack of some sort.
	No doubt.
	No doubt?
	Well, then, if there's no doubt, then that sort of makes a case I mean, we're into a different kind of killing these days.
	Somebody with a little vial could take out God knows how many people.
	I'm all for reasonable steps to catch that, but I really doubt that the kind of efforts here that apply to U.S.
	citizens primarily, the ability to search their stuff and look at it, is going to make a big difference.
	You can do all that you want, and they're still going to find that people who are really dedicated will find the holes and poke through them.
	In fact, there's a terrible incentive set up here for terrorists to kind of sit back and watch the Americans self-regulate.
	To be a suicide bomber, you just schedule three or four of these in effect in a row, and when you're done, America's substantially less free than it was before, even though that loss of freedom may have very little to do.
	With increased security.
	The fact that we have not yet faced suicide bombers astounds me, frankly.
	That it has not happened already, other than 9-11.
	Absolutely.
	No, I thought that would be certainly a logical follow-up to 9-11, or at least one of them, one of the possibilities for terrorists.
	So I'm quite surprised it has not occurred yet.
	So it probably will occur, as you mentioned, a big attack.
	If you look at the British, for example, they had years of bombings from the Irish terrorists.
	And they got rational after a while.
	Maybe they overreacted at first, but they got used to it.
	They still are.
	We really are not used to it.
	I think we... It was a terrible thing that happened on 9-11.
	I think it's great that we have the 9-11 Commission and making appropriate changes to the security structure and information sharing.
	And most of the proposals I saw look quite reasonable in there.
	But at the same time, it's not likely to prevent, I think, smart terrorists from Creating very newsworthy events, especially if they have an incentive to do so, to get us to restrict our own liberties.
	How do you feel about the recommendation, in essence, for a security czar?
	You know, a fellow who would be the czar over the CIA and FBI.
	Boy, I'll tell you, I read that and I laughed and laughed, and sure enough, the next day, the CIA director came out and justified my laughter, saying exactly what I thought he would, that, boy, is that a bad idea!
	Right?
	It is.
	I mean, technically, I mean, maybe it's an efficient way to bring all these agencies together.
	It wasn't clear what kind of powers this person would have, whether it would just be a figurehead.
	But on the other hand, the Constitution really goes out of its way to say there'll be no titles and no buildings.
	I know they won't call them that, that kind of are, drugs are, but that's really what they end up being de facto.
	That's a consideration.
	But the main point is, I think that that looks to me a little more symbolic than substantive.
	Maybe wrong.
	But from what I saw from the report, they didn't, and I haven't read the whole thing, it didn't clearly argue how that would make a big difference.
	Well, yeah, but the whole idea was forced information coordination, right?
	Between the, you know, the alphabet agencies.
	Or improve it at any rate.
	Well, or forced.
	I mean, if there was a czar and he really had power, then he could probably somehow force the sharing of information that would certainly Enrich our ability to avoid another 9-11?
	Maybe they're so hard.
	But given the large collection, I think there's 15 plus of secret agencies that have to deal with it.
	They have their own languages and cultures.
	I mean, even still, that's very difficult, I think.
	I was pointed out, even different operating systems.
	Yes.
	Well, so you do think that's a poor idea, then?
	I didn't see a good case for it.
	It sounds good.
	It sounds to me suspiciously good.
	I would be much more interested in seeing substantive changes made inside the FBI and CIA themselves.
	That may not be something they can even tell us about directly.
	But just appointing someone to take care of it, we've got a new Cabinet position for it, I don't think that's sufficient.
	We all saw what 9-11 did to the American economy.
	If there should be a biological or nuclear attack, something really substantial, I would think chemical would tend to be somewhat localized, regional at best.
	But one of those two real bad ones, what would you think that would do to our civil law structure, criminal structure, our economy?
	I mean, are we ready to get like the British or no?
	I think it would be a repeat of Of that last part of 2001, that when politicians would propose or be afraid to oppose measures to deal with security, fighting in effect last year's terrorist attack, and would not rationally weigh the real cost, partly because they're unforeseen costs of the loss of liberty, and they're at little cost, and they have to be added up across years and billions or millions of people.
	So there's a tendency in an action like that, obviously, to be rash, and I think you can see more of it.
	All right.
	Professors, stay right where you are.
	When we get back, we will indeed go to the phone lines.
	I know many of you have much to say out there to the professor, or questions you would wish to ask, and that's what we're going to be all about.
	Professor Bart Kosko is my guest from the high desert, in the dark of night, our playground.
	this is coast to coast a m the
	he's got to be my mom by some land he's gonna give up the blues and the one night
	stand and then he'll settle down it's a quiet little town and forget about everything
	you know he's always keep moving you know he's never gonna stop moving
	cause he's rolling he's the rolling stone when you wake up it's a new morning the sun is shining it's
	a new morning and you're going you're going home
	you Bye!
	To talk with Art Bell, call the wildcard line at area code 775-727-1295.
	The first time caller line is area code 775-727-1222.
	To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll free at 800-825-5033.
	line is area code 775-727-1222. To talk with Art Bell from east of the Rockies, call toll-free
	at 800-825-5033. From west of the Rockies, call 800-618-8255.
	International Callers may It's an honor to be with you.
	by calling your in-country Sprint Access number, pressing option 5, and dialing toll-free 800-893-0903.
	From coast to coast, and worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM, with Art Bell.
	It's an honor to be with you. My guest is Professor Bart Kosko, and what a fascinating interview this has been.
	It's gonna stay that way and we're about to go to the phones.
	Don't move!
	One might certainly argue that religion has been the source of many, if not even most,
	of the wars that we have fought.
	One certainly can make that argument.
	One can say something else, though, about religion.
	Professor, you wouldn't deny, would you, that religion, in its various forms, has a positive, from a societal point of view, positive controlling influence on the masses.
	It does.
	Studies show that most religious people have less stress than non-religious people.
	Of course, there's the great charitable acts that churches and other groups like that perform.
	And for so much of the world, including this country, Art, we go beyond religion at a church and really see it as the center of our local community culture.
	Not just for weddings and places like that, but the common source to get together and celebrate.
	It's all true.
	And so that's on the other side of the scale.
	Okay, well then, from the point of view of that side of the scale for a second, I mean, you in effect passed a scientific judgment on the average person as well as judges and so on and so on.
	If everybody began to believe as you believe and that influence was suddenly absent, That controlling mass influence was absent because of a lack of belief in God or punishment or eternal something or another.
	Why?
	We would have a social problem.
	Would we?
	Well, yes.
	Because, you know, as somebody wrote earlier, once you don't have that belief in that faith, then what are you living for?
	In the case of many people, the answer is different than you might give me.
	The answer is, I wouldn't have anything to live for.
	That would be their answer, and so their social behavior as a result of that would, believe me, change significantly.
	Why not rape somebody?
	Why not rob somebody?
	The answer to that, Art, is we have slowly rebuilt our boat at sea, culturally, from being a religious-oriented culture to a law-oriented culture.
	We have the rule of law, not the rule of men, not the rule of the church.
	Some people still have that on this planet, as you said.
	That seems to correlate highly with conflict.
	But the rule of secular law and the force of law back that up with suitable punishment for violent behavior.
	I don't think it follows at all that if you don't have certain religious beliefs that have been around for in some cases thousands of years that people suddenly going around and start raping and pillaging.
	But the basis of the laws you just spoke about was religion.
	I don't know if that's true.
	Or the by-product of religion.
	You know, treating one as one would be treating themselves and so forth.
	Or concomitant.
	Well, thou shalt not covet the wife over there.
	I mean, I could go through them.
	Thou shalt not kill.
	I mean, all of these things seem to translate quite readily into laws we're all familiar with, you know.
	So does the work of the School of Law and Economics.
	For example, Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit and one of the distinguished professors of The University of Chicago has shown, as have many others, that most of the common law, law of contract, of sport and property, arise if you ask the question mathematically, how would judges behave so as to maximize the economic pie?
	And lo and behold, in most cases, you get back to the very laws that we have.
	In fact, you can prove this in some cases with game theory.
	It's a very active source.
	We can even find what's called a Nash equilibrium or a secular basis.
	For really common interpersonal morality, like the law of contract, which is just the law of keeping your promises.
	All right.
	We've got to do this, so let us do it.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hi.
	Wow.
	Talking to two of the greats.
	Well, thanks.
	Professor, your knowledge is fascinating and stimulating.
	Let me see if I can point this out through my nerves here.
	I think it's perfect for the Art Bell Show.
	Go ahead.
	Considering this religion topic, Let's just not look at that side.
	A long time ago, I got moved off of neutral by association with a warlock.
	Yeah, I'll tell you what, after seeing some things, I'll tell you what, I have no doubt that there is beyond this mortal coil.
	So I would scientifically ask you, Professor, would you have apprehension about being around a high priest or warlock of the satanic cult?
	All right, you've just asked.
	All right, fine.
	That's a good test question.
	Whether it would be Father so-and-so of the Catholic Church, or at the other end of the spectrum, some devilish representative of God knows what evil something or another.
	Would you fear such a person, or laugh at such a person?
	I don't think I would fear them, Art.
	Most people are well-behaved.
	There's also evidence, as you hinted at here, Catholic order itself.
	They can misbehave when people aren't watching.
	Well, they can.
	I mean, if a gypsy came to you and, say, liver disease, and held her hand up, and she was an obvious gypsy, would you go home and worry about that, or would you go... Not the least.
	Not the least.
	All right, that answers that.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hello.
	Yes, good evening.
	Good evening.
	First off, I do agree with Professor Kosko on his thoughts on civil liberties.
	I personally would rather deal with the threat of terrorism than to lose my hard-won civil liberties.
	But as to the second point, you can program a chip to reason, but you can't program a chip to love or have compassion.
	Why not?
	Well, because that is something I think that has to be learned through living.
	And I've been in electronics and engineering field for many years, and I've done programming and built things, but it was only through a long illness and being close to death for a long time that I feel like I actually learned compassion.
	And I know many people have been on dialysis for many years, been close to death, and none of them would trade that experience.
	So you have to wonder why would somebody Not, you know, why would they want to go back and bypass such a horrible experience, but they learn so much coming out from the other side.
	But on referencing the religion issue, perhaps it's in God's purpose to keep faith fuzzy for the purpose of the benefit of his outcome, such as a researcher might, when performing blind studies And not informing the subject as to the exact outcome they expect or want to see.
	Well, that's very good.
	You put it in a way that the professor can relate to.
	Why not imagine, professor, that God would intentionally keep it fuzzy?
	You know, as the great philosopher Bertrand Russell said, I would expect better from omnipotence acting through all eternity.
	After all that and all that power, we're going to play games like that?
	Or even care about us?
	I just can't see the interest.
	In this kind of super being, whatever it happened to be, in playing any game, or for that matter, of letting us die.
	Letting an ant die.
	I think the death of living creatures is itself a powerful indictment of a loving God.
	Okay, West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Bart Kosko.
	Hi.
	Hey, good evening, Art.
	Congratulations, first of all, on your movie.
	Well, thank you.
	And hello, Professor.
	It's interesting you quote Bertrand Russell, who said, what is mine no matter what is matter no mind, in this particular context.
	My concern, and I've thought about this a lot, is with regard to belief versus hearsay.
	When you mentioned Josepha, it seems to me that Hearsay could be interpreted, and believe me, I'm kind of neutral on this, but I've given it a lot of thought.
	I was a philosophy major.
	Okay, hearsay could be interpreted how?
	Hearsay could be interpreted as belief.
	As Kierkegaard or Kant said, you need belief to have faith, and faith would give you that edge, that bridge to cross over into religion.
	And also, with regard to some of the other things you said, which were kind of interesting, in nanotechnology, when do you think we'll see an operating system that uses nanotechnology?
	Well, if you'd been listening earlier, we described the pair of pants.
	I don't know what he means by operating system, but okay.
	Well, first off, I think we'll have operating systems running on nanocomputers.
	That may not be the same kind of thing.
	It is a tougher question of how you would organize the parallel processing, for example, of a lot of little nanocomputers.
	And that might well require some fundamental breakthroughs in the theory of algorithms.
	I should also, on the business of Josephus and hearsay, remember the law does not ban hearsay in general.
	Well, it does, but it has a wide category of exceptions.
	Whether you admit to something, for example, whether it's what's called an excited utterance.
	So it can be probative.
	And the fact that we have this hearsay about a man named Jesus Is some kind of evidence.
	Not conclusive evidence.
	It is probative that such a man exists.
	It convinces me that it's more likely than not that he did.
	But doesn't say, of course, that he did certain non-physical acts or supernatural acts like raising the dead.
	How much honest investigation have you done, Professor, into the paranormal?
	You know, Art, when I was in high school, I thought it might exist, and I tried to derive an inverse cube law for it.
	I experimented with a fellow student, and beyond that, a statistician I've looked at some studies, and I never saw a good statistically significant finding for it.
	So, beyond that, very little.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Professor Bart Kosko.
	Hello!
	Hi there, Professor!
	Getting back to the cloning part at the beginning of the show there, And you've made connotations about it being the religious side's fault for not being able to do it here in the States.
	Now, look at the track record for cloning animals.
	Yeah, they can do it, but they're not living very long in a lot of cases.
	Is that what we want to see happen to little babies, or what?
	What about the track record for cloning oranges?
	Or apples?
	All the fruit you eat is cloned.
	Well, I didn't know we were not allowing that here.
	The point is, we've had hundreds of years, thousands, to develop cloning of plant forms.
	We've just started in the last five years really working with cloning of animals.
	It's a little soon to prejudge that with just a preliminary experiment.
	Professor, what are the main benefits that we would get from cloning humans?
	Besides the unforeseen doors that will open in medicine and everything else, just the ability to give grieving parents and infertile couples the ability to have offspring, gay couples for example, Or just single person's ability to replicate themselves, to have your own time-delayed identical twin.
	I think it's a substantial increase in personal liberty.
	Um, alright, I guess.
	Also, parts and body parts and things like that.
	Well, let's see then, you step over the cliff.
	Well, if you've got your arm mangled, parked in a car wreck, you might very well want to clone just that arm and have it, in effect, grown back.
	Well, most people would agree with that.
	Oh, most people agree with that.
	If you could grow an arm all by itself.
	But that's prohibited.
	That's what's proposed to be outlawed.
	Oh, I didn't know that.
	I thought they were just outlawing the cloning of full human beings.
	No, you're not allowed directly into the, at least the popular versions put forth, to start growing, having, in effect, a parts factory.
	Even if you could grow those parts independently?
	Now, maybe very small amounts of it, but something as substantial as a limb or an organ.
	I don't believe so.
	I think that's... Really, that seems wrong.
	We should be allowed to do that.
	I mean, I can understand not cloning a full human being from a religious... It's fuzzy here.
	This is what's called a therapeutic cloning, which on some accounts would allow you to have Some parts cloning.
	On the other hand, there's the so-called reproductive cloning, which is the bigger issue, which is what I was arguing for.
	OK.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hello.
	Yes, is this our bell?
	It is.
	Turn your radio off, please.
	All right.
	Do you have a question for my guest?
	I just wanted to say that if he's correct, I'm out of nothing.
	But if he is wrong and my Bible's right, he's going to have a long, hot eternity.
	Well, I think he's probably weighed that.
	Have you, Professor?
	Yes, I have.
	It's called Pascal's Wager.
	And the trouble with that, Ari, and I present it to my class every year in probability, the trouble with that argument, I can equally argue, that there's a creature often called the perverse master who will punish anybody who believes that there is a supreme being.
	And you can make the same argument that it would be irrational to believe in such a being.
	The trouble with those arguments are that they They rule out too many alternatives.
	There could be an infinitude of such different kinds of entities, and what tends to happen mathematically when you work it out is they all kind of cancel out.
	But I'm not persuaded by the Pascal Wager.
	Except, for example, when it applies to cryonics.
	Oh, what was that, ma'am?
	Oh.
	Well, she said something I fear ugly and hung up, so let us proceed.
	International Line, you're on the air with Professor Kosko.
	Hello.
	Hello, Art.
	Hi.
	Hi, it's John calling from Toronto.
	Hello, John.
	Great show, and do you mind if I just ask the professor a question that doesn't have to do with religion?
	No, not at all.
	Professor, about the nanotechnology and its possible effects on soft body armor, we're issued, I'm a police officer, we're issued Threat Level 2 armor, which will reportedly stop up to a 9mm full metal jacket.
	Now, I wear a trauma plate as well to cover my great vessels in case a rifle round or something comes in.
	Do you think nanotechnology is going to add a lot of weight?
	And I'll tell you why, because even up here, a lot of people may not understand it, but it can get up to 100 degrees in the shade and be very humid, and body armor is quite heavy.
	That's a good question, and the usual answer is it will add some weight, but hopefully not a prohibitive amount of weight.
	Okay.
	Unlike a smart ceramic, which tends to be much heavier.
	So it will add weight?
	Some weight, of course.
	Well, not as much maybe as a ceramic trauma plate.
	Right, not like that at all.
	Okay, Art, can I just say before I go that contrary to what a lot of people have heard in the news, America and Americans have a lot of friends in Canada, a lot of people who respect you and still consider you to be our best friends and neighbors.
	I want you to know you have a lot of support here.
	Thank you, my friend.
	Take care.
	And nice words to hear from Canada at that.
	How far are we from an improvement in body armor, courtesy of nanotechnology?
	A lot of experimental designs right now.
	Experimental weaves.
	Attempts to work in something into the Kevlar, like nanowires, and just other kinds of polymers, which are a primitive form of nanotechnology.
	So that's underway right now.
	It's a big effort, in fact.
	Funded by the military and some police departments.
	So, we're pretty well on our way?
	Because that is such a concrete problem.
	So, there's good promise ahead, perhaps even in his lifetime.
	Absolutely.
	of different kinds of bullets, especially those rifle bullets, which we can't deal
	with yet in a soft body armor. And it's so concrete, they face it every day. It's a
	very focused problem. A lot of smart people are working on it. So there's good
	promise ahead, perhaps even in his lifetime. Absolutely.
	Very soon.
	Not something within five years there should be improvements, but
	ten years substantial improvements to the nanotechnology.
	I'd like you to be able to, which book would you really love to have, you know, of the ones you have written, you really would have them read first and digest?
	Best book is Heaven and the Chip.
	It's the most recent of the popular books from Random House, and it's available at my website or Amazon.com.
	It also has art about a hundred pages of small font footnotes.
	Which the publisher didn't like, but really gives some roots to the trees.
	And you can look up a lot of the claims, you don't have to agree with them, but the book is full of argument, and you can find the bases of many of the arguments in those detailed endnotes, which include some mathematical statements, as well as citations to hundreds of sources of literature.
	So they didn't want you putting in the fine print?
	Not a hundred pages worth.
	The Germans, for example, in their version of the book, I insisted that it go online.
	I'm sure a lot of people are willing to put down the book and go click on the internet to look at a footnote.
	All right, well, you know, you're just a total pleasure to interview, and you really are, even though I might not agree.
	In fact, it's somewhat boring when we agree with each other all the time.
	Much better interviews come out when we have disagreements, from my point of view.
	And so I might not agree with you, but You're fascinating to interview.
	Thank you.
	And I'm just curious, when we finish doing a show, which we're about done with here, and you examine your email later, and I suspect they can email you right on the website?
	Sure.
	How does your email stack up?
	About 50-50.
	Is that right?
	Yeah.
	There's a lot of people who, when you touch on subjects like religion, are upset.
	There's a lot of people who are dying to talk about it and are not happy with it.
	Or maybe they've been afraid to talk about it.
	Sure.
	Well, all right.
	I will look forward to our next interview, because surely there will be one in the meantime.
	Thank you, my friend.
	Thank you.
	And good night.
	There you have it.
	Professor Bart Kosko.
	As I said, an absolute pleasure to interview.
	Tomorrow night, Peter Davenport with something brand new from the high desert, Night Hall.

▲