Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 26, 2005 - Art Bell

02:28:13

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Dean Radin - Global Consciousness Project

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Less is more, philosophy.
	And, uh, that's right.
	Less is more.
	I kind of like that, actually.
	I've always liked it.
	Less is more.
	It is.
	I don't know if you know that.
	Clear Channel.
	Actually, Nationwide cut back their advertising.
	They probably did focus groups or something.
	Too many ads.
	Somebody came up with that.
	Less is more.
	And it is.
	And in my case, that's what it's going to mean.
	So, in the future, for your weekend hosting, you'll be treated to, on Sundays, you'll be treated to Ian Punnett.
	Ian Punnett will own Sunday night.
	And Saturdays, well, Saturdays will be divided.
	Between myself, every other Saturday, and then Hilly, probably, George some of the time, some classic shows, things like that.
	So, I'm penned in for quite a while, as they say, and I'll be here also, I think, no doubt, for special events like Moe Ghost Ghost, for example, on Halloween.
	And no doubt predictions for the year coming, that sort of thing.
	But that's the breakdown.
	So less is more and our good friend and highly competent Ian Punnett takes Sunday.
	George becomes every now and then there on a Saturday, live.
	Sometimes perhaps some of the most classic shows you've ever heard.
	occasionally, uh, hilly and, uh, every other, uh, Sunday, or for two Sundays a month, myself.
	So that's, that's the announcement, such as it is.
	The news, it never changes.
	Suicide bombers, you know, you know, that's almost the first two words out of any newscaster's
	mouth these days.
	Suicide bombers struck a police headquarters, an army base, and a hospital around Mosul on Sunday, killing 33 people set back to efforts to rebuild the city's police force that was driven away by intimidation and death from insurgents seven months ago.
	At least 14 people were killed in attacks elsewhere in Iraq, including a U.S.
	soldier whose convoy was hit by a roadside bomb in Baghdad.
	And you know, you ask, well, how long are we going to be here anyway?
	Our Defense Secretary might have the answer to that, Rumsfeld.
	He said today, Sunday, that he acknowledges the insurgency could go on for any number of years and defeating it may take us, the U.S., as long as 12 years.
	I wonder if the nation is prepared for 12 years.
	Guess we better be, huh?
	The father of a Dutch suspect arrested in the disappearance of an Alabama teenager freed from jail Sunday, just hours after a judge ordered the release of a party boat disc jockey, who had also been held in that case, Paul Vandersloot, a high-ranking justice official studying to be a judge on the Dutch Caribbean island, had been arrested Thursday as a suspect for collaborating in a crime Probably not a good thing to do when you're studying to be a judge, with his 17-year-old son, according to his lawyer.
	Making a milestone movement for American religion and world evangelism, the Reverend Billy Graham Sunday preached what could be his last revival sermon.
	Toying with the situation, Graham told thousands of people gathered in Queens that he hopes to, quote, come back again someday, end quote.
	Said he told journalists who asked if this is the end of his revival career.
	I never say never.
	A lesson I've learned, too.
	Beaches did reopen Sunday with extra lifeguards along a stretch of Florida's Panhandle Coast where a shark killed a 14-year-old girl as coastal residents reported seeing at least one shark hunting fish close to shore.
	Not all dazzling fireworks displays are going to be on Earth this coming Independence Day.
	NASA is going to shoot off its own sparks in an audacious mission that will blast a stadium-sized hole in a comet half the size of Manhattan.
	It'll give astronomers their first peek inside one of these heavenly bodies.
	If all goes as planned, the Deep Impact spacecraft will release a wine-barrel-sized probe on a suicide journey, hurtling toward the comet Tempel 1, about 80 million miles away from Earth at the time she hits.
	You know, if it's a movie, Then, just moments after the impact, the astronomers do a calculation and they see it's coming straight toward Earth on the next time around.
	But that's only in the movies, right?
	The price of crude oil!
	This is like the movies, too.
	The price of crude oil, ladies and gentlemen, has now vaulted to a new high, breaking through the psychologically important U.S.
	$60 a barrel threshold.
	As concerns mount that supply will not meet demand, especially here in the US, the world's largest energy consumer, of course, after Settling at US 59.84 a barrel Friday, the front-month August contract crude surged to an intraday record of $60.46 a barrel in heavy Asian trade on the New York Mercantile Exchange, a jump of 62 cents from Friday's close.
	So, I guess you all know what this means at the pump, right?
	Sound of explosion.
	Music.
	Listen to the wording of this very carefully.
	Washington CNN.
	Health experts warn that things are falling into place for a global flu pandemic, just like the one in 1918 that killed tens of millions of people worldwide.
	They say it might not be quite as extreme, but by all calculations, very dangerous.
	We're staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, and that gun is ready to fire.
	That's Representative Michael Ferguson, a Republican from New Jersey, at a Congressional hearing Thursday.
	Again, quote, we're staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, and that gun is ready to fire, end quote.
	Health officials at the hearing agree.
	They believe a flu pandemic is inevitable and it will likely come from the bird flu that is now spreading in Asia.
	That flu is dangerous because it is a strain That most humans have never been exposed to, so there's no natural immunity and there's no vaccine.
	But now it's infecting humans.
	The virus, of course, first spread from bird to bird.
	Then some of the people who work with the birds started to become infected.
	53 people died.
	So far avian flu has only spread from person to person twice.
	But you see, if that becomes more frequent, say experts, a pandemic would be imminent.
	The health officials laid out for a congressional committee what they are doing to prepare treatments and a vaccine.
	The news was not good.
	A vaccine is in development, but since it has to be matched to the flu strain, once it's spreading in the human population, it would take about six months After the first cases to complete it.
	It isn't as if overnight we'd be able to get a vaccine for everyone who's going to need one, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Health.
	Treatment isn't easy either.
	There is one drug available now that works against this type of flu, but it needs to be given within 48 hours of infection.
	When you start getting the flu, it's virtually impossible to distinguish it from any other upper respiratory infection, so most people don't realize they've got it until way past the 48-hour window, according to Dr. Julie Gerdbing, I believe it is, director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
	And another story, flu pandemic could kill up to a half million here in the U.S.
	And of course, you already should be aware, we've got a cow.
	Another one.
	Positive for mad cow.
	The U.S.
	Agriculture Department said that a test of an American cow has come back positive for BSE or mad cow disease.
	Agricultural Secretary Mike Johans announced that the animal had been removed from the food chain in November of 2004, that its meat had not been consumed.
	Unlike other countries that use simple and quick testing protocols, The U.S.
	uses a slow and elaborate system preferred by the beef industry in order to minimize false positives.
	As a result, a test that could have been concluded in a matter of weeks took over half a year.
	The original test on the animal was inconclusive.
	So there you have it.
	All the news worth printing.
	Let's begin taking some calls and devote the balance of this... Oh, by the way, coming up next hour, We have Dean Radin, and it is appropriate that I should, absolutely appropriate that I should interview Dean tonight.
	You know, it's funny, since we first interviewed Dean, this whole consciousness thing has virtually exploded.
	I mean, really exploded across the board.
	But the genesis of the first real experiments began at Princeton, and Dean Radin is the guy.
	So this will be a very, very interesting evening.
	Wild Card Line, you are on the air.
	Good morning.
	Good evening, Art.
	This is Jim from 560 KSFO Hot Talk in San Francisco.
	Hey, buddy.
	Hey, I was going to complain about the Supreme Court and draw comparisons between eminent domain and medical marijuana, but you know, I want to ask you something different.
	On classic clips, you have a 1998 show Where I forget the guy's name.
	You interviewed a guy about dangerous animal behavior, and during the show, a guy named Joe, who was the bird trainer for Siegfried and Roy, called in.
	Remember that show?
	It was about the fact that animals can really turn on you, even if they're your pet.
	They run on instinct and instinct alone.
	I really don't, but I mean, I certainly agree with that.
	Yeah, the only reason I brought it up is because it's interesting to have some proof in the future, even if it's sad proof.
	You know that guy that was the Siegfried and Roy bird trainer?
	He swore up and down that animals were trainable and that they're gentle.
	Not, you know, hostile like that, but look what happened.
	But yes, but sir, the real truth of the matter is, and they've looked into this very carefully, he was carried off the stage by that cat because he was having a stroke.
	That's the story I heard.
	And that cat was trying to protect him in the way she would protect her young.
	Where she grabbed him is exactly where she would have grabbed one of her young.
	And she was trying to drag him off stage.
	That animal was trying to protect him, so I really... Well, animals can turn, of course.
	But that was not the case, as far as I know, to the best of my knowledge, with what I've absorbed about the incident.
	That was not the case there.
	Of course, it resulted in a tragedy.
	However, the instinctual urge in the animal had not gone bonkers.
	In fact, it was very strong and that animal was trying to save his life.
	Speaking of, we have our own little tiger.
	You can see more of a close-up.
	Now, it's very tough to take a very close picture of something as small as Dusty.
	Dusty is a very A very, very little tidbit of a cat.
	You know, it's a little tiny kitten.
	And the lens is virtually as big as Dusty.
	But there's the best I could do in trying to get close up on the webcam this night.
	What a sweetheart.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello, Art.
	Hello.
	It is so great to talk to you tonight.
	Well, thank you.
	Let me express my sympathies for the loss of your Your cat.
	I, too, am a cat lover.
	I have had similar circumstances and understand quite well.
	The cat was a family member for 15 years.
	Yes, they are.
	I have a problem.
	Okay.
	And perhaps there's someone in the millions of people that listen to you can help me.
	I live in a swamp.
	I'm a hunter.
	You live in a swamp?
	Yes.
	Yes, I live in a swamp here on the Delmarva Peninsula.
	It's mostly swamps or marshes.
	Okay.
	And I'm very familiar with wildlife.
	Yeah.
	I've been a hunter this September the 1st when deer season opens.
	I will have been a deer hunter for 50 years.
	All right.
	And your problem?
	My problem is that here in my domain, my little area that I own, there is a snake.
	The snake, I saw one day, three times.
	The snake looks at me.
	It doesn't scurry off, as you would expect normally.
	Snakes would.
	I've never harmed a snake.
	You think it looked at you in a knowing, malevolent way?
	No.
	No.
	It doesn't look at me in a malevolent way.
	Do its little snake eyes glow red or anything?
	No.
	It picks itself up.
	It lifts its head off the ground and looks at me.
	Yes.
	Every day now, for the past week, I've seen this snake And every day the snake does not scurry away from me.
	And it makes you think what?
	It makes me think that it's a sign or an omen.
	And I don't understand, after 50 years, roaming through swamps.
	Perhaps, sir, it is the reincarnated collective soul of all those you killed while hunting.
	No, sir.
	I've killed very little.
	I'm a sustenance subsistence.
	Well, I don't know what to tell you.
	Maybe, as you say, perhaps somebody in the audience will be able to say what that means.
	If, in fact, it means... Well, it does sound like it means something, actually.
	I'd be very careful.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Turn your radio off, please.
	Yes.
	Very good.
	Oh, Art, oh man, I'm really glad to talk to you.
	You caught me by surprise, man.
	That's what I do to people.
	I suspect, by the way, my name is Bill, living here in the Seattle area.
	I suspect I speak for quite a few people when I tell you that I'm very sorry that you are not going to be on, but rather infrequently.
	Well, don't... I don't blame you.
	Do not be sorry, for I will be out adventuring in a motorhome.
	I will be doing lots of fun things.
	Well, I would.
	You deserve that.
	But I'll tell you, my friend, I look forward to the weekend so much.
	George is fine, but like he said, and I know it sounds a bit corny, pal, you are the master.
	And I almost, this sounds a little trite, I almost live, well, not quite, for a weekend so I can hear you.
	That's good.
	So that wouldn't be much of a life.
	Well, I suppose not.
	But anyway.
	I'm sorry you're cutting it back, but I will still remain faithful, and I can't thank you enough for what all you've done.
	Well, thank you, sir.
	You betcha.
	Good evening.
	Good evening.
	It's very kind.
	Thank you.
	I've been, you know, when I sat down in front of the mic tonight, I realized, my God, I've done this a lot of times.
	Actually, all of my adult life, I've been in front of a microphone.
	It sort of sunk in, you know, as I sat down tonight.
	And that's okay.
	It's been great.
	First time caller line, you have achieved being on the air.
	Hello.
	Well, hello, Art.
	You've got Brandon out here in North Carolina.
	Yes, sir.
	Just a quick question about Ham Radio.
	I was kind of curious what type of rig you actually bring.
	What kind of rig I have?
	Well, I'm kind of a blessed person, so I have a combination of a number.
	I have a brand new Yaesu 9000 Delta, FTDX 9000 Delta.
	I've got an Icom 7800, the best that Alpha makes in amplifiers, and an antenna that could speak to the stars if it was so inclined.
	So I've got quite, quite the rig.
	Oh, that definitely blows my little TS-530 out of the water.
	Did you ever figure out exactly what was going on with the voltage from your antenna?
	The voltage from the antenna?
	No.
	However, I'll tell you something.
	Among other things, on the side of the house, I've got a big, kind of a Dracula switch, so that when storms are in the area, despite the protection I already have, I can go out there.
	I mean, it really is a Dracula-like switch.
	You know, one of those giant things.
	And when you throw it, When you get the switch down into the off position, a blue spark about a half inch long will jump to the terminal before you close the switch completely.
	Now that's some damned high voltage.
	You know, not a cloud in the sky, a very gentle breeze.
	Every time I throw that switch, that's what I get.
	Now that's a lot of voltage at not very much current.
	Could it be used to some effect could it be harnessed I don't I don't have
	the answer to these questions I honestly don't know but that
	it's never gone away it never will go away whatever it is its constant and it's really there sir so will investigate
	it more in one day will know what this is
	well reckon that's all I needed 73 alright 73 to you as well
	That, in ham radio land, means, sort of, see you later, best wishes, enjoy the conversation, a million different things, kind of a goodbye.
	All right, so, we will continue taking calls through the top of the hour, and then again at the top of the hour, I'm really, really looking forward to Dean Radin.
	I think that in my years of doing this, nothing has excited me as much as the realization that through that that this is
	dead flat real
	to you the people was to the rockies you're on the air
	Good morning.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	How are you doing?
	Fine.
	Where are you, sir?
	Oh, I'm in Phoenix.
	Phoenix?
	Okay.
	Two or three years ago, something came up, and I thought it was on your program, but I'm not sure.
	It was about somebody you were interviewing, and they were from a university up north somewhere, and it's a professor or something, and they had experimented with a mixture of baby oil, detergent, and water mixed.
	What they did was they used it with a spray and he claims it would kill anything but the common cold.
	What happened was that whatever the biological thing was, it would accept it inside and it would explode.
	The big advantage of this is they could spray it on dogs, animals, anything and it wouldn't hurt anything.
	Do you remember this?
	No.
	Dr. X's magic elixir.
	No, I don't.
	So it would cure anything but the common cold.
	I wonder what that says about the common cold.
	Well, I guess that must be pretty potent, I guess.
	But I've got a copy of the thing somewhere that somebody gave me, and I don't know what was on the show.
	I don't know if it was on George's or yours.
	Well, if you find the recipe, I'll tell you what.
	Nail it into some email and send it to me, and we'll see just what it will and won't kill.
	Baby powder.
	Detergent.
	Hmm.
	Maybe somebody else will call.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	My name is Sherry.
	I live in Pahrump.
	Sherry, in Pahrump.
	I do, sir.
	Listening to what?
	To you.
	And unfortunately and regrettably, I was not aware of you until just a few weeks ago.
	Well, K-N-Y-E is what you were supposed to say.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I'm in the Kingdom of Nye, is where I'm at.
	That's right.
	I wanted to ask you, when Highway 160 was opened up into the 4-lane, I think it was 1999?
	I forget the year, but yes.
	It was right after it had been opened up in the 4-lane.
	There was no traffic.
	So I was relaxed.
	I was driving, and the whole entire sky was just blue.
	There were no clouds except five clouds directly in front of me to the north of Pahrump.
	We have a lot of days like that.
	The clouds, I noticed them because they were oval.
	They were so perfectly shaped, and there were five of them, but they were lined from top to bottom like 1, 3, and 5.
	The second cloud was to the left of 1 and 3.
	Ventricular clouds, they come from wind.
	Well, what happened?
	While I was watching them, they compressed.
	The second cloud got underneath the first, and then the fourth cloud lined up underneath the third.
	And the five clouds compressed into one large cloud while I was driving down the highway watching this.
	And then I started seeing things come out of the cloud, and it was metallic.
	I could see that they were metallic.
	And I was looking at it and trying to rationalize something that was completely irrational right in front of my eyes.
	I got home here to Pahrump.
	I came in the house.
	I got my binoculars.
	I went down to my mother-in-law's.
	I'm telling her there's something happening in the sky that's unnatural.
	And we got the binoculars out, and her and I watched this for like three hours.
	And then in the left, over by Shoshone, all of a sudden this great big giant cloud appeared.
	It was kind of like a sun dog that was all iridescent.
	And then a line cut through that large cloud.
	And then we sat there until 7 o'clock that night and watched metallic things go from the cloud that had compressed into that cloud on the left.
	How many years have you lived here?
	I moved here in 1999.
	1999.
	Well, things like that are unusual things that would be very, very unusual for most places.
	Here in Prump are so usual that they're almost not unusual.
	I mean, we just have a lot of interesting, unusual things flying in our sky here.
	That's all there is to it.
	Had you ever seen that before?
	I've seen clouds like it.
	I certainly have not seen the things protruding from them that you're talking about, but I wouldn't be surprised.
	I've had two of my own Really whoop-de-doop sightings out here, and they're not unusual.
	People, of course, since I, along with my beautiful wife, own a local radio station here, we get calls all the time whenever there are sightings, and that is pretty frequently.
	We get calls about it, of course, immediately.
	So, you know, the desert sky is very clear, very large, and we all know there are things going on out here.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hello, Art.
	This is Blair in Sedona, Arizona.
	Yes.
	One last mention of Deep Impact, and I want to talk about the bugaboo of having free will.
	We have a local magazine called the Sedona Journal of Emergence.
	The July 2005 issue has Project Deep Impact Comet Tempel 1 talking about some of the things I've been able to talk to you about, of the incredible backlash of energy coming from the center of the comet, and if we take a very small bullet, an enormous amount of damage can be done to the human body.
	Well, just think what's going to happen if this is the same situation with living energy on that comet and an unusual energy stream coming back to Earth.
	Well, then we'll be sorry.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, you know, love is the constant, you know, and even though there are spirits in the universe that exist and maybe can speak through trance channels, not everything can be proven.
	But you do believe in love, right?
	Of course.
	Yeah, you can't measure it, though.
	And then that's the part about the free will.
	Love is at the root of everything.
	It's what we're seeking in every relationship and everything.
	We're seeking love.
	And the fact that we get distracted or feel unworthy or not enough attention or go for money or this or that, it's our free will at work, walking away from love.
	We can walk right into it.
	It's our choice in every moment, every situation and every day.
	And Art, you're the man, and have a good night.
	Like a great line in a great movie, free will, it's a bitch.
	One of my favorite sins.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air, hi.
	Hi there, I'm calling from Toronto.
	Actually, that was not free will, now that I come to think of it, it was, what the hell was it?
	Well, the sin will come to me.
	Yes, sir.
	I'd like to talk, you were talking about oil earlier, and one thing that concerns me, as a Canadian, First off, I don't know if your listeners know that Canada or Alberta supplies half of the oil to the U.S.
	at this time, and apparently I was reading last week that the Chinese, which is communist we all know, are bidding to buy the rights to the oil sands up in Alberta.
	Their dollar doesn't float, and they don't really participate in the world, in my opinion, very well.
	with labor, the way that they pay their common laborers and what have you.
	I just think I'd really prefer to see this stay in the hands of North Americans.
	Well, it's not going to happen.
	The truth of the matter is the oil market is a world market.
	It doesn't matter where the oil comes from, whether it comes from our own earth, Canada's
	earth, Alaska's earth, the earth in the deserts under the Middle East, or the Spratly Island,
	should they discover it there.
	Wherever the oil comes from, it's a world commodity, and it's going to be driven, the price of oil is going to be driven by the world market, which now absolutely includes China.
	And by the way, it was vanity, that final sin.
	Some of you will know the movie I'm talking about.
	Nevertheless, there was a line in there.
	Free will, it's a bitch, huh?
	And that was the moment that he chose to defy the devil with that free will.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Yes, I had a question for Art that had to do with The discussion he had with Robert Dean last night.
	First of all, you are talking to Art.
	I don't have anybody to answer my calls.
	I answer my own calls, so... Oh, okay, I'm sorry.
	So, what about Robert?
	What about Robert?
	Okay, well, sir, last night he was... I made a connection with something he was talking about that had to do with the possibility that our creators may have deposited us or manipulated our DNA or the DNA of the human race Yes.
	As early as maybe 10,000 years ago.
	Right.
	Okay.
	I have been a staunch scientific believer in evolution for many years, and last night I kind of was jarred by the fact that the creationists that we have among us on this planet may have some Oh, I'm not sure what I'm trying to say.
	Valid points?
	Yeah, a valid voice.
	That's something you would have heard me say before last night.
	Well, one way or the other, it's creation, right?
	They created us, he created us, he created them, they created us.
	I don't know.
	One way or the other, it's creation at work.
	Well, yes, sir, that's true.
	But the question I have, though, is how do you, I mean, since I do I have some idea of what, you know, creationism is, and the fact that Mr. Dean was talking about what he did last night.
	How does anybody explain the fact that hominids, or our ancestors, you know, the fact that we came from a common ancestor, or is what's been told for many years, how do you explain carbon dating for fossils that are supposedly millions of years old if we were only Well, I know.
	They said that there was a genetic change that was made perhaps that long ago.
	Now, mankind is on the verge of himself becoming a creator, aren't we?
	We're actually very close to it.
	And I guess that's like becoming a parent or becoming a grandparent.
	Mankind is now quickly approaching the point where it will become a creator.
	And in what different way will we feel then?
	How will we feel when we can create life?
	What different position does that put us in when we can create, cause the spark of life ourselves, even create new beings or bring back old ones that are now extinct?
	When we can ourselves create, what will that be like for mankind?
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hey, how are you doing?
	Quite well, sir.
	Where are you?
	I'm in Cleveland, Ohio.
	Okay, excellent.
	And I want to talk about hyperoptics.
	Okay.
	And from the beginning and maybe even negative densities, and how it leads to creation from the point of zero, and then you get the hyperoptics, and because of that you can't see through the first part until it gets to the quagmire, which I'm not sure what you're talking about.
	I'm not following you.
	Well, and once it hits the C, you know, C for light speed, then you get what we can
	see.
	But prior to that, you can't because it's in a different dimension.
	Okay, you're saying something traveling at faster than light speed, that we don't see it or we're not able to observe it until it hits light speed.
	Yeah, okay, I've got it now.
	It may well be that things are traveling faster than light, although I think Mr. Einstein would be very upset by that possibility.
	But it could be that they are, and as this caller points out, we don't observe them as being part of our reality until they hit light speed.
	Interesting thought.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Art Bell.
	Yes.
	I'm a long-time listener of you.
	We've got a very bad connection, sir.
	Yeah, we've got a lot of thunderstorms around here.
	Where is here?
	Matlock in Manitoba, Canada.
	Okay.
	I was looking at a C.I.A.
	report, and it reports that we've got 161 million trillion cubic meters of natural gas.
	So I've got some doubt about whether or not there's a shortage of energy in the world or not.
	Oh, I see.
	I really don't think we do.
	You don't think so?
	No, I don't think so.
	What is justifying $60 a barrel for oil then?
	Well, I think it's a lot like when the dairy man comes to the store and he puts the older milk frontwards in the shelf and he puts the new stuff to the back.
	I think they're trying to get rid of the... The old stuff?
	Alex, they're trying to get rid of the crude.
	I see.
	Before they sell us the others.
	Alright, well what I've heard, I've heard some stories and they include the fact that oil companies are not building new tankers.
	Some are saying that new tankers are not being built and the reason for that is that they know at some point they're going to run out of oil or they have enough tankers to carry what's left.
	That's pretty scary to think about.
	I don't know that it's true, but it's been said by a number of guests on this program.
	And when you look at the investment capital of the oil companies, some say that it seems to be diversified from their own business.
	In other words, they don't seem to be reinvesting in their own business.
	That, too, if true, would seem to indicate a knowledge that they're not going to be doing that kind of business for a long time, which may mean they know something we do not.
	Watch The Price of Oil.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Yes, Art.
	The movie that you were referring to would be, oh gosh, I just said it in my head.
	City of Angels.
	No.
	No.
	I believe that line is in that movie.
	Well, try again.
	That's not it.
	Oh, damn.
	It has something to do with a lawyer and the devil and that's about all the hints I'm willing to give.
	Devil's Advocate?
	Yeah, Devil's Advocate.
	Bingo, finally.
	Okay.
	Alright.
	That's the movie, and you may recall toward the end, Free Will is a Bitch.
	That was one line.
	And then the real clincher at the very end, Vanity.
	Ah, Vanity.
	My favorite.
	God, it was a great movie.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hi, I'm calling from Mesa.
	Yes.
	Talk about consciousness tonight.
	I'll try to get this word off before, but I wanted to call during the break or something.
	Ask him if they've ever done any type of studies or preponderance of studies having to do with what would happen if the whole world, if they were all conscious at the same time, or if the whole world was, you know, asleep or unconscious at the same time.
	What would that have to do with, like, how would that affect reality?
	You know, they say reality It's based on what our consciousness is.
	You know, I've heard that, you know, through, like, Buddhist teachings and things like that, that everything we perceive around us is, you know, based through consciousness.
	And I'm wondering if what would happen, like, if everybody on the whole planet was awake at the same time, or what would happen if everybody was asleep at the same time?
	Maybe absolutely nothing.
	I mean, that's a fascinating question, because if there's nobody to observe, nobody at all to observe, Ongoing reality, then is it actually ongoing?
	Or does a simple fact of observation propel it into action?
	Interesting question.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Hello, Mr. Bell.
	Turn the radio off, please.
	I just did.
	Okay.
	Three things.
	I'll be as brief as I can.
	First, I'm definitely going to miss you, and I'll be looking forward to when you're back.
	Thank you.
	Second, have you ever thought about just how much RF energy is blasted into the atmosphere 24-7 by everything from satellite radio to cell phones to ham radio all the way down to U.S.
	Navy ELF?
	Yeah, if you could see it, it would be a soup so thick that you couldn't see a thing, so it's fortunate we can't.
	Yes it is, but I'm willing to bet that that's what's giving you your 300 plus volts.
	Huh.
	Well, I don't know about that, sir.
	The only radio station in Pahrump is mine, which is an FM station, which wouldn't resonate in an antenna that large.
	And there's no AM stations within 65 miles of here, so I don't think that one works.
	Anyway, next, we're short on time here.
	Final thing, see if you can get Raleigh James in occasionally on the weekend.
	Oh, well, that was only the second thing.
	You said three.
	First, I love the show.
	Second, it's all great.
	All right.
	All right.
	Very good, sir.
	Thank you very much.
	And my best to Ramona and all the kittens.
	Done.
	Thanks.
	East of the Rockies.
	Just a few seconds, but you're on the air.
	OK.
	Turn it down.
	Yes.
	All the way off, actually.
	Off.
	Right.
	Don't eat up your seconds.
	Turning off your radio.
	Proceed.
	Turn it off.
	No, no, no, no.
	You've got to say something, because this hour is ending.
	Uh, what was I saying?
	Well, I'm saying that you need to go ahead and say something because the hour is ending.
	Oh, my dog.
	My dog.
	Your dog?
	My little brown-eyed love.
	I looked in her eyes about four different times I've seen it.
	MS in electrical engineering and a PhD, so it's doctorate in psychology, both from the University of Illinois.
	For 10 years, he conducted research on advanced telecommunication systems at AT&T Bell Labs and GTE Laboratories.
	Then, for the majority of the last 20 years, he has investigated psychic phenomena in academic and industrial positions.
	Dean served as a member of a classified research project investigating psychic phenomena for the U.S.
	government.
	at SRI International, headed PSI research programs in Silicon Valley for two scientific and industrial think tanks, has been senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences since 2001, and is also adjunct faculty at Sonoma State University in California.
	Dean's research has been featured in numerous magazines and he's appeared on several radio and television programs.
	In addition, He is author of the book, The Conscious Universe.
	Now, for those of you who would like something really creepy to do tonight as you listen to the program, I'll probably get in trouble for this, but go to Google and put in Princeton eggs.
	Like Princeton University, that's what it is.
	And then eggs.
	Princeton eggs.
	And if you can get to the actual website of the eggs themselves, and you don't think it's creepy, we're going to explain to you in a few moments exactly what it is you're seeing and hearing when you view the Princeton eggs on your computer.
	But it is a totally creepy, creepy experience.
	It creeps me out every time I do it, but I love it.
	So go ahead, go to Google and put in Princeton eggs and then it'll kind of set the mood
	because you're going to hear it all explained here in a very few moments with Dean Radin.
	So in all the years that I've been doing talk radio and this
	kind of talk radio, I've never found anything that I've been more interested, fascinated
	with, and in fact sure of, than I have this whole consciousness thing.
	Dean Radin, welcome to the program.
	Thanks Art, good to hear you.
	and you as well. Now I just finished sending a whole bunch of people up to the eggs.
	They're kind of fun, kind of interesting, I mean it's, I don't know, perhaps somewhat
	meaningless to just sit and watch them, but there's some sort of intriguing creepiness
	to it all, and they're going to be sitting there watching those and listening to that
	heartbeat-like sound with the dings and gongs every now and then.
	And they're going to be wondering what it is they're seeing because they're new to all this and have no idea what we're talking about.
	Actually, I'm interested in why you're referring to them as creepy.
	I don't know.
	Because to me, they are kind of creepy.
	Not in a horror movie creepy kind of sense.
	Just, I don't know, sitting there looking at... I think understanding what I'm looking at and hearing is a little bit creepy.
	I mean, you know, that may be consciousness.
	We're observing at work and it's random and sometimes not so random way.
	So I, yeah, creepy in that sense.
	That's all.
	The magnitude of it, I think, Dean.
	Right.
	So I assume you're talking about the little dot that will change color and sounds go along with it.
	That's right.
	What that's showing is a close to real time representation of the degree of order And a worldwide network of random number generators.
	In other words, each one of those little... Well, when I see it, I see bars.
	I guess it depends on how you have it set, but I see some bars that go up and down, and the sounds and everything.
	And each one of those separate bars represents a computer someplace or another in the world, right?
	That's right.
	And these computers are generating as close to a random number as can be generated, is that correct?
	Each device is fundamentally random, at least as far as we know through quantum mechanics.
	There is no known way of predicting what each successive random bit will be.
	Right.
	So it's theoretically and fundamentally random.
	The exciting thing is, and perhaps the creepy thing is, that at times they no longer act random.
	Yes, that's right.
	And so what we're interested in in this project is looking at the correlations between our inference of worldwide events, events that attract a lot of interest, and the relationship between those events and the appearance of order in these random generators.
	Maybe I said creepy because a couple of times when I've been there, Dean, all of a sudden, it did kind of go berserk.
	I mean, I've had people, you know, email me and say, hey, Art, tonight the eggs are really going nuts, and so I'll get interested and I'll go take a look, and sure enough, it's gong, gong, gong, gongs from everywhere, and it's just jumping around like crazy.
	That's where the creepy comes from, because I have the feeling that I might be looking at the precursor to some kind of big event.
	Well, it's possible.
	In a sense, you're looking at a form of the pulse of the planet.
	It's a form of pulsing that is much closer to mind than it might be to a heart.
	But, of course, you also have to keep in mind that when you're looking at random events, It's very easy to start seeing patterns where there actually are no patterns.
	Ah!
	The problem encountered, really, with the entire project, right?
	That's right.
	That's right.
	And so, we are very careful in our analyses to make predictions in advance and make analyses in advance.
	In other words, we use planned analyses so we don't fool ourselves into seeing patterns that actually aren't there.
	Right.
	And now, this has been going on, this project has been active for how long now, Dean?
	In August it'll be eight years.
	Eight years of recording this, huh?
	Was it always roughly the size it is now, or has it grown during that eight years?
	No, it started with three random generators, and now it's stabilizing at about 70.
	About 70.
	So again, so people understand, these individual computers, about 70 of them, scattered around the entire globe, are spitting out, as close to random as one can imagine, practically, I guess, really random numbers, and there is this tendency for the computers to simultaneously, or very nearly simultaneously, Take off and become non-random, and that's when the alarms and the gongs and the bells go off.
	Depending on how much non-randomness there is.
	Now, over these eight years, it has been studied very carefully.
	We've looked at very large world events like 9-11, like I'm sure the tsunami, the earthquake, things that have just affected the mind of just about everybody on the globe.
	What would you summarize as a result so far, Dean?
	Well, there have been a total of 199 events of the types that you've mentioned.
	Of those, 186 are considered formal events.
	Formal in the sense that they're very precisely specified.
	Some of the others were more vague, so they're dropped from the formal analysis.
	So the 186 formal events, the overall against chance, as of now, basically, is 50,000 to 1 in favor of order appearing when there shouldn't be any.
	Oh my God.
	So now you've got some numbers for us.
	The possibility of these 186 being reflected, however they have been, in the project would be about 1 in 50,000.
	That's right.
	Odds are really starting to tip in our favor here, aren't they?
	Well, the odds have fluctuated over time.
	At one time, they were over a million to one.
	And then they bounced down, and now they're bouncing back up again.
	We're beginning to learn, now that we have so many different events, that some of the events produce a measurable effect and others don't.
	Is there any pattern to the kind of event that produces a larger reaction?
	We think so.
	For example, one type of event that we might think would produce a reaction, in fact does not, and that is natural disasters.
	So people have asked, well what about the tsunami?
	Tsunami did not produce a significant result using our standard analysis.
	Nor the earthquake that precipitated it?
	No.
	Nor the earthquake.
	But we've now... this is partially a result of the way that we analyze the data.
	You know, as I said, in order to be clear that we're not trying to look for patterns, we use a standard form of analysis that may not be appropriate for each one of these events.
	And so We've gone back now and looked at 55 events that we call impulse events.
	Right.
	These are things like earthquakes, terrorist attacks, and so on.
	They're not planned.
	They start at a very specific time, and then they persist for some time afterwards.
	Yes.
	When you look at those events, and by the way, most of those are natural disasters, besides the terrorist attacks.
	They're mostly natural disasters, which don't tend to give a very interesting result.
	You can do what's called a cross-correlation analysis, where you look at the moment that the event occurs, like the beginning of an earthquake, and then you slide in time the data, so you slide forward in time, you slide backwards in time, to see if the event has something like a precursor.
	You know, maybe there's nothing happening at time zero, But if you start going back 10 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour before the event, maybe there's something happening before.
	Right.
	Similar to what we saw on 9-11.
	Right.
	And as it turns out, there is.
	For these impulse events, the 55 impulse events, there is a precursor, and it kind of looks like a wave, the way the graph is drawn, that's between 2 and 4 hours in advance of the event itself.
	That's fascinating.
	So, it's as a result of Many years of analysis and looking at this in new ways that we're beginning to learn what happens in the network based on the kind of event that's coming up.
	Now, so that I'm clear, with regard to the tsunami, was there that precursor?
	That was an earthquake event and part of the impulse, part of the 55 impulse events we looked at.
	So, I don't know specifically for that specific event.
	Well, I guess I was going to ask whether it was just sort of human-oriented events.
	I don't know, like the United States going to war, for example.
	Something that we were all aware of, but still wouldn't happen.
	Or whether in Earth movement type events, geophysical events, where humans are not involved, there simply is not the kind of output that you can read.
	Well, we have another analysis where the 55 events, by the way, were ones that were registered.
	We have a registry of these events.
	But, of course, there are earthquakes happening all the time, and we didn't register all of them.
	So one type of analysis simply looked throughout the entire database every time there was an earthquake of at least magnitude 7.
	Some of them we got, and some of them we had missed.
	And for those events as well, these kinds of other impulse events we had missed, they also show these effects.
	So, which makes it even more interesting, because what we're trying to do is see whether or not it's that we, maybe we as the analysts, are just picking favorable times.
	You know, we're dealing with a large random walk here, and if we could somehow psychically or intuitively guess the right kind of event to choose, Then maybe we're the result.
	It's not like we're not creating patterns that aren't there, but we're impressing the pattern somehow through ourselves, and it has nothing to do with the global consciousness.
	But that kind of argument begins to go away if it turns out that we go to events that we had not considered previously, and they show an effect as well, and that does seem to be happening.
	Can you name the kind of event that really has sent it off the charts?
	Well, unfortunately, terrorism seems to do a pretty good job.
	It does?
	One of the largest effects ever was the first event, which were the embassy bombings back in 1998.
	It turned out to be Al-Qaeda, although we didn't know it yet.
	Bombs in Yugoslavia, A big train crash in India.
	And then, occasionally, these large-scale meditations will also produce a big effect.
	Oh, is that so?
	Yeah.
	These big planned meditations.
	One of the more recent effects was Pope John's funeral.
	Oh, yes.
	That was predicted and, in fact, got a significant result.
	And then, an almost significant result for Prince Charles' wedding.
	Really?
	I don't know what to make of that.
	Nor do I. Previously, in Princess Di's funeral, was a very large effect also.
	Uh-huh.
	So, it's something like things that attract a very large scale of attention by lots of people.
	Whereas, unfortunately, negative events tend to do that more often than positive events.
	Whereas natural disasters will attract a lot of attention, but they tend to be diffuse.
	You know, they're spread out over long periods of time, and most people have an attitude of, while they're paying attention to it, it's tragic and yet unavoidable.
	So there's a different emotional valence that's associated with natural disasters that is not there when we're dealing with human events.
	Hey Dean, do you think that if we had, instead of one computer at each location, we had two computers at each location, with one of the computers in each case being inside a Faraday cage, do you think the output would be any different at all?
	No.
	And the reason I say that is because the random number generators are actually built inside metal boxes.
	So the guts of the generator Which is based on quantum noise.
	Are shielded.
	Is already shielded.
	And the box is connected to the computer, and the computer is grounded, so... Boy, oh boy, oh boy.
	It's in a pretty good cage already.
	And actually, another interesting question that we looked at is, what would happen, given that we get data from each device every second, what would happen if we looked at the entire analysis for the even seconds, and then looked for the odd seconds?
	Would we get a similar result?
	And the answer is yes, you do.
	What that means is that whatever's going on is acting as though it's an external effect, which is consistent with the idea that there's something out there which is impressing itself into the generator.
	Isn't that fascinating?
	Isn't that fascinating?
	Anybody have any guesses about how that could be happening?
	I suppose it jumps right up into the quantum world, huh?
	It's something to do with quantum mechanics, probably, and it is acting as though it was a field.
	We talk about field consciousness, and we use that initially as kind of a metaphor, but it seems to behave in that way.
	It's as though the medium itself, the physical medium that we live in, is not purely like classical physics has said, but it involves something else.
	Whether it's something else's mind or consciousness, we don't quite know.
	But the medium itself seems to be modulated in some way.
	Because otherwise, all the usual ways of thinking about electromagnetic interference and so on,
	they just don't work by design.
	The random generator is hidden from all that.
	Well, maybe whoever wrote the line in Star Wars about, May the Force be with you...
	To be continued...
	Well... crap.
	Looks like we crashed the egg server.
	Hey, Dean.
	You know, it was a while ago that you and I first talked, and since that time, I've had a range of guests on, Dean, a giant range of guests, and it's sort of like the whole thing has exploded.
	Which thing are you referring to?
	Well, I don't know.
	The whole consciousness thing has exploded.
	The awareness of this power, if it is a power, this field, you said field, I guess that's a good word for it, the existence of this field has been discussed by guests with all kinds of different interests, let me put it that way.
	My goodness, awareness is way up in this field, isn't it?
	Yeah, I would agree.
	I think we first spoke maybe eight or nine years ago.
	Exactly.
	And since then, the academic interest and popular interest in consciousness and quantum mechanics and how they might interact really has exploded.
	Right through the roof.
	Yeah.
	I spent all day yesterday being interviewed for The next version of the movie, what the bleep?
	What the bleep do we know?
	No kidding.
	Yeah.
	So that's an example of a combination of theatrical film and documentary that basically came out of the blue and has been a wild success.
	I mean, and who would have thought that a movie that's trying to portray the meaning of quantum mechanics would be a big success?
	Who would have thought?
	Now that there are these additional years under the belt of the project itself, is it beginning to gather enough evidence so that more academics are going up?
	I guess we better take a look at this.
	I wouldn't say that the Global Consciousness Project alone has done that.
	Right.
	There's a confluence of Additional evidence from other kinds of psi experiments, but the combined evidence is becoming strong enough now that it's difficult for people not to pay attention to it anymore.
	I mean, if someone really doesn't want to pay attention, they can ignore it very nicely.
	But for the many of the rest of us who are open-minded about it and recognize that if it's true, it's quite important, The strength of the overall evidence is pretty solid.
	I wonder, Dean, as awareness of consciousness as a field or a force becomes generalized, if that would affect significantly, for example, the results being gathered at Princeton, I would imagine it certainly could, couldn't it?
	Yeah, it would affect that, and it could also affect any kind of experiment that involves consciousness in some way.
	Yes, yes.
	I mean, we know just from laboratory experiments that motivation is an extremely important element in these experiments.
	So if there's something like a building public excitement and interest, that will invariably affect these experiments.
	Do you think, Dean, and I know this is asking you to walk way out on a plank that you probably wouldn't want to walk out on, but do you think that massive amounts of public consciousness directed could have an effect on a thing or a system like weather or Complex systems, a small effect with a big ending, perhaps the butterfly effect kind of thing, I don't know, or maybe even something stronger than that.
	Could it affect things?
	Well, we know that the answer is yes, or at least that's what the data is suggesting.
	The Global Consciousness Project is looking specifically at that very issue.
	It's a little bit different in that what you're asking is whether focused intention Lots of people could do it.
	My guess is yes.
	We know that simple attention, and not even focused attention, but just attention on something, anything, will make a small effect in these generators.
	The problem with... I mean, you can imagine something like a television show or a radio show where millions of people are asked to simultaneously think certain thoughts, or direct their thoughts.
	The problem is that these phenomena seem to be involved in some way with the notion of coherence.
	It's not simply that there's a lot of stuff being thrown, but it's stuff of a certain kind.
	And by analogy, the mysteries in quantum mechanics are due to something called quantum coherence.
	If you don't have quantum coherence, then all of the mystery goes away, basically.
	It looks like a classical system.
	That seems to be true for these kinds of effects as well.
	All right.
	In quantum mechanics, it's my understanding that two cells that have come from the same place on opposite ends of the earth will be noted to react the same way at the same time.
	I've had really good scientists on here trying to explain to me how this might be.
	I can't wrap my brain around the fact That there's not a kind of a communication taking place in the way we understand it, going at light speed.
	But obviously, it doesn't go at any speed.
	It's beyond speed.
	It's beyond time, it seems.
	So this field, how is it allowing two objects to react the same way at the same time?
	In some ways, certainly, we can't grasp.
	Well, the reason why it's difficult to grasp is because common sense tells us, and classical physics formalizes, a model of the world which essentially is like a large clockwork mechanism.
	Space is absolute, and time is absolute, and things work by balls and sticks touching each other.
	And communication doesn't go faster than the speed of light.
	That's right.
	And so all of those are usual ways of thinking.
	If somebody says, how do you explain this phenomenon of, say, entanglement?
	How do you explain it?
	What they have in mind is an explanation which has to do with clockwork gears and that sort of thing.
	We're really talking fundamentally here about the fabric of reality.
	What is the fabric of physical reality?
	Quantum mechanics says it is something completely unlike what common sense tells us, and that's why it's so difficult to wrap your mind around it.
	Right.
	I can tell the interpretation that I resonate with was the one that David Bohm gave, which is that we live in a holistic medium.
	The physical fabric of reality is a holistic medium, which means that everything coexists with everything else.
	He called it the Implicit Order.
	Our common sense shows us the Explicit Order, the world of appearances, but underneath it is the Implicit Order, in which everything is wrapped around everything else.
	It all coexists.
	So when you see an example of either Boy, that's hard.
	two particles which are entangled as in the physics lab, or I think telepathy, two people
	who are entangled at a distance.
	The reason why it appears as though there's a signal between the two, that is an appearance,
	it's not actually what's happening.
	What actually is happening is that we're seeing two things which at some deep level are actually
	the same thing.
	Boy, that's hard.
	That's really hard.
	I've developed this idea to say let's just assume that quantum mechanics is telling us
	that we really do live in a holistic environment.
	I mean, one way of thinking of it is, we all live in this giant bowl of clear jello, and you're kind of locked in place in this jello, but any movement, any movement, any action, any thought, will ripple out and affect the entire rest of the pool of jello that we all are living in.
	So this is not quite right, because in Jell-O things are in separate locations, but it's a metaphor.
	So in this medium that we live in, everything is affecting everything else.
	Everything reverberates out and is touching and feeling everything else.
	That means that the physical brain is entangled with everything else.
	Every movement, every electrical activity, every thought is It certainly would explain a lot of the otherwise inexplicable, wouldn't it?
	Well, if you then go through and say, okay, let's assume that's true, what would that be like if that were true?
	What would it feel like, experientially, if in fact, at some deep level, everything is connected?
	And I went through the list of known psychic effects that people report, and they all make sense.
	It makes sense from a point of view that There are no signals passing, and it's not like there are lightning bolts coming out of your head that somehow go to the right place.
	All of the phenomena like remote viewing and telepathy and precognition and so on, they make sense from a point of view of a different kind of physical medium that we live in, as opposed to some kind of exotic force.
	Do you think that conventional physics is going to ever be able to deal with it?
	I think we're getting close.
	I think, you know, the ontological implications of quantum mechanics are nowhere near worked out.
	And I also don't think that quantum mechanics is the end of the road in physics.
	It's just the latest road in physics.
	But if you follow the history of physics from classical to quantum, and then where it's pointing beyond that, I think that the answer is definitely yes.
	We will eventually understand psychic and mystical experience.
	from a scientific point of view and it's going to be related very closely
	to what physics says about the nature of the medium in which we live.
	Well I'll tell you that'll be the day when traditional physicists are explaining to us
	how people are able to read other people's minds or can draw a bridge that somebody's looking at
	half a world away and the environment they're in.
	I think it's going to be sooner than we might think.
	That'll be the day, won't it?
	It's going to be hard for them.
	Or maybe it won't.
	No, I actually don't think it's going to be hard at all.
	You don't think so?
	No, because when the time comes that all of the ideas fall together, it'll suddenly make sense.
	And people, you know, they'll hit themselves in the head saying, well, why in the world did it take so long to figure this out?
	And I think one of the keys that we'll probably see within the next decade will be a demonstration of bio-entanglement.
	Bio-entanglement?
	What would that be like?
	Well, what we see in the physics labs now are entanglement of elementary particles.
	Right.
	It might be called physical entanglement.
	Right.
	Bio-entanglement is when we start seeing that in living systems.
	We'll first see it in things like biomolecules, and then we'll see it in enzymes, and eventually bacteria, and so on.
	There's no theoretical reason why such entanglement cannot exist.
	We haven't seen it yet, but that's more due to limitations and apparatus that we have, rather than a theoretical reason.
	Doesn't mean it's not going on now.
	Well, I think it is going on.
	This new book that they've written called Entangled Minds, the whole theme in the book is saying that if we follow this sequence of logic from classical to quantum physics and entanglement and bioentanglement and so on, if we keep going in that, eventually we're going to end up with entanglement at the human level, in minds, entangled minds.
	What would that be like?
	Well, there are experiments that we've already done, been doing for decades, that suggest Two people can exchange information, both consciously and unconsciously, at a distance, and well-shielded and all the rest, and we never find any forces.
	We don't find any signals.
	We don't find any reduction of the ability at a distance.
	All of that doesn't make sense from a classical physics perspective.
	It makes a lot of sense from a quantum perspective.
	When we hear about two or three or four inventors virtually working on or inventing roughly the same thing and getting into patent fights and all the rest of it, as so frequently happens, are we seeing, do you think, some sort of entanglement that's occurring in human minds at the same exact instant?
	It may well be.
	I mean, that phenomenon may be similar to Spontaneous telepathy that occurs between people.
	Especially given in that case, and with inventors, they're all kind of thinking along the same lines anyway.
	Right.
	There's always multiple people working on the same problem.
	Right.
	But if the same novel idea arises in a bunch of people at the same time... It seems to.
	It looks like there's some large-scale correlation that has been created.
	And that is essentially what an entangled system would look like.
	Well, it causes plenty of entanglements, that's for sure, because people automatically say to themselves, bold, this was my idea, I know exactly when it occurred to me, I know when the light bulb went off, this was mine.
	In a truly entangled, holistic system, there is no isolation.
	Nothing belongs to anyone, it all belongs to everything.
	It would take a really significant change of worldview to get your mind wrapped around that.
	Well, maybe one day we'll see a lawyer defending somebody with a defense of quantum entanglement.
	I can envision that.
	Yes.
	I can see that.
	So can I. So can I. He had the idea because he had the idea because the idea was there.
	The idea permeates us all, and some people were more sensitive to it than others.
	By the way, we're going to talk about these in many similar Things at the IONS Conference, which is coming up July 6th through 11th.
	The IONS Conference?
	The Institute of Neurotic Science.
	Every two years, we have a conference.
	We try to bring together all of the leading-edge thinkers having to do with consciousness and healing, spirituality, psy-research, quantum physics, and so on.
	And so, if you're interested in hearing a cell biologist and an astrophysicist debate a mystic and a monk, This is the conference for you.
	It ought to be one hell of a year.
	Yep.
	I'll say that.
	I mean, this is hot stuff right now.
	It really is hot stuff.
	Well, it's coming up in July 6th through 11th in Arlington, Virginia.
	You can look it up on our website and see all about it.
	I'm imagining it will be very well attended.
	Well, we hope so.
	No, I think so.
	We face an interesting embarrassment here, in a sense, like an embarrassment of riches.
	Yes.
	When the Institute of Neurotic Sciences started out some 30 years ago, discussing consciousness in a serious way was considered the farthest fringe.
	It was like nuts to talk about consciousness.
	Absolutely.
	And it really has exploded now.
	In fact, it has become mainstream, even within the scientific community.
	So, it's becoming more difficult to get a large convention of people simply because there are many conventions that are doing this now.
	We like to think our conventions are better, but, you know, I'm biased.
	So, this is the way, through conventions like this, that we will begin to grasp an understanding of how big this is, what it all means.
	I mean, there are so many questions about it.
	Well, you know, the conventions are designed for the public.
	Right.
	And mostly are scientists and scholars who are giving the presentations, but it's for a public audience.
	There are other conferences which are designed for scientific audiences, and I think that's really where the leading-edge action is taking place, and there's some very interesting things to report about that.
	Oh?
	For example, ten years ago, I may have mentioned the Invisible College.
	I think you did, yes.
	This refers to Scientists and academics who are very, very interested in these topics, including Psy, but who have been very reluctant to talk about it because there's this taboo that you're not supposed to talk about certain things.
	Of course.
	The size of that invisible college has been really increasing in the same way that public interest has been increasing.
	But it is also beginning to morph in an interesting way.
	Some of the people in academia now, some of whom are very distinguished Folks holding endowed chairs at major universities have been conducting their own psy-research successfully.
	And quietly, I take it.
	And not talking about it.
	And since I'm a bit of a lightning rod for these things, I get contacted by lots of people all over the place.
	Obviously, many of you are very interested in all of this.
	And I'm going to be doing a lot of research on this.
	The Conscious Universe is Dean's book.
	You ought to grab that.
	Amazon.com.
	The Conscious Universe.
	That's a starting point.
	The conference coming up is another.
	Dean, again with the conference please.
	When is it going to be and more importantly how do people line up to get in or what do they have to do?
	The conference is officially titled Consciousness and Healing.
	It's July 6th through 11th in Arlington, Virginia, which is right next to Washington, D.C.
	And the easy place to go to register is the IONS website, which is www.ions.org.
	And it's featured on the homepage, so you'll see it right off the bat.
	That's easy.
	www.ions.org.
	Right.
	Very good.
	I really think there are going to be a lot of people there who deserve at least so.
	You know, I sort of joked, this could become a new religion, the way humans are these days.
	Probably it could, or maybe it's an old religion, or maybe it's going to be both.
	I think that there's an exciting element here in that people... I mean, it is often said that the reason why magic and religion persist is because of uncertainty.
	You know, we would like to have safe, predictable lives, but we don't.
	Right.
	And so we look for answers elsewhere.
	I don't think we'll ever, as humans anyway, be completely risk-free, but science and spirituality are beginning, not exactly to merge, but at least in the old days, like water and oil, they would immediately separate.
	Well, now we're getting to something which is where the oil and the water are beginning
	to penetrate a little bit.
	That's right.
	And the universe is not ending.
	So I think it's a very exciting time where the rationality and precision of thinking
	in science is beginning to address issues which are of very deep interest to a lot of
	people.
	I wonder how many years away the day is when a scientist says, we can now explain how somebody
	reads somebody else's mind.
	We can tell you how it happens or the way it happens.
	Maybe not so long, huh?
	I would say that we're within two or three decades.
	That's exciting.
	I think the principal problem is going to be one of language initially.
	We'll have to come up with different ways of describing events which are outside the scope of common sense.
	And that's always been difficult.
	But that's why science is full of jargon, basically.
	You know, if you're trying to take a mathematical explanation and someone says, well, how do you describe that in words?
	Sometimes you can't.
	You have to come up with new words.
	Well, you've explained as best you could this to me, but honestly, I still am, you know, I'm a speed of light guy, and I'm a communication is taking place kind of guy.
	Even if it's taking place faster than light, or in a way that we don't yet understand, I'm still a guy who thinks that Particle A has to talk to Particle B through some medium, that there has to be communication there for the same thing to happen at the same time.
	Right.
	And in the physical universe that I've been brought up in, there's no way to explain that.
	That's right, and that's exactly where the resistance has come from.
	And the Jell-O didn't get it for me.
	Yeah, the Jell-O's not quite right, because it's not really a medium of that sort, but I've been really struggling to try to find metaphors, and there are no metaphors.
	You know, this idea of a connective medium is not new.
	Right.
	It's the basis of Eastern philosophy, basically.
	That's why I said maybe old religion.
	And they are the metaphor, two metaphors have been used in the Eastern approach.
	One is that the medium is like the ocean, and that what we see as independent objects are droplets that are pushed up by waves in the ocean.
	So they're momentarily there and they will have their own little existence, but then they drop down and they become absorbed into the larger medium.
	That's one way of thinking of it.
	And the other one is a metaphor of a forest.
	Where you look at two leaves on a tree, and the leaves are shaking the same way at the same time, and it looks like one is sending a signal to the other.
	But in fact, they're connected to the same trunk, and the trunk is shaking, and it's a common cause that is giving rise to two things which are separate, and yet they're not separate in another sense.
	It's going to have to be a whole new There will have to be new words, and there will have to be new ways of understanding to even begin to approach this.
	Right.
	It will require a major shift in worldview, and those kinds of things do not happen quickly.
	So even though everything else is accelerating, information is accelerating, and so on, this is a big one, because it's probably similar in some ways to In 1905, when Einstein came out with his Theory of Relativity, and it took a long, long time for people to begin to wrap their mind around what he meant.
	True enough.
	You know, it took a couple generations.
	Well, this is more difficult than that, so it'll take even longer, but it'll happen.
	Is there a father of this?
	Is there an Einstein yet for this?
	Is there somebody we should look to as authoring the beginning of the understanding of this?
	I don't think so, not yet.
	I mean, at some point, someone will be very clever and figure out a way
	to describe this in ways where people say, Oh, that's how it works.
	Right.
	We don't, we're not there yet.
	But that's, that's partially because the implications of quantum mechanics are not worked out
	yet.
	We really don't understand yet many of the fundamental mysteries.
	And it's partially because of this language issue.
	Is it probable that there is immense power somehow entangled with all of this?
	That there will be a power?
	Every new piece of information or knowledge carries power.
	Knowledge is power.
	So, is there power?
	Yes.
	It's a peculiar sort of power, though, because In a holistic medium, yet another metaphor is, it's as though you're looking, you're trying to examine your eye by looking in a mirror.
	Right.
	There are certain ways you can look and see directly into the fovea, but it's very difficult or even impossible to look at the side of your eye using your eye.
	And the whole point about a holistic medium that makes it difficult to understand is that it involves recursion at every level.
	You can't poke it without it poking back and changing in the process.
	When you say holistic, you mean the connected aspect of everything?
	Yeah, everything is connected.
	It sounds a little bit like a tautology.
	Arguments that seem to be empty, like an empty argument, because everything is everything.
	That does seem to be what quantum mechanics, at least one interpretation of it, a number of theoretical physicists are beginning to propose the idea that everything really is connected to everything else.
	It clearly seems to be the field that remote viewers work in.
	Have you looked carefully at remote viewing, skeptically at remote viewing, and what conclusions have you come to?
	Well, remote viewing is not that different from telepathy and precognition and all the While I've looked at all of the experiments in great gory detail, when you look at the whole batch of them, the reason why I just used the word psi, it's just a placeholder for some form of connected information flow.
	And the one point is your head, and the other points are anywhere in the universe, anywhere in space and time.
	So it would seem.
	And so the evidence is quite strong that while it sounds kind of nutty, as compared to what common sense tells us, the phenomena still exist, and the phenomena don't seem to care whether we think it's nutty or not.
	They don't go away.
	All right, I've been told by some recent guests, Dean, that as quickly as it seems to be exploding here, in China, for example, they don't have the same scientific prejudices that we have here.
	And that all of this is moving much, much faster.
	And they may be approaching an understanding faster than we are, or have the basic ability to think about things in a different way that allows them to be ahead of us in this area.
	Do you know anything about that?
	Yeah, I've heard something very similar just recently.
	You have?
	I would guess that you're correct, that part of it ...is a different language, a different cultural history, and probably somewhat less of a taboo in the academic world.
	And so, yes, at some point the Chinese may be well ahead of the rest of the world in understanding.
	Of course, the fear that arises is the one that you already mentioned, which is that knowledge is power.
	Someone gets a significant increase over somebody else in terms of understanding, then that probably can be used.
	used. Dean, there would be one school of thought in remote viewing and it's
	certainly predominant that you might be able to look at something on the other
	side of the world and describe it. You might be able to find something, you
	might be able to learn if somebody's alive or dead, or you might even be able
	to discern what their line of thinking is. But remote viewers are very careful
	to talk about remote influencing. But some of them do admit that
	indeed it may be possible and that would be that an individual or a group of
	people intent with will on influencing the mind of another on the other side of
	the world might be able to do that.
	Is this something that your imagination says might be possible?
	Well, more than imagination, laboratory evidence suggests that that's true.
	We don't know whether the word influence is exactly correct.
	But we do know that if you take two people and separate them and have one think thoughts of the other, that the other person's body will respond.
	And so you don't need a large leap of faith to imagine that the right kind of training or talent in one person could affect another.
	I mean, what we see in the lab are basically an arousal of the autonomic nervous system.
	It would be like as though you gave somebody a triple expresso.
	It would become jittery.
	So we see that.
	We can see that in the laboratory and it's not even that difficult to produce that kind of experiment anymore.
	So if we amplify that up, we scale it up a few thousand times if that were possible, then I could imagine you could start pushing around somebody's blood pressure or make them particularly anxious at a distance.
	Whether it has a healing response and whether it has a damaging response to the person, I don't think we know enough.
	Equally possible.
	I'd have to say it's possible.
	We don't see that in the lab, but we're not generally trying to do that in the lab either.
	Many of spiritualities suggest that, no, the negative can't be done.
	The universe won't allow it.
	You know, that only good things, healing and so forth, can be accomplished, but there are others.
	For example, I've interviewed some witches, Dean, and they say hogwash.
	It is what it is.
	They have different names for it, but they can say it can be a negative force as easily as it can be a positive force.
	It's simply dependent upon the intent of the person.
	Yeah, I think that's probably correct.
	I mean, partially because our notion of what's good and bad.
	are relative. Indeed so. So if you you might be doing a very good patriotic act which involves
	harming somebody at a distance but it's for the good of the larger whole. It still means it's a
	negative event but maybe it's not so negative from another perspective.
	It's all in perspective.
	That's right.
	But you do imagine something like that, a negative effect on somebody could be achieved.
	Yeah, I think that's plausible given what we know.
	That seems to me to be something that would be so outrageous and such a gigantic power that
	we could not afford and when I say we I mean you know our government our leaders could not afford to
	not take notice of all this building proof leading to something like that possibility
	well I hope people are paying attention well they've got a lot to pay attention to these days and
	that probably seems rather sort of
	you know off the wall and esoteric to them and but it but I don't think so Gene
	Well, but also keep in mind that, as with any form of force or power, there are many ways of getting a job done.
	So it's probably much, much easier to use conventional methods if you wanted to make somebody feel ill than it would be to have a billion dollar crash program and finding the best
	psychics in the world to do it.
	So that as a use of this phenomena would not seem to be a very wise
	use of the money.
	Well, perhaps not.
	Uh...
	But are we... I mean, as far as I know, the remote viewing program has been terminated.
	And when you speak with remote viewers, they say that it was basically because of the embarrassment of those involved, and even doing something that off the wall.
	They claim very good success in the program, and that as not the reason that it was terminated.
	Not because it wasn't reliable, not because it didn't work, but because people were embarrassed.
	That's probably true.
	I mean, we know the phenomena exist.
	We know that there are some very talented people who can use it.
	But again, it kind of comes down to the same question of if we have multiple ways of getting information, and some of them are very highly reliable technologies, then why bother with this other method?
	And I mean, the answer to that is that this other method can do things that other technologies cannot.
	But it involves humans.
	And so it's not going to be perfect.
	And you have to be willing to put up with that.
	So that's part of the issue.
	There are also issues of personnel and who's running the program and all kinds of other political things that come into play.
	Well, that's certainly true.
	Is there any indication to you that the government, with all this explosive interest, is seeing any of the implications of this?
	Have they reached out and touched anybody yet?
	I don't know.
	Well, of course, if I did know, I couldn't say.
	But I'm not being coy.
	That's also a very good answer.
	And you're right, of course, you could not say.
	But it's hard for me to imagine that some forward-thinking people in our Defense Department wouldn't want to know what's going on here.
	I can guarantee that there are forward-looking people in the Defense Department who do pay attention to this.
	Whether they do something about it or not is a whole other matter.
	but people are paying attention when those eggs went crazy before
	9-11 I say before 9-11 before the event actually occurred itself
	I wonder what they were reacting to.
	Dean, now, it's egocentric probably to believe that it's just human consciousness that's causing the jumping up and down when it does.
	But, you know, really, if you take the holistic approach, then it's not just human consciousness.
	It might be the consciousness of every living thing on Earth, or maybe even beyond living things.
	I don't know.
	No, but we have been looking at this issue.
	One of the ways of looking at it that I've looked at is on New Year's.
	Y2K is the one I spent most time on, but we've looked at it for the other New Year's that we have in the database as well.
	The interesting thing about New Year's is that it's a very predictable moment, typically around five seconds, that happens at the transition of New Year's In each time zone.
	Right.
	So, for Y2K, it had the largest effect.
	I looked at the seven years of New Year's that we have, and five of them showed similar effects in the same direction.
	And two years, for some reason, had effects in the opposite direction.
	I don't know why.
	So I looked in more detail at Y2K and decided to separate the time zones from high-population time zones and low-population time zones.
	Right.
	For the time zones that are over the Pacific Ocean and pieces of the Atlantic, there's hardly anybody there.
	And then for the rest, over land masses, there's lots of people.
	So I created a partition of approximately 6 billion people in some of the time zones, and somewhere around 5 or 6 million people in the remainders, mostly islands in the Pacific.
	And if we're dealing with something that is related to human consciousness, And we would expect a much larger effect for the six billion people than for the six million people.
	Absolutely.
	And in fact, you do get one.
	You get a difference in the direction that the high population time zones had a bigger effect for Y2K than in the other time zones.
	That's a wow!
	Yeah, so that suggests that the whales and dolphins don't care, or they don't know that Y2K is occurring.
	And the insects don't seem to care, nor do the rocks.
	Right.
	I guess that's the way you end up proving all of this, with experiments exactly like that.
	You begin to break it down.
	I had never thought of doing that.
	But you're saying it tracked?
	It did seem to track, yeah.
	It's not a wildly significant difference.
	The odds against chance are 80 to 1.
	But it's something.
	It's in the predicted direction, and it would be considered Statistically significant.
	We'll just have to take other events like this.
	And, of course, New Year's is a unique event in that it only has meaning in each time zone.
	So we haven't really found other events that are easy to test in this way.
	Good point.
	Dean, how's the support at Princeton for the continuation of this whole experiment?
	Well, the leader of the project, Roger Nelson, is retired now.
	So the university is not associated with this at all anymore.
	Okay.
	Other than through Roger, who's now emeritus.
	It seems to me it should be at that level somehow or another.
	So where have the reins now gone?
	Roger is still very active.
	In fact, more active in this project now as the leader.
	Oh.
	In retirement, because he has other duties he doesn't have to do anymore.
	So that's why the website has been changed recently to that Roger and others are refining it, and they've split it more clearly into two parts.
	There's a part that has to do with the technical and the scientific side, and then the second part, which has to do with the aesthetic and poetic notions of global consciousness.
	Last May, the major analysts got together for a conference, and we were discussing what should we do next, and what are the analyses that we want to focus on next.
	I'd be interested in that.
	What should you do next?
	Well, part of the issue is looking at things like these impulse events.
	Given now that we have almost eight years of data, We're able to look at long-term trends.
	We're beginning to look at things like environmental issues and whether they make a difference.
	For a long time, we've been discussing the notion of having a parallel network.
	In order to really nail down the issue of what is causing this effect, is it us, the experimenters, or is it the world?
	One way to do that would be to have a completely parallel network that we don't look at the data.
	Until we've already analyzed the data in the first network.
	Yeah, that'd be good.
	And that way, if we get an interesting effect in the first network, then we go back and look at the second one, and if we get the effect there as well, it begins to lessen the possibility that we created it somehow.
	This is the same reason why we look at even and odd seconds.
	Right.
	And so far, using the one network that we have, The evidence is pointing in the direction that we're not solely responsible for these results.
	They seem to be arising from some other place.
	What is the love study?
	What was that?
	The love study refers to an experiment in entangled minds and bodies where you take a couple, a bonded couple of some type, typically a spouse, Or spouses, and separate them in two places, monitor both of their physiologies, and stimulate one of them with the live video image of the other.
	Right.
	And when that stimulation occurs, to look in the body of the non-stimulated person to see whether or not they respond.
	So conceptually, it's as though you take two people, you separate them, you poke one of them, and you see if the other one flinches.
	We call it the love study because, in this case, they're long-term bonded couples, one of whom is undergoing treatment for cancer.
	And so the partner of that patient is trained in something we call compassionate intention.
	It's to give the partner something to do for their loved one, to send them beneficial thoughts.
	They go through this training process, and then they practice it daily for three months.
	And then they come in the lab, and we see whether or not there's some kind of connection between the two at a distance.
	Not necessarily a healing connection, but a physiological reaction.
	And you find it?
	We do.
	We also have another condition, which are people who have not yet been trained.
	So there are couples, one of whom has cancer, So these couples, by the way, are extremely motivated to have some form of connected feeling.
	This is unusual in a laboratory experiment, because you can't fake that kind of motivation.
	So they're extremely motivated, they really want these connections to work.
	Of course.
	We have a trained group, we have a weight group, and we have a control group of healthy couples, where there are no health issues around.
	So we're essentially looking at the role of Training and of motivation in this experiment.
	And how strong is the result?
	Overall, if you combine all of the people, 40 couples went through this, it's very clear evidence that one person's thought does have an impact on another person's body.
	What we have not found is significant evidence that the training made any difference.
	Really?
	And I think it's partially because There's a strong correlation between the degree to which the sending person responds to the stimulus and the degree to which the receiver reacts.
	So, in the worst case, you have a sender, like a sender-receiver pair, the sender falls asleep, and so they're not responding at all.
	In that case, the receiver doesn't respond at all either.
	So, oftentimes people don't fall asleep in the experiment, but If you've been doing a daily meditation practice for three months, you get so used to having your body become very relaxed so quickly that you simply don't respond very much anymore to any kind of stimulus.
	So I think what we may be seeing here, what appears to be evidence that the training is not working, might be confounded by the fact that the trained people are simply not reacting as much.
	And we can see that because we look at the physiology of the center.
	And the trained senders are not responding as much as the untrained senders.
	Well, you remember a little while ago I asked you about, perhaps it was more than just people, maybe animals, maybe even things.
	But my mind goes back to this really incredible 2020 experiment.
	It was on 2020 on TV.
	You know, the classic one about the master coming home at odd times.
	Right.
	And the dog knowing that the master's coming home.
	I mean, there's just no question about it.
	They had the video on the dog.
	God, you could see the dog knew.
	The master was on the way home at this unknown time.
	That dog knew!
	Right.
	Now, that would seem to be the same kind of thing that we're talking about, except between human and animal.
	I agree.
	You do?
	Yeah, I think it is the same phenomenon.
	When we look at the receivers in this experiment, the way that their body responds It's not exactly the same way that the sender responds.
	After all, the receivers in this experiment are sitting in a shielded room for 30 minutes, and nothing happens.
	They're just sitting there.
	Of course, they're wired up.
	But you can tell when you look at a physiological reaction that it is as though they're just sitting there quietly, and they suddenly get a small startle, as though they heard their name called.
	Right.
	Something whispered.
	Something catches their attention.
	And when that happens, the body goes through a very predictable sequence of changes, and that's the kind of change that we see.
	So it's as though, psychically, they're picking up that attention that's being placed on them.
	And that's probably what's happening in the case of a dog that's responding.
	Suddenly attention is there, and they pay attention to it.
	Strongly.
	I mean, if anything, perhaps the dogs seemed to me to be more reactive than most humans.
	It was just incredible.
	Well, remember, that dog might be the one in a million dog.
	In the studies we do in the lab with people, we work with volunteers who are not pre-calibrated.
	Well, that's true.
	So if we had the opportunity of scanning through a million people, or a million couples, We could probably find a couple that was as good as that dog was.
	You know you mentioned whispering and whispering in the ear earlier in the program that you know you hear you get to hear things about research that's going on perhaps not so publicly.
	Without telling us who's doing that research can you give us an idea of what areas of research are being pursued privately and quietly?
	I would say that there is telepathy research being done successfully.
	Probably the... I mean, for me, telepathy is basically blasé already.
	I mean, I did an analysis recently of all of the experiments on telepathy from 1974 up through last year.
	1974 up through last year. There's 3,145 trials of a particular type of experiment.
	Right.
	The overall odds against chance are 29 quintillion to one.
	Oh my god.
	Quintillion means 18 zeros.
	That's uh... And so I wrote this up and it'll appear in my next book that's coming out and it's just one class of a number of different classes of experiments that show this stuff is real.
	These kinds of information has penetrated out into people in academia, and they're interested, and some are beginning to replicate it, and successfully so.
	But the other area, which is, I think, much more radical, and in a sense, more interesting, is precognition.
	People are looking at unconscious precognition in the body, and one way of thinking of it You talk about precognition, everybody freaks out because it's very difficult to get your mind wrapped around it.
	But if you talk about it in terms of intuition, unconscious intuition, or pre-conscious processing, there are lots of euphemisms that are used for this now.
	People are beginning to replicate experiments that I started back in 1995, because they're basically very standard psychophysiology experiments.
	And it's easy to hide what you're interested in.
	And I now know a number of groups that have been doing this and have been successful.
	When the needles went off the chart prior to the 9-11 event, was that precognitive?
	Well, that looks like a large-scale premonition.
	I mean, it's precognitive in the sense that something was happening before an event unfolded.
	Yes, yes.
	It's quite different than what's happening in an individual.
	Maybe it was an effect of lots of individuals.
	But actually, this reminds me that we found it, and the last time I was on, I talked about an effect we found that was a precognitive effect in some of our online games.
	And I found another one that actually confirmed the first one.
	Oh?
	Should I talk about that?
	Please.
	Okay, the first one was We have at the gottsi.org site.
	This was a set of games that I wrote originally for the Boundary Institute.
	Everybody's going to want to know, you better spell it out carefully, the gottsi.
	How do you spell it?
	Gottsi.
	It's a take-off after gotmilk.
	So it's g-o-t-p-s-i.org.
	Ah!
	Gottsi.org.
	G-o-t-p-s-i.org.
	Okay.
	This is hosted by the Boundary Institute, which I co-founded with Richard Schaup back in 2000.
	And this was originally designed as a suite of simple games that are all valid side-testing games, one of which is a simple card test.
	You have to choose which one of the five cards that appears on the screen do you think that the computer will then select.
	So it's a precognition test.
	Right.
	On that test, You can create a daily performance measure of the degree to which people are successful in selecting the card.
	So we have now this first several years worth of data including going before, during, and after 9-11.
	What we found was that on a daily basis there was a massive drop in performance about two weeks before 9-11 which persisted for two weeks and then A day or two before 9-11, it suddenly shot back up to chance.
	So?
	Visually, there's like this giant notch going down just before 9-11.
	And my speculation was that since the downward curve, with the performance curve, means that people are missing the correct target too often.
	Way too often.
	I mean, statistically, this is thousands to one against chance.
	For two weeks.
	They were psychically repressing their ability.
	So you're watching in both directions?
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	They could either hit high or they could hit low, basically.
	They were missing.
	And the missing effect is much stronger than any other direction in this data.
	I mean, there's nothing else like it in this database.
	Since it happened at a meaningful time, so close to 9-11, the speculation was that people were essentially intending to miss.
	They were unconsciously doing it.
	So an unconscious intention is repression.
	They repressed their psychic ability because they didn't want to walk around feeling what was about to unfold.
	That's fascinating.
	I talked about that, I think, last time I was on.
	So then I looked at another game that we have there, which is a remote viewing game.
	Well, at Coast to Coast, we're experts at crashing websites.
	Let's see how we can do with gotpsi.org.
	That's where the games are.
	Now, these games test PSI ability.
	Various games up there that test PSI ability.
	And again, they're at gotpsi.org.
	G-O-T-P-S-I dot org.
	Very easy.
	Now, Dean, I may have brushed on this some years ago with you, but do you individually track results?
	Do you have gongs and sirens go off if some sort of savant gets on the page and knocks them down one after the other?
	Well, we do track.
	I wouldn't say we have gongs and sirens.
	Well, I'm dramatic, you know.
	But yes, we do track individual performance.
	That's also one of the features of this website.
	By the way, there's another one that is associated with the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which is SciArcade.com.
	SciArcade is another set of games.
	We do track them.
	We do use the data for research, and I was going to describe one finding in the research that was related to 9-11.
	Yes, sir.
	Okay, so we have a remote viewing test at gotsci.org.
	It's a simple test where the user is asked to describe a picture that their computer will randomly select.
	The way that they do this is they enter some words in a box, And then the words are matched against the actual picture when it shows up.
	So I was thinking, maybe if premonitions are intruding in people's thoughts, that before 9-11, maybe people would be describing things having to do with terrorism.
	Sure.
	Because they're being asked to be in a reverie state and to imagine what's about to show up.
	The thing is, all of the pictures, in fact, in this There's 200 pictures.
	They're all very benign things.
	They're animals and scenery and beaches and that sort of thing.
	Nothing that would be considered terrorism.
	But nevertheless, I figured, let's go look.
	So I started looking on September 9th, 2001.
	September 9th, 2001. Right. On September 9th, which was a Sunday at 848 Eastern
	Time, a user wrote three, had three trials in a row, and these are the words that
	this person wrote.
	Airliner seen from left rear against stormy cloud backdrop.
	Flashes of streaky clouds.
	Two persons.
	That's what the person entered for at the first trial, which is a really bad description of the picture that ultimately came up.
	Yes.
	But it was kind of interesting, given 9-11.
	Yes.
	The very next trial said, firstly, a dragonfly, with a question mark, then a log or branch, suggestive of the Everglades, then a fast, dynamic scene of falling between two tall buildings, as checkered patterns of windows.
	Wow.
	Followed by a third trial, where he says, tall structure, like an industrial chimney, Flashes of rounded, crenulated form, peacock-like headdress of American Indian woman, then surface-like volcanic ash plume or cauliflower.
	If you take these three trials, and this, by the way, is all that this person entered, these three trials, those trials together are very much like an impressionistic snapshot.
	Absolutely.
	Or a way of describing what happened without saying exactly what it was.
	Right.
	No question about it.
	And then the next day, September 10th, 2001, at 5 p.m.
	Eastern Time, somebody writes, It is of something falling.
	It will be a chaotic scene.
	Another person says, Intense.
	Too hot to handle.
	Blasting.
	Is the coast clear?
	They were checking the coast.
	And the last one that matched was a series of 11 trials that a person entered one hour before the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center.
	And these are the words.
	White House, gone in the blink of an eye, scald, man's folly, band red, surging, palace, not easily conned, U.S.
	power base, flexing muscles, and surprise.
	Wow.
	So some of these are really startling.
	Yeah, that is startling.
	How did you feel when you read those?
	Well, my hair stood up.
	I mean, how could somebody be having this?
	There were 900 trials that were entered between September 9th and September 11th, 2001, so I decided to look through the entire database, which consisted of 256,000 trials, to see whether there may have been more terrorism kinds of words that were said approaching 9-11.
	And the way to do it, then, is to match not the exact words, because you really want a concept match, So I wrote a program that would match the words that people entered for each trial against these words.
	Airplane, falling, explode, fire, attack, terror, disaster, pentagon, and smoke.
	Thank God for computers.
	Yeah.
	So it is doing a massive crunching on every word entered matching against these concepts.
	And then you can create on a daily basis the degree to which the impressions that people have matched a terrorism idea.
	When you do that, what you find is the same thing that we found in the card test.
	There is a massive drop in terrorism ideation just before 9-11.
	In fact, it's the lowest on 9-11 itself.
	So it's the same kind of repression effect.
	So it was opposite to what I originally thought, that these were not words that were intruding into people's minds.
	They were perhaps feeling premonitions coming up that they specifically avoided.
	these kinds of words. Repress them. A natural human reaction to something too
	overwhelmingly disastrous to even... Right.
	Yeah, even if you didn't consciously know to the World Trade Center buildings were going down, if you didn't know that consciously, it didn't matter.
	You had this impending feeling of something really big and not so good, and so your brain automatically locked it out so you could take care of business.
	Right.
	It filtered out the relevant information.
	Oh, that's fascinating.
	So if you look at these two tests now, the card test and this remote viewing test, The combined odds against chance of seeing such a large drop so close to 9-11 are odds of 1.8 million to 1.
	So it really does suggest that people's behavior, collectively, really did change before that event.
	There are other dips and valleys throughout the database, but nothing as deep as these two points.
	Well, a question for you.
	I was going to ask you if you had run into any apparent savants in this area, and the answer is you obviously have.
	Now, have you ever considered attempting to contact these individuals and perhaps work with them?
	I'm planning on doing that for the remote viewing test.
	So far, we have just done it for the card test.
	We ran two formal talent tests for people who appeared to be good at the talent test.
	How's it coming?
	How's it going?
	The results were not so good.
	The first round was okay.
	It was interesting.
	In the second round, in which we picked out the people who appeared to do very well, seem to have performance anxiety.
	So their performance was basically right at chance.
	So using this as a means of selecting talent, at least for the card test, did not work very well.
	So now we'll try it again on the remote viewing test.
	When they were home, in front of the monitor, relaxed, it just slowed.
	That's interesting.
	I've only had one incident in my whole life of precognition, and I didn't solicit it, I didn't want it, wasn't thinking about it, and it forced itself on me.
	Like, with the strength of incoming ocean waves, I could no more resist it than the man on the moon.
	But it's never happened again.
	I can't bring it on at will.
	I'm not sure I'd want it to happen again.
	Right.
	But that's how it happened.
	It was powerful.
	It was undeniable.
	But it was a single event in my life.
	Right.
	So you can imagine, if you describe that event, and people get all excited about it, and they say, do it again.
	No.
	Well, so that seems to be what happens here, that we find people who occasionally are just incredibly good, but they don't really know how they did it.
	You know, they spontaneously did it somehow.
	And then when they're asked to try to do it again, they can't.
	Or they have performance anxiety, as you mentioned.
	So, is that true across the board in PSI?
	I mean, across the world we hear of these people with these incredible talents and are there some of them that absolutely on-demand can perform?
	I know there are yogis who can control their heartbeat and other aspects of their physiology, right?
	Right.
	Yes, some people can do it on-demand.
	Nobody's a hundred percent, but some people are Above chance often enough, and can do it on demand often enough, that they have real talent.
	And also, the card tests are probably the worst kind of test to do this for.
	Why?
	Because they're intensely boring.
	They're enormous fun for about five minutes, and then you'd rather stick something in your ear.
	It just becomes boring.
	It's mentally exhausting to do this over and over again.
	So it takes a very rare person who has the discipline to be able to train themselves to be able to do this.
	Now, I've heard tales of people who have trained themselves to do this very, very well.
	But I haven't seen it yet.
	I'm planning on visiting someone who claims to have done this.
	Oh?
	Who claimed to train themselves to be able to tell what playing cards were.
	Hidden playing cards.
	So I'm going to test it.
	I'm glad that you're able to do that.
	My feeling would be that if there were quite a number of individuals out there with tremendous amount of talent, that they might, after reflection, not really want it known.
	I mean, it could bring many problems.
	Well, there's a difference between demonstrating an ability for purposes of science.
	Where the person is not identified.
	And something quite different where someone wants to now go on the Tonight Show and make a big splash.
	So that's the appeal you would make to them?
	Yes.
	That this is science and you would indeed keep their confidentiality very carefully?
	I would insist on it.
	Yeah, it would be a condition of the test.
	Because, I mean, it's...
	I'm not in the business, nor do I have any interest in promoting somebody's performance career.
	So that would be part of the test.
	Okay.
	I've got a whole lot of people who would like to ask you questions, so let's dip in and see what we get.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Dean Radin.
	Good morning.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Yes, hi.
	Hi, I'm calling from Seattle.
	My name is Vivian.
	Yes, Vivi.
	And I've been listening to you for years.
	Me and my mom and dad actually drove down to see you in Portland, but there were some people who couldn't get in line.
	Okay.
	And I wanted to call, and all this talk is making me think about my dreams.
	I had the same exact dream as my boyfriend at the same exact time.
	We woke up at the same exact time, looking at each other directly in the eye.
	Knowing that we just dreamt the same exact thing.
	Hearing my voice in each other's head when we woke up.
	And I don't think, but I've always wanted to.
	And I just, that made me think of it.
	Global consciousness.
	Well, I don't know if it's the same thing.
	I don't know if it's global consciousness, but it is, I guess it might be part of that love study you talked about.
	Yeah, I would call that entangled minds.
	Entangled minds.
	Right.
	It's of all spontaneous Psychic events, half of them occur in the dream state.
	So this is a good example of telepathic connection in the dream state.
	Not that uncommon?
	No, not very uncommon at all.
	I mean, if half of all reported spontaneous effects occur in the dream state, and there are tens of thousands of such cases, this is probably more common than people know.
	Fascinating.
	Fascinating.
	Absolutely fascinating.
	Entangled dream states.
	And why not?
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dean Raden.
	Hi.
	Good morning.
	This is Stephen in Columbus, Georgia.
	Yes, sir.
	It's amazing, Dean, that you guys can't check animals for this kind of thing.
	Hard enough to check humans.
	I understand that.
	Even humans don't have the words.
	I know.
	But I had a thing happen to me 18th of May.
	My dog has been, of course, sick.
	And, uh, she went outside to lay in the veranda, lay in the backyard for a while.
	And, uh, when I went outside to look for her, I couldn't find her.
	And found her laying next to her brother's grave.
	So I got her up, and of course she was close to 12 years old.
	I brought her back inside, was about to stir up some chicken breast for her.
	And, uh, she looked at me and she died.
	Just right there.
	She laid her head down and died.
	Right there.
	She knew that she was about to die.
	I'm firmly convinced of that.
	There's no other... There's no other explanation for it but that.
	No, I believe it.
	I absolutely believe it.
	And Dean, that's also something you would think that the human mind, or dog mind, any mind, would repress.
	Our mortality is probably our biggest fear of all, isn't it?
	But you know, there is interesting research now coming out of people who work in hospices Where someone who's near death may be in a coma for a long time, and then just before they die, they become lucid.
	Almost as though they really do know that death is approaching.
	Perfect clarity, yes.
	Yeah, so that is more common than we think also.
	Oh no, that's very common.
	I have a number of friends in doctors and so forth, and they have told me exactly that, that there is this moment in so many of nearly absolute clarity near death, and apparently an awareness of it.
	And I guess some choose not to blank that out.
	And maybe that was a case of that.
	I don't know.
	It sounds like it, yeah.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dean Radin.
	Hi.
	Hi Art and Dean.
	This is Jonathan in New Orleans.
	And my question, Dean, is did you examine a subset of the eggs in the vicinity of the tsunami for interesting activity?
	and also i was wondering if your website explains how the random numbers
	are generated uh...
	and if not can you explain that okay uh...
	uh... we don't have too many random generators and uh... uh...
	the area of asia where the tsunami hit
	So the answer is no, we haven't partitioned out those generators yet.
	There is a technical description of the random generators on the website.
	Is there sort of a down and dirty way to describe it?
	Well, essentially, they're electronic coin flippers.
	That's good.
	Electronic coin flippers.
	Yes.
	The source of randomness, in each case, is traceable down to a quantum event.
	So the coin is being flipped, and depending on whether it lands heads or tails, is dependent on an electron tunneling through a diode, basically.
	So it's a truly random event.
	You've documented, didn't you say 186 events?
	186 formal events and 199 total events.
	And that currently, the chance of it being all an accident?
	50,000 to 1.
	50,000 to 1.
	And that number has been much higher.
	and that currently the chance of it being all an accident 50,000 to 1
	and that number has been much higher yeah, it has fluctuated
	and just the fact that that number fluctuates that much also is unto itself a study I suppose, isn't it?
	Thanks for watching!
	Dean, those are a couple of interesting words, absolute proof.
	Where do the numbers have to go?
	With the work you're doing, for that gong to ring, and even the most cynical of scientists out there to say, throw up their hands and say, the numbers are too big.
	It's true.
	Well, the numbers alone won't do it.
	I mean, the total odds against chance for some of these classes of experiments, as I said, for telepathy, 29 quintillion to one.
	And it goes way beyond that, too.
	There are other Other criticisms that you can address and show that the data withstands the criticisms.
	But that's not enough.
	When we're dealing with a controversial topic, you need a theory which makes sense to people.
	An explanation?
	Some sort of explanation.
	And if you get really controversial, and of course this is, oftentimes people will have to do experiments themselves to convince themselves that these effects really are true.
	Fortunately, these phenomena are very common.
	If you ask any average audience whether they're scientists in it or not, you always get between 50 and 70 percent of people admitting to at least one form of psychic phenomena.
	That means that these kinds of things go on all the time.
	The reason why scientists are interested in this is not necessarily because They look at the scientific articles because they have an experience.
	And they become curious like everyone else in trying to figure out how does that work.
	It's true.
	That's how I got involved in this.
	You had your own experience?
	No, actually.
	I came from a purely scientific perspective.
	I was reading the articles and saying, this is nonsense.
	This doesn't match anything that I've ever been taught.
	But if it's true, it would be really amazing.
	So I started doing experiments, and so people ask me, what are my amazing psychic experiences?
	And the answer is, the experiments that I did.
	Not the personal things that happened to me, but the experiments that I did because they were controlled.
	And if you get an interesting result under controlled conditions, at least for me, that is much more powerful than something which happens spontaneously.
	Oh, but you'd be surprised.
	You just wait till it happens.
	No, I'm not saying I haven't had amazing things happen.
	I'm just saying that from a rational perspective, it's something that's very solid when you control the circumstances.
	That's true.
	If it's not controlled, it may have a powerful emotional effect on me, but unfortunately I'm also trained as a psychologist and I understand there are lots of ways that we fool each other and fool ourselves.
	Well, it's true, but all of this is being nailed down scientifically, using scientific methods all the way.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Dean Radin.
	Hi.
	Yeah, hi.
	This is John from Los Angeles.
	Yes, sir.
	I have a question.
	I want to make sure I have this straight first.
	Sure.
	The eggs, this is an experiment to find a relationship between the realm of consciousness and events that take place.
	Is that correct?
	I'd say it's fair.
	Isn't it, Dean?
	Between consciousness and matter.
	Oh, matter.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's a mind-matter interaction experiment.
	Okay.
	Now, what is the exact relationship between the number generators and the matter, or excuse me, the consciousness, the realm of consciousness?
	Well, the hypothesis is that if mind and matter are related in some way, that when one side of that equation, namely the mind side, ...becomes very coherent, or because of all of the attention paid on a world event, that the other side of the equation, namely the matter, would also become coherent.
	What does coherence mean in matter?
	It means order.
	Some form of unexpected order.
	So we use random number generators because the only unexpected thing that can happen to a random system is to become ordered.
	And we know how to detect that order.
	And so, if it begins to become ordered, the alarms go off, as it were.
	Yes.
	So, are we saying that these generators are, in and of themselves, conscious?
	Maybe not that they're conscious.
	On the matter side?
	They are reflecting a change in the mind side of the equation.
	Oh, I see.
	Does that help?
	Yeah, and I just wanted to make a comment, actually.
	If we can measure consciousness, if it is a very Radiant energy source, perhaps we could use that to map the universe as far as, you know, finding beacons of life and consciousness on other planets, right?
	Oh, you know, that's a leap, but I mean... No, I think it's, yes, I would agree.
	I was going to say, why not?
	Yes, absolutely.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Dean Radin.
	Hello.
	How are you guys this evening?
	Just fine, sir.
	I've got something I want to run by you.
	This is Jamie from Greenville, Texas.
	Yes, sir.
	Let's say that our brain and our conscience is like a Las Vegas odds maker.
	It absorbs every news story, every newspaper article, every opinion, just everything that we come into contact with from the time that we're kids.
	And it constantly just generates thoughts of, you know, such as like a terrorist attack, tensions building, you know, stuff that we overlook every day, but our brain is clicking out the odds from what we observe.
	And as it draws near and the odds of something happening becoming greater, that our brain sends us signals.
	Well, I think that's exactly what you're looking at, isn't it, Dean?
	Yeah, and it's probably true for ordinary events and ordinary perception as well.
	the brain is always calculating probabilities of things and we become aware of it when the probabilities get real
	high.
	So you're nowhere close to being able to prove to the scientific community that it's just absolutely
	true but it would seem to me that a reasonable person reading the results that you have so far almost could not
	avoid getting involved.
	I would say that for a neutral person, an open-minded person who goes through the technical papers They will become interested.
	They may not be convinced, because, I mean, it's difficult to be convinced about such things, but they will become interested.
	And in many ways, that's really all you can ask from a scientific perspective.
	You hope that the interest is high enough so that they want to go ahead and start doing experiments on their own.
	And that is beginning to happen.
	I was going to ask, you are beginning to see that now?
	Yes.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dean Radin.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	I just wanted to bring up, let me be devil's advocate here.
	Sure.
	What if there's a sinister side to this that it may be like a black ops project with massive mind control and you're calling in on these, you're dialing up into a computer net and giving them the results they want to know.
	Well, could there be a negative side to this?
	The clear answer to that has to be, I think, yes.
	This is just a field, or a force, or a natural fact.
	And so if it can be manipulated, then it can be manipulated probably as any other force.
	Good or bad?
	Yeah, I think part of the idea of the sinister side of all of this stuff comes about because of our natural fear of the unknown.
	I don't really think... I mean, I know that in principle people could use these abilities either in a positive or negative way, but as we said before, positive and negative are relative.
	So it's not clear to me that it's so easy to always know.
	And the fear element of it is always there.
	It's true that within the government there are folks who would face the giggle factor, but there's also a fear factor.
	So that's just part of the unknown.
	It's not just this area, it's any area where there are things that are unknown.
	How critically important to the success of these kind of experiments is intent?
	How big a part is intent?
	Factors like intention, novelty, motivation are all extremely important.
	The most important factors are motivation and intent.
	The people who wish us dead have extreme motivation, extremely strong intent, just enormously so, to the very core of their being.
	I hope we're as passionate about our freedom as they are about removing it.
	So do I. West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dean Raden.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Hi.
	I want to thank Dean for Gottsai.
	I've been visiting the site over the last year.
	Recently, I haven't had much of a chance to do it, but I've been Uh, using it to boost my psychic abilities, um, and, uh, remote view Sasquatch up here in the Pacific Northwest, and, uh, my kids have seen it a few times, and, uh, uh, having, you know, increased my psychic ability of one, uh, you know, little bits here and there on, uh, Lotto and things like that.
	Anyway, but... Alright, well, let's turn that into this.
	Dean, is it possible to use, for example, those games and increase your psychic ability?
	Can you sit there hour after hour and day after day, if you so chose, and use those tests to increase your ability?
	That's a pretty good question, actually.
	Yes, I believe you can.
	You can?
	Yeah.
	It's not anything magical about the test, of course.
	It's more that anytime you use a discipline in training yourself to do something with your mind, you're going to get better at it.
	So I can accept that people can use these games, since they're very simple and compelling, to train themselves to become more and more intuitively attuned.
	So yes, that can happen.
	That's really interesting.
	And she noted that she had done so, though not for a while now.
	But just putting yourself in that receptive mode after a while, I suppose, it's like any other training.
	Exactly.
	Your mind learns how to do it.
	It takes discipline and practice.
	How do you get to Carnegie Hall?
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dean Radin.
	Good morning.
	Hi, good morning, Art.
	How are you?
	Just great.
	The question I have, I've had premonitions, precognitions, off and on for years, and it seems like the strongest ones I have concern death.
	I don't know why that is.
	I was wondering if Dean maybe had any insight into that, as far as his research, with death being such a strong factor.
	Okay, sure.
	I mean, death, after all, our mortality is, again, perhaps, probably our biggest fear.
	Issues of life and death are the number one topic or number one subject for any kind of psychic experience, whether it's a premonition or telepathy or anything else.
	So it's not too surprising because the importance and the motivational factors are very, very extreme.
	So that's probably why.
	Um, Dean, have you ever, I, since we last talked, I ran into the work of this man, George Meeks.
	You know about that?
	And something called Spiracom?
	Yes.
	I've run into a lot of things in my career doing what I do and looking into these kinds of things here and I It's a little painful to listen to all the Spearcom tapes, but I've done it and I'm telling you I had hair standing up on the back of my neck all the way through that.
	It's some of the most remarkable amazing And I do think it's that.
	I don't think it was any kind of a hoax or anything.
	It was just astounding what Meeks did.
	And I wonder how you feel about that.
	That's a tricky one.
	Oftentimes in the EVP world, electronic voice phenomena world, the assumption is that there's something about the machinery itself which is doing it.
	But I think even the people will admit after a while that the operator, the human element, is equally important, maybe more important.
	I wouldn't argue with that.
	In which case, it raises the possibility that the sounds that are recorded may not be from spirits, but may be from the human operator.
	In fact, this is an issue that comes up in mediumship research all the time.
	Where does the source of information or the source of the influence come from?
	My guess is that it either all the time or almost all the time comes from the human operator.
	Entirely possible, of course.
	Or from the medium.
	Yeah, of course it's possible.
	Yeah, but of course people who wish to look for evidence for survival put that lower on their list of possibilities, because they would rather believe that it's coming from some kind of spirit.
	Are you disinclined to believe that there is a form of consciousness or something that survives?
	I would say, probably like a lot of people, I would like that to be true.
	But I haven't been convinced by the evidence yet.
	I've paid pretty close attention to a broad range of evidence.
	And the reason why I'm skeptical is because we know a lot about psi in the living.
	We don't yet know the limits of psi in the living.
	That's true.
	And by comparison, we don't know anything about psi in the dead.
	I mean, not directly.
	So, it's simply when you use Occam's razor on the evidence to try to decide what you're going to believe, my guess is, my sense of the evidence is that we're dealing with things having to do with living people and not departed people.
	I wish that's not true, and I'm ready to believe it, but that there's some form of consciousness that survives.
	But I haven't been convinced yet.
	So it's not necessarily a natural extension of the work you're doing, which seems mystical and incredible enough to take that other jump to the other side and imagine that somehow survives in all that is so holistic.
	No, I can easily imagine that what we call consciousness, in terms of human awareness, really is tied in some very significant way to the brain.
	And the psychic ability then does not necessarily mean that your mind and your brain are not Well, what you're doing is thoroughly exciting enough.
	And again, your book, The Conscious Universe, is available.
	And if people want to know more, and I can't imagine how they wouldn't, they should go out and grab your book right away.
	My friend, thank you.
	You're welcome.
	It has been an absolute pleasure having you on.
	Good night, Dean.
	Good night.
	We're out of time, folks.
	That's all there is.

▲