Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 26, 2010 - Art Bell

02:35:11

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Consciousness and The Universe - Robert Lanza

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From the Southeast Asian capital city of the Philippines, Manila, I bid you good morning, good afternoon, good evening, whatever the time may be, wherever you are in all of the world's time zones.
	Prolific they are indeed.
	There's 24 and a half of them or something like that.
	A whole bunch.
	We're certainly in a very different one.
	The sun is up.
	It's the middle of the day, about 1 o'clock, a little after 1 o'clock in the afternoon here.
	But my studio has darkened down appropriately for the program we're going to do.
	In fact, it's going to be a particularly good program tonight.
	Coming up very shortly is Dr. Robert Lanza.
	Now, Dr. Lanza is one of the most respected scientists in the world.
	In fact, U.S.
	News & World Report cover story called him a genius, a renegade thinker even likened him to Einstein.
	That's pretty heavy stuff.
	Lanza is currently Chief Scientific Officer at the Advanced Cell Technology at Advanced Cell Technology and an Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
	Has hundreds of publications and inventions, 20 scientific books including principles of time engineering.
	That's right, time engineering, recognized as the definitive reference in the field.
	My kind of guy.
	But if you look at Wikipedia, you find all kinds of interesting things that this man has accomplished.
	For example, he was part of the team that cloned the world's first early human stage embryos for the purpose of generating embryonic stem cells.
	2001, first to clone an endangered species.
	First to demonstrate that nuclear transplantation could be used to reverse the aging process.
	I'm particularly interested in that one.
	Showed it's feasible to generate functional oxygen-carrying red blood cells from human embryonic stem cells under conditions suitable for clinical scale up and on and on and on and on.
	Hence the reference to Einstein.
	So we don't have a lot of time with him tonight, I understand.
	He said he could only spend a couple of hours.
	So what we'll do is open lines and news after that.
	Just a couple of quick items before the break.
	All the ABs are well indeed.
	Including the three furballs, Abby, Yeti and Dolly.
	Everybody asks about them.
	They're here and well.
	Asia!
	Oh, there's a new picture of Asia.
	I cloned myself three years ago.
	And you can see a picture of her on the website, coastalcoastam.com.
	Asia is now talking up a storm and there's a new photograph out of two or three days old only.
	Those are her blocks.
	When she gets a tower built she brings me into the other room and she goes, ta-da!
	So she was in that mood when that picture was taken.
	My antenna is finally up, cutting through hundreds of yards.
	of red tape, it's up, and I've made some friends, some American expats, a couple of friends over in Thailand.
	I want to say hello to HS0ZCW Charlie and HS0ZCX Chuck.
	Charlie's in Bangkok, Chuck is way up in Northeast Thailand, adjacent to the Laos border.
	And let me tell you, this antenna's working.
	Talked to K3Z0 Fred in Washington, D.C.
	K3TW, Tom, back also in the Washington, D.C.
	area.
	So hello to you guys.
	So you can tell it's working.
	And by the way, we rolled through a 6.1 earthquake the other day.
	If the weather over here doesn't begin to change somewhat favorably, I'm going to be saying from the high desert.
	We're in El Nino conditions.
	We haven't had rain in months, save a couple of sprinkles.
	We have not had rain in, I don't know how many months, five months, perhaps?
	And that's just unheard of for over here.
	I mean, we have rainforests.
	You need rain to support rainforests.
	And we really are in the middle of a drought, a very serious drought, beginning to affect hydroelectric production and that kind of thing.
	So, we're praying for rain over here.
	After having, in the last rainy season, nothing but, this year, nothing at all.
	Anyway, coming up in just a moment, Dr. Robert Lanza.
	All right, let's get right to it, because he says he can only spend a couple of hours.
	We'll try and stretch that a little bit, but you never know.
	He's probably got something he's got to do.
	Dr. Lanza, welcome to Coast to Coast AM.
	Thank you.
	It's a pleasure to be sitting here.
	I see on the Wikipedia site there's a picture of Barbara Walters interviewing you.
	Yes.
	She came to my house a year or two ago and did a piece for her special on aging.
	I see.
	Alright, well, I see what you want to talk about.
	It's your book, of course, but you've done so much that, given the time, I'd really like to ask you about a few other things.
	Let's start there, though.
	What is biocentrism?
	Well, it's actually an out-and-out challenge to our view of the world.
	We think that life is just an accident of physics, but a long list of experiments actually suggests the opposite.
	So, amazingly, if you add life to the equation, you can explain some of the biggest puzzles of science.
	So, for instance, it becomes clear why space and time, and even matter itself, depend on the observer.
	And it also explains why our universe appears to be fine-tuned for the existence of life.
	And according to this theory that I'm laying out, consciousness is actually the key to understanding the world.
	All right, slow up a little bit.
	I'm fascinated by consciousness.
	It's been my favorite topic for a long time.
	The world does appear to be fine-tuned for human occupation.
	Right.
	And there are two great and grand theories about that.
	One is design, of course, intelligent design.
	And the other is that it's just that way.
	It has to be that way, because otherwise we simply wouldn't be here.
	So where do you fall in that?
	Well, I mean, obviously the universe has this long list of traits that makes it appear as though everything was tailor-made for us.
	So, for instance, if the Big Bang had been one pot in a million more powerful, the cosmos would have blown out far too fast for stars and worlds to deform.
	Or if the gravitational force was a hair less.
	Stars wouldn't ignite, and there simply wouldn't be a sun.
	And the result, of course, is no us.
	And it turns out there's actually over 200 different parameters so exact that it's strange reason to think that they're just random.
	You tweak any of them, and we never existed.
	So none of these are predicted by any scientific theory, and they all seem to be very carefully chosen to allow for life.
	And so obviously, according to biocentrism, you know, with life and consciousness as the
	key, it's obviously obvious that the universe is simply the logic that would be necessary
	for the observer.
	Um, okay, but I'm still not sure I'm clear on this, on which side you're falling on.
	In other words, yes, all of that certainly is true, but are you suggesting that there was or was not intelligent design?
	Well, intelligent design actually, in the general sense of the word, is referring to it as a creator.
	That's right.
	Somebody in a ball up in the sky that said this is the way or that.
	And biocentrism doesn't really discuss whether or not that's right or wrong.
	What it's basically saying is that Based on various experiments that have been carried out repeatedly in physics, for instance, we know that virtually everything that you see out there, every particle, depends on the observer for their very properties.
	And it turns out that life and consciousness are absolutely essential to reality.
	So that it's clear that without an observer, without the animal observer, you could not
	actually have existence, you could not have reality.
	So therefore, you could not have a universe where life does not exist, that life is simply
	a reflection of, when you think of space and time, they're actually tools of our mind,
	and not these external objects, so that the universe that we think of is basically a concept
	that basically is the complete spatial-temporal logic of the animal observer, if that makes
	any sense.
	Put simply, it's all in our minds.
	Well, yes, actually.
	So, without us to observe it, Are you suggesting it would not be?
	Well, for us it wouldn't be, obviously, but I mean, it would still physically, the physics of everything that's here, plus or minus humanity, would still be the physics of here.
	Well, it actually turns out, and there are very real experiments that show you this, is that there is not a single... that matter, the properties of matter, do not actually exist until they're actually observed.
	They actually exist in what's called a state of superposition, so that they're just probability waves.
	And so, let's just give you an example.
	So, this is an experiment called the two-hole experiment.
	When scientists watch a particle pass through two holes in a barrier, The particle behaves like a little bullet and logically it
	goes through one hole or the other.
	But the strange part is that if you don't watch it, it acts like a wave.
	It can actually go through more than one hole at the same time.
	So you say, well, how can that be?
	You know, if there's really a particle out there, how come it would change its behavior
	on whether or not you watch it or not?
	And the answer is simple.
	That reality is a process that does involve our consciousness.
	Or even one of the mainstream foundations of quantum theory is something known as Eisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which you may have heard of.
	If there was really a world out there with particles just bouncing around that existed independent of us, then why should we not be able to measure all their properties?
	And it turns out that if you decide to know the exact location, you can't know the particle's momentum.
	Or if you look at the momentum, you can't know its location.
	So why should the properties of matter depend on what you decide to measure. Again, the answer is
	simple. The particles just aren't out there independent of our consciousness. And it goes on and
	on. There's something called entangled particles. Yeah, and you know, if you were to send these
	pairs of particles in opposite directions, the opposite sides of the galaxy, they would actually
	behave as if there was no space or no time between them.
	And again, why?
	And that again is because space and time are not these external objects.
	They're really tools of our mind.
	Well, nobody's been able to adequately explain to me how that works, how those particles know to behave in a similar fashion across time and space as though it did not exist.
	And they do.
	It's just, it's not possible and it's not possible to explain.
	At least I know nobody who has yet done it.
	You're suggesting biocentrism does explain it.
	Yes, I think one of the mistakes, one of the faulty assumptions of current science is that space and time are these external objects.
	And as far back as Immanuel Kant, you know, he knew that space and time were really forms of our intuition, of our understanding.
	So wave your hand through the year.
	You know, you can take everything away, but what's left?
	And the answer, of course, is nothing.
	And the same thing applies for time.
	You can't put it in a bottle like milk.
	So you can look at anything, say the radio.
	You can't see that through the bone that surrounds your brain.
	It turns out that everything you see and experience right now
	is a world of information occurring inside your head.
	So space and time are simply the mind's tools for putting it all together.
	And we carry them around like turtles with shells.
	I mean, you know, if anyone falls off to sleep or dozes off here, you'll probably go into a dream.
	And yet, in your dream, your mind certainly has the capacity to fly or jump off cliffs.
	You can create a spatial temporal reality.
	So clearly, your mind has the ability to organize things.
	Are you suggesting that if we were to be able to learn to use our consciousness in a specific way, we might be able to alter what we perceive as reality?
	Well, unfortunately, if you jump off the roof, you're going to get hurt very badly, regardless of whether you want to fly or not.
	So you do actually follow the rules of causality.
	So you can decide whether or not you want to have Captain Crunch or Corn Flakes for breakfast.
	But what biocentrism is saying is that reality is a process.
	It's not just something that you just open your eyes and it's out there.
	You know, our view of the world is the same as like a chickmunk or a squirrel.
	You know, the squirrel opens his eyes and the acorn is just miraculously there.
	And he grabs it and scurries up the tree without any further thought.
	And we humans are really the same.
	We wake up in the morning and the world is just magically there.
	But again, as I just mentioned, there are experiments that show that not a single particle exists with any real properties until it's observed.
	In fact, one of Einstein's colleagues, John Wheeler, he actually was the guy who coined the word black hole, he actually said that no phenomena is a real phenomena until it's observed.
	And even Stephen Hawking at this point now has a new concept of the universe, what he
	calls his top-down theory, where he's saying that the actual observer actually determines
	the past.
	If you think about it, if the particles right now in the present are not determined until
	you observe them, then how can there actually be a past?
	So this stuff starts to get very, very weird, which is why you can understand the physicists
	are having such a hard time with it.
	I think it was Einstein himself who mentioned when talking about quantum action that it
	I think that's the word he used, weird, or something like that.
	Well, exactly.
	Imagine, you know, the scientists are doing an experiment, they send a particle through these two slits in a barrier, and like I said, at first, when they're observing them, they go right through like little bullets, just like you'd expect.
	But why would you, Would they be able to go through more than one hole or two holes at the same time when you're not looking at it?
	The only difference, and this has been done over and over and over, and it completely depends on whether you even think about observing it.
	So the key here is the observer, not the apparatus, as some people had initially thought.
	That would imply that we sort of create our own matrix.
	Yeah, actually, it's true to a certain extent.
	I mean, you know, right now, time is just saying that there's just this, you know, space and time out there, sort of like you're mixing eggs in with the flour to make a cake.
	And again, that's silly.
	If you think about it, You know, space and time are not like the shells you pick up along the seashore.
	It's not this external matrix.
	It's basically the matrix that your mind is actually doing right at this current time.
	I mean, if you think about it right now, you're talking to me on the cutting edge of all of infinity, on the cutting edge of time.
	If you were to take all the hours, all the days that have existed since the beginning of time,
	and pile them on top of one another, and then sit yourself on the top,
	that's how we are thinking of time. And that's silly. The mathematical probability of you or I
	just being one in a gazillion chance of being on top of time is really zero.
	So we really need to start thinking more of how the world is put together.
	Again, that reality is a process, not this object out there.
	All right.
	Ara, there is a good hard science to support this.
	Well, you know, as I mentioned, there are literally, you know, hundreds and hundreds
	of different experiments that now are actually the cornerstone of all of quantum physics.
	So again, I mentioned to you this two-hole experiment.
	Again, the Eisenberg's famous uncertainty principle, the entangled particles.
	And there's actually a really very interesting experiment, actually, that was just published
	a couple years ago in one of the prestigious scientific journals called Science.
	And what they actually showed that was flipping a switch when a particle went into an apparatus
	could actually retroactively change an event that had already happened in the past.
	And of course, we live in that same world.
	So again, there's very real, hard experiments that are telling us that particles simply do not exist out there with real particles until they're observed.
	Right, okay, well, let's look at the quantum action of, this bizarre quantum action of particles that doesn't make any sense, in the sense that we know there has to be communication between these two particles.
	There has to be.
	How can they know to flip and flop exactly the same way, no matter how far apart they are, exceeding the speed of light?
	I mean, this completely defies everything we knew about, we thought we knew about physics, completely defies it.
	And so there's got to be some kind of communication that's taking place in a realm that we haven't yet uncovered.
	Well, this is exactly it.
	You know, again, Einstein said that, you know, the universe was all put together according to, you know, the speed of light, and that there, you know, was this space-time matrix.
	And exactly, if that were the case, obviously they couldn't, nothing could happen faster than the speed of light.
	And of course, these experiments very clearly suggest that that is not the case.
	And as you mentioned, They actually did an experiment a few years ago where they actually sent two particles on fiber optics seven miles apart.
	In what one particle, when they changed one particle, it instantaneously changed the other particle.
	So these are real experiments.
	And if that's the case, why did they act as if there was no space between them?
	How could they possibly do that?
	And how come it worked instantaneously, as if there was no time delay?
	And the reason is, is that space and time are not these external objects.
	They're just the forms of our intuition.
	They're the way our mind actually puts things together.
	So they're not real, hard objects.
	And that's where science goes astray.
	And we all know in our mind, or I should say, logically in our heart, is that, you know, looking out over
	the ocean or whatever, that space, what is it?
	You know, again, it's not a thing, and the same with time.
	What is time?
	These are very intangible things, they're not like, you know, a rock that you'd pick
	up off the ground.
	So we know there's something funny about space and time, and the reason there's something
	funny is that they're not these objects, they're not these things.
	And those, I'm going to think of how to ask this, we're coming up on a break, but there
	have been a lot of consciousness experiments.
	I ran a few of my own a few years ago, that just, that literally scared the hell out of
	me.
	I mean, we had millions of people concentrating on producing rain, and by God, we produced
	rain in spots that really, really needed it.
	We'll talk about this after the break.
	Doctor, hold on.
	It goes very, very quickly.
	Consciousness, time and space, all my favorite subjects from Manila, Philippines.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Actually, what Einstein called it was spooky action at a distance.
	Weird would work.
	It's kind of unlike Einstein to dismiss anything by just, you know, saying spooky action at a distance, but certainly that's what it is to us right now.
	While there are scientific experiments telling us this does go on, Clearly, it doesn't tell us how just yet.
	Robert Lanza, Dr. Robert Lanza, is our guest, and we're talking about biocentrism.
	We'll be right back.
	I'm Art Bell for George Noy, taking a deserved night off.
	I may well be here next week, same time, same station, and all that baloney.
	All right, doctor.
	Let me back up a little bit.
	There are universities doing experiments with consciousness.
	Are you familiar at all with those experiments?
	Yes, I'm aware of some of that work.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Okay, the eggs that are planted all over the world, they call them eggs, they're really computers and they're monitoring and have been for years now, big events, 9-11 type things and then taking a look at Any variations in what these computers are saying they're spitting out random numbers and when they begin to be not so random that registers on a scale and for example when 9-11 occurred it went off the scale so they believe they're looking at a mass consciousness reaction that sort of thing.
	Yeah I'm not too familiar with the details of that I've heard about it again and you know and I have to concur of course that you know consciousness is indeed everything Uh, on the other hand, you know, trained as a scientist, you know, a bit conservative and skeptic.
	But I have to agree, you know, there's a lot more going on than science currently acknowledges.
	And I think, obviously, biocentrism opens up many possibilities that might even explain some of those results.
	When you write a book about this, which really is a theory at this point, because even though there are experiments that sort of underline the whole thing, they don't absolutely prove it yet because it's still spooky, spooky, spooky.
	We don't know what it is.
	So it creates a lot of controversy.
	I imagine your book has done that?
	Absolutely, yeah.
	You have to remember, again, that this is an out-and-out challenge to physicists and indeed our whole view of the world.
	So it's really not surprising that some people get a bit defensive, even a bit nasty.
	But that being said, I've actually gotten dozens of emails from people, from professors, even chairmen of scientific departments at Johns Hopkins and Columbia.
	And the main problem, I think, that is here is that biocentrism is a proposal for a paradigm shift.
	So by definition, a new paradigm always appears to be nonsense from within the established paradigm.
	But again, that's what science is all about, to carry out experiments and to determine what's really going on.
	But you have to remember that scientists are human beings, they're people too, and they have prejudices and preconceptions like the rest of us.
	So it's hard to, as Einstein once said, you know, God doesn't play dice.
	And what he was basically reacting to was the fact that he couldn't wrap his mind around all of this new physics, all this new quantum theory that said that probability rules and that there were these probability states.
	So it takes time for people to really go through and change their whole way of viewing the world.
	Is it possible that, let me ask again, that if we directed consciousness in a certain way, or changed our perceptions, that it would change our reality?
	Well, again, we know for scientific fact that decisions you make absolutely do impact what's going on in the physical world.
	Experiment after experiment, that again, as in the two-hole experiment, if you do one thing, the properties of matter will be one way, and if you do another, it'll be different.
	And again, as in that science experiment that was carried out a couple years ago, and there's a long list of such landmark experiments, we know that, again, you send these particles through this apparatus, they make a decision as they go through a fork, and then later on, well after that event, You can make a decision whether to flip the switch on or off, and it will actually change what that particle actually did at that previous fork.
	So this is not, you know, science fiction.
	This is not speculation.
	These are real experiments.
	So biocentrism does not rule out intelligent design, perhaps wisely in the book.
	Well, yeah, well actually, you know, intelligent design, if you look at it in a generic sense, yes, of course there's intelligent design in that, yes, the universe is designed.
	You know, what science says right now is that, you know, 14 billion years ago, the universe popped out of nothing one day with all the laws of nature
	intact, out of nothing.
	Well, that's absurd.
	So the point is, is obviously there are very specific laws of nature,
	there are gravitational constants, there's all sorts of properties,
	and where do they come from?
	They didn't just randomly just come out of nowhere, and the universe isn't randomly expanding into nothing.
	There is a design, and the design, as many great philosophers in the past have said,
	this is because the laws of nature are in our mind.
	It's actually the way we actually construct reality.
	The laws of nature are in our mind.
	Right.
	So, again, as I mentioned to you, space and time are not these objects out there.
	They're actually tools of the mind.
	They're actually the way the mind puts things together.
	So, again, the way to look at this is, right now, look at anything in the room, okay?
	And you say, oh, well, you know, there's a chair, there's a table, there's the radio.
	But the truth of the matter is, you can't see that.
	You can't see through the cranium, through a vault of bone.
	Everything you see out there is happening in your mind.
	It's being constructed.
	So your mind is actually putting that all together according to very specific rules.
	And these rules, in our particular case, are the laws of space and time.
	Basically, the way the mind is actually able to do that, whether it's in a dream, or schizophrenia, or in reality.
	And in all those cases, the objects and things you see, you're experiencing them according to those rules that are happening in your mind.
	Einstein said the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion, which is essentially what, it's kind of what you're saying, a stubbornly persistent illusion, meaning the whole thing is an illusion.
	Can choices we make really change anything in the past?
	Well, yeah.
	Time, again, as I said, it's just a funny thing.
	And, you know, again, as I mentioned, you know, we're talking right now on top of the cutting edge of time, which, again, is really a silly idea.
	So instead of thinking of time, you know, like this arrow, you should really think of it like one of those old vinyl records you used to play.
	You know, depending on where the needle is, you hear a certain song, and then that's the present.
	And before and after is the past and the future.
	So all the songs exist simultaneously, even if you can only experience them piece by piece.
	And again, this is sort of what that science experiment and other experiments like it have been basically
	trying to tell us.
	And again, no physicist questions the fact that particles possess a range of possible states,
	and that it's not actually until you observe them that they take on real physical properties.
	So until the present is determined, how can there actually be a past?
	And again, Stephen Hawking, as well as the great physicist Stephen, I'm sorry, John Wheeler,
	agree it can't really be any other way.
	So John Wheeler actually died last year.
	But just before he died, he's well known for having said that.
	That when you observe light coming from a distant quasar, you know, obviously billions of years off, we're setting up this huge quantum observation on an enormous, large scale.
	And it means, he said, that measurements that we make right now on that light, when we observe it, determines the path it actually took billions of years ago.
	So yes, choices we make now really do change the past.
	What possible, if we were to refine this and understand it perfectly, what would we be able to do?
	Would we be able, for example, to time travel?
	Well, it's interesting, exactly.
	You know, there's obviously string theory and other theories that have tried to address this as well, but I think sometime in the future, Science is going to be able to create realities that we can't even begin to imagine.
	So, as we evolve, we'll be able to construct other information systems, other universes, that are based on logic completely different than ours, and that are not based on space and time.
	So, right now, for instance, you know, our destiny is to live and die in the everyday world of up and down, but what if, for example, we change the algorithms So that instead of time being linear, it was three-dimensional, like space.
	If that were the case, consciousness could move through the multiverse and would be able to actually walk through time, just like we walk through space.
	So, yeah, after creeping along for four billion years, life would finally figure out how to escape from its corporeal cage.
	Can you imagine how that might be done?
	Well, yeah, absolutely.
	I think the whole key, you know, we're trying to understand this now, I think the whole field of artificial intelligence is trying to, you know, how to create thinking machines.
	And in order to do that, we really need to figure out those algorithms that allow us to actually have what we call consciousness.
	And that again is understanding those rules that I mentioned
	that we use in our mind to construct space and time.
	And once we know how that works and how the mind is constructing that
	the same way as it does it in our dreams, then we can modify that
	and at that point it won't be rocket to take us the next step.
	I mean we're simply going to be able to create realities that exist outside the known physical universe.
	Do we get there when we discover the theory of everything?
	Well, I think, yes, I think the theory of everything right now, the way physics or science conceives of it is, you know, they want to put together some mathematical equations that explain the various forces of nature.
	And that's all great.
	But what A real theory of everything you should do is actually not to say, you know, here's an equation.
	You can write an equation down.
	It doesn't mean anything unless it explains something very real.
	And once we truly do know how the world is constructed, how it all operates, yes, I think that at that point, you know, there's got to be a lot, you know, that we're going to be able to do that will be quite amazing.
	I would love to be able to travel to the past.
	I would just simply love it.
	And it's been, I guess, a dream all my life.
	And you think that one day that will be possible.
	Is it going to take some sort of discovery in physics, some sort of machine to assist in that?
	Or do you think that it can be done?
	In consciousness.
	Right, yeah.
	So first of all, I doubt we could ever do anything using a machine.
	I think you probably need to think more along the lines, actually, Christopher Reeves was in a movie called Somewhere in Time.
	I was just about to mention that movie!
	And there is a reality to this.
	The truth of the matter is, as I said to you, when Einstein said that the past and future are illusions, he's very real.
	Again, as I mentioned to you, we're not just accidentally, like I said, sitting on top of infinity.
	silly linear idea, you know, and so I think that once we get past that old way of thinking,
	that I think we'll start making these breakthroughs, and probably rather soon.
	So I think right now people, for instance, are trying to, again, construct thinking machines,
	and putting together these various wires and senses, and this is all great, but those machines
	will never think, we're never going to have David of AI or Data from Star Trek.
	The way we'll do that is once we understand what consciousness is, and consciousness is
	exactly what is now.
	What space and time are all about.
	I mean, we actually, the external world is the spatial world, and things occur in our mind to make things move.
	The temporal component of that.
	And once we understand, as again, Immanuel Kant pointed out hundreds of years ago, I
	think then we can put together the algorithms so that we will then create a machine or a
	computer that is able to process information according to those algorithms.
	And once we can do that, the constructs, these restrictions that we have right now that we're
	thinking of space and time, they don't really exist independent of the observer.
	So they're not these external things.
	And once we figure out that, I think we're going to be able to manipulate those and indeed,
	through those algorithms, modify them to do whatever we want.
	I mean, again, that's exactly what you're doing right now.
	You can go to sleep right now, and dream about something else, and you'll experience it, and it'll be just as real as right now you're talking to me.
	You know, those are things that can actually be constructed simply by, you know, as I mentioned earlier, you know, our mind put things together.
	So, for instance, I could use a little genetic engineering and could make everything that you see that's red turn green or make it vibrate or make it make a noise.
	So, again, you know, You can think of, for instance, a frog, a tropical frog.
	To us, it may feel cold and dry.
	I mean, it may feel hot and humid, but to that frog it would feel cold and dry.
	So this logic applies to virtually everything.
	So I think that we are going to be in a position at some time in the future to start playing around with
	those rules so that we can actually do some of those amazing things like you said, you know,
	basically deal with time differently than we do today.
	Do you think it would be possible one day for a machine not only to be artificially intelligent, but to achieve
	consciousness?
	I think the only way it can be achieved, of course, is using, yes,
	those algorithms.
	Because the reason for that is, as I mentioned, we know from every experiment that's been carried out in quantum physics, that particles simply aren't out there.
	They exist in this state of probability.
	They're just not there.
	And it's only through the observer that they take on real particles.
	And again, the same for space and time.
	So until we figure out the nature of that relationship, Nothing can happen.
	So right now, we think that we can build from one side of nature, the physical end, without the living.
	And we can't.
	And that is why our theories just are not working.
	And so again, this is why in those two-hole experiments, if you're not observing it, it can go through all the holes at one time, because it's not really there.
	It's not until your consciousness is involved that it actually, you know,
	the scaffolding is laid out.
	So again, yeah, I think we will be able to create machines that can think
	as long as they employ the same rules and algorithms that we enjoy.
	Think, think, think. But I said consciousness.
	Take your best shot at defining consciousness for me.
	So reality, as I mentioned earlier, is a process, not a thing.
	So again, you look outside and you go, the rock and the table are there.
	And again, we know, even from classical science, that it's not.
	I mean, red is subjective.
	There's no such thing as red out there.
	That's in your head.
	So, and that applies to all sorts of things.
	So you look at, again, the kitchen, and you say, well, it's, you know,
	your stove or your refrigerator are there.
	But again, we know that not a single particle, according to physics, exists in that exact,
	it has no properties whatsoever until it's observed.
	So what consciousness is, is that process.
	So we think of it like a film.
	you have these different slides that one follows the other.
	And those are spatial states.
	And then what happens is in your mind, they basically, when you run that together,
	you actually get this sensation of movement or action.
	But what is the glue between those slides?
	There isn't.
	That is actually just simply the way the mind perceives change in spatial states.
	And again, this is exactly why Eisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is in play.
	It turns out that if you think of this like a projector, that if you stop the projector, you can know very precisely.
	For instance, say you have a movie film of someone playing an archery tournament.
	If you stop that film right And still, you can say, ah, there's where the arrow is.
	It's 20 feet above the grandstand.
	But you know nothing at that point about what it's doing, its momentum, where it's going.
	So when you start the projector again, oh, you go, oh, there it is.
	It's going to fall over the air.
	It's going so fast, or whatever.
	But then, once it's moving, you have no idea of its exact location.
	And that's exactly what we're seeing in the very structure of the physical world.
	I mean, we've done these experiments, and we know that there's all sorts of these complementary properties
	that if you you measure one you can't know the other. So this is a real
	feature of the world.
	If none of us were left to observe, what would be here?
	Hold your answer, because once again, we're out of break.
	It goes very, very quickly when you're talking about this sort of thing.
	My guest is Dr. Robert Lanza, who's been compared to Einstein.
	Biocentrism is his book, and I'll just bet you it's generated all kinds of controversy.
	We'll be right back.
	From the other side of the world, Manila, Philippines.
	As a matter of fact, from Washington, D.C., the gentleman I talked to back there, if you drive a pin from Washington, D.C.
	straight through the globe, you're pretty close to the Philippines.
	It's just about exactly the other side of the world.
	That's amazing in itself.
	I'm able to sit here on the other side of the world and talk with you and Dr. Lanza, who has written a book that I'm going to have to ask about Because I'm not sure it makes sense.
	Here we have a hard scientist, a man who literally pioneered stem cell research.
	Such hard science turning to this theory.
	I wonder, well, we'll ask in a moment.
	Dr. Robert Lanza, we'll be right back.
	Curiosity killed the cat, I guess, right?
	Schroeder's cat.
	How does a hard scientist like yourself, a man in the hard sciences, I mean really deeply in the hard sciences, turn and begin thinking about biocentrism, that sort of thing?
	Well, I mean, that's exactly what a scientist is supposed to do.
	He's supposed to follow the experiments and make decisions and try to figure out what the world is all about based on the experiments.
	And basically what has been going on is that we've been having all these experiments, the science experiments, the two-hole experiments, all these, just sweeping them under the rug.
	And there's all sorts of very clumsy excuses.
	So, for instance, everyone says all this weirdness that we've been talking about only happens in the micro-world.
	There are really two worlds, the little world of the atom and then the big world where you and I live.
	But the thing here is that that doesn't hold up because there have been new experiments recently that are showing, for instance, something called buckyballs, these huge carbon 60 molecules.
	And they show that those molecules actually now are following the same rules and properties and the same weirdness.
	that we actually are seeing in the micro world, all the quantum phenomenon.
	And likewise, even more recent experiments where they use crystals are actually showing
	that this weirdness is now going into waves up to a half an inch.
	And there are new experiments actually on the books that are going to show it.
	It's called Scaled-Up Quantum Superposition.
	They'll actually show, hopefully, that this occurs at the level of tables and chairs of you and I. So we can't just keep ignoring and saying, OK, we'll worry about it downstream.
	The experiments are real, and we've got to accept the conclusions.
	The problem is that goes against everything we've been taught and trained ever since, you know, kindergarten.
	And so what I'm trying to do as a scientist is to put these experiments together in a way where they don't contradict one another.
	And the conclusion is actually what the physicists originally concluded, something known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, where, again, if you extrapolate the results to the world, you arrive at more or less the same conclusion, they just didn't have an appropriate explanation.
	And as a biologist, I'm stepping into the equation and I am saying, yes, that's because you can't explain the world without taking into consideration consciousness, what's
	going on in terms of our perception of the world, in terms of what's going on in the mind.
	Okay, well if it's going on across the board, even in the larger world that we observe every
	day and we finally understand it, how will it impact our world?
	Well, again, as I mentioned earlier, I think that you're going to see, once we understand
	what's going on here, obviously not only in terms of new generation of thinking machines
	and whatever, we've seen some of this.
	Can you give me an example?
	some of the science fiction movies, but again, I think that all sorts of human relationships
	will be altered.
	I mean, there's many things that we think of as going on in the world that are just
	wrong based on a false premise.
	So I think you're going to see all sorts of changes that downstream will basically change
	civilization as we know it.
	Can you give me an example?
	Things that are going on, you suggested.
	Now?
	Right now, again, I'm giving you the most concrete example is, again, the artificial
	I mean, if we want to have a new generation of machines and computers that can think and act like we do, again, we need to understand What is going on and how this works?
	So I think that as soon as we change our perspective and look at this whole issue of what are these algorithms?
	What is consciousness?
	How does that account for what's going on and what we're observing in the physical world?
	I think then we can put the piece together, the pie together, and at that point be able to create, hopefully not too far downstream, machines, for instance, that can think, the new generation of artificial intelligence.
	I've heard some people suggest that consciousness is simply self-awareness.
	Is that on or off base?
	Well, you know, I think, you know, it's part of it.
	I mean, I actually published a paper with, you know, the famous behaviorist, B.F.
	Skinner, called Self-Awareness in the Pigeon.
	And so, yeah, I think that, you know, self-awareness, you know, is part of a consciousness, obviously, because, you know, what is consciousness?
	It's the me.
	It's the I-feeling.
	And so, obviously, you're aware of yourself.
	Now, in lower animals, for instance, That gets a little fuzzy.
	You know, we show that our particular experiment that pigeons had self-awareness.
	But, you know, in the field of psychology, you know, there's several famous experiments where they actually show that only higher primates have this self-awareness.
	But there are degrees.
	So we show in our paper in science that actually pigeons and even lower animals have certain aspects of that self-awareness.
	And so, you know, you can dissect what that means, but consciousness in the way I'm talking about it is in the big picture.
	I'm talking about consciousness is actually part of the process of reality as we know it, and it starts to explain what is going on in the world in terms of the foundations of physics, in terms of all these various experiments, you know, that we've talked about.
	What does all this mean about death?
	Right now, again, we think we just die and rot into the ground, and that's really, you know, a silly idea, and it's really based on, you know, our view that, you know, we are associated with bodies and we know that they self-destruct.
	So again, there are these experiments that collectively suggest that whole view of the
	world is wrong.
	In fact, you know, I mentioned some of the quantum physics experiments, but one of the
	mainstream interpretations actually in the physics community is something known as the
	mini-world interpretation.
	And what that states is that there's an infinite number of universes, quote-unquote, the multiverse,
	that correlates with this range of possible observations that we see in the micro-world.
	So everything that can possibly happen occurs in...
	Some of those universes.
	So in that sense, death doesn't really exist.
	In all these possible universes, they exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any one of them.
	And what biocentrism actually does is it extends that idea and suggests that life is an unfolding, an adventure that really transcends Our linear way of thinking.
	So although our bodies, again, self-destruct, that me feeling is just energy that operates in the brain.
	And we know that that energy doesn't go away at death.
	One of the surest principles of science is that energy never dies.
	It can never be created or destroyed.
	And so when we die, we don't die in this random billiard ball matrix, but in what I call the inescapable life matrix.
	So life has this non-linear dimensionality that transcends Individually, any individual history, universe, it's sort of like a perennial flower that returns to bloom in the multiverse.
	So like in that science experiment I had mentioned earlier, whether you're flipping a switch or making other choices, it will be you who experiences those various outcomes in resulting universes.
	So death doesn't really exist in a timeless, spaceless world.
	Would you care to speculate on what that is going to mean for us at death in a way we can understand?
	Well, you know, I mean, I think it's very much like going into a different room.
	I think that we know, for instance, you know, that, you know, you can watch a movie and, you know, it's real and it's exciting, but that when it's over, that is over, but it doesn't mean that that goes away.
	So it's very much like, again, like your vinyl record, that, you know, you listen to one song and that's the now, that's the present.
	And you can move the needle, and there will be other places, you know, before or after that, that will be in the now where it is.
	But just because you listen to one song doesn't mean the other ones don't exist.
	So I think all the ranges of what's possible are possible.
	The problem we have in thinking about death, and this is again what Einstein was alluding to when he says that the past and present are just, you know, illusions.
	Is that we think of it in this linear way that, you know, we just die and that's it.
	And that is exactly what's going on with those entangled particles that, you know, the spooky action at a distance and all this.
	Our whole idea of space and time, we got the foundation wrong.
	Again, they are the way the mind puts it together, the not real absolute realities that exist out there.
	And again, that was what Einstein, you know, introduced into our understanding of the world.
	Energy remains, but do you think consciousness continues in a coherent manner?
	Yeah, so again, what's going on is energy itself is just really the foundation, the fundamentals of what we experience in the physical world.
	So matter, as Einstein said, E equals mc squared, is that matter is energy, vice versa.
	We know you can create particle, anti-particle peers from just pure energy.
	And we know that you can, if you introduce an anti-particle with a particle, that they
	will disintegrate into energy itself, into electromagnetic waves.
	So again, we know that everything is made up of energy.
	And energy is actually motion.
	It's actually something happening in time, temporal activity in space.
	A change in space.
	So again, those are already in the external world.
	That is how the mind...
	actually, if you dissect what's going on, would be reduced to. And that is what we're
	studying in these quantum experiments. We're going down, studying actually electromagnetic
	energy itself, waves, particles of electromagnetic energy are called photons. And those are the
	particles, for instance, that we're studying in many of these experiments.
	So death, as we perceive it, is, I don't know, just our own perception.
	There's no real death, if what you're saying is accurate.
	Right.
	I mean, think about it.
	Death requires there to be time out there.
	Something, some invisible matrix that, you know, we don't see out there just ticking away.
	And that's silly.
	That's just simply not what's going on out there.
	So again, if you don't have, if time isn't This external thing that's just out there, then that's how come we think of death.
	We think of that, well, when I die, you know, after me.
	And that's, again, why you're running into all these same contradictions.
	You know, why are we on top of infinity right now, on top of all time?
	I mean, again, lots of very silly ideas.
	Why the Big Bang?
	You know, how can you... What happened the day before the Big Bang?
	I mean, these are all silly questions that are based on a wrong understanding of space and time. And Immanuel Kant,
	like I said, laid this out in his Critique of Pure Reason a long time ago, but it was
	so heavy. Now, I know people recognize him as a genius, but actually there's a fun
	little story that when he...Hubert Spencer, actually, who was one of the great philosophers at the time
	when he read his book, threw it on the ground as if he's a stupid man. And it turns out
	that even one of his top colleagues, when he got the manuscript that Immanuel Kant sent it to
	him, he got halfway through it and gave it back to him and he said, this is just too
	barbarous for me to read, and I can't understand this. So the problem is that we think
	very superficially, and we open our eyes, the world is there, and we don't really think
	much further than that.
	Again, as I mentioned earlier, we're like a chickmunk or a squirrel.
	So I think that this is part of the problem.
	And I think that what we're confronted with now are new experiments that are now saying, well, you know, unless you keep ignoring the experiments, This is the way it is.
	And so we need to change our worldview, the way we see things.
	And time, again, being this object or invisible matrix out there, is just silly.
	It's wrong.
	And at some point, I think, you know, we're going to have to accept these experiments and realize that.
	Well, all right.
	One second before the Big Bang.
	That is an important question, because I know you're saying it isn't, but it is, because we want to know if there was a hand Yeah.
	That created it, or whether it was just, I don't know.
	I don't know and nobody knows, but it does seem like an important question.
	You sort of dismissed it, but there was no time until there were objects.
	When there were objects, we could look at the movement of those objects and measure the movement, hence there was time.
	When you have movement, you can measure, you then have time, right?
	Let's just think of this in steps.
	Right now, as we know from the experiment, no particle that you can possibly observe has any properties until you observe it.
	That means only now, when you're observing something, does a particle actually manifest itself.
	This is the two-hole experiment.
	When you look at it, you see it, it acts like a ball, it goes through that hole.
	But if you don't look at it, The reason it can go through all these holes at the same time is simple.
	It's what we, in physics, they call a probability wave.
	It means it's just potential.
	And so, therefore, it's only when you decide to observe what happened to it that it'll actually collapse and have basically done something.
	Because, you know, probability waves are not real things.
	They're just statistical projections.
	So, again, what's going on here are that we, right now, look out at the room, you see an object, okay?
	You're sitting on a chair.
	Now you're sitting on a chair, and you know that chair is on the Earth, which is spinning
	around on its axis, and that's going around the Sun, which is going around in the Milky
	Way, and that's in the Universe.
	And you can project exactly all the spatial logic until you come to the known and edge
	of the known Universe.
	So that's an exhaustive extrapolation of the logic of you right now talking to me on the
	phone.
	You can take, okay, you can say, okay, well, you and I are made up of molecules, say for
	instance carbon.
	Now carbon, we know from your basic science books, is formed in the hottest exploding
	supernovae, which are formative.
	Uh, events in the universe, and if you extrapolate all that back, all that logic back to its ultimate extreme, you come back to a singularity where, you know, matter goes down into its smaller components, the plasma and the nuclei and the electrons, and then eventually down to nothing.
	So, if you think of the universe, sort of think of it like one of those globes that you used to have in the schoolroom.
	You think of the world.
	And that round sphere is just a concept of, in theory, if you were to be everywhere on this planet, this is what you'd have, is this round ball.
	But it doesn't mean that, you know, you can go to Antarctica or whatever.
	Likewise, the universe is a concept.
	It's basically all the logic associated with your existence.
	And so again, right now, sitting on the chair, I can extrapolate all the way out to the edge
	of the known universe.
	But as John Wheeler pointed out, even light coming from the edge of the universe, the
	path will not be determined until it's observed.
	And so when you observe it, you're actually...
	And this guy was the guy, again, who coined the word black hole, wormhole.
	I mean, this guy was not dope.
	He was actually one of the colleagues working with Einstein.
	He says that when you observe that, you actually are determining what path that light took
	billions of years ago.
	So again, this is hard to wrap your mind around, and even Stephen Hawkins now, again, as I mentioned earlier, is changing his perspective and is now having to agree, obviously based on the data, that what happens now in the present actually does impact our history and universe. And so what happened
	before the Big Bang, you're talking about the end of the extrapolation. The extrapolation goes
	back to nothing. So those are just the theoretical way our mind would say, if we were to go and
	project back, all the way back in the logic, this would be the complete logic that
	explains who you are. Does that make sense?
	I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
	Yeah, that's a lot of information.
	And this is exactly why physicists and scientists are struggling so hard with these newer experiments.
	So, would there or would there not be consciousness involved in the Big Bang?
	I almost said creation, but I'll say the Big Bang.
	So again, the whole thing again is that when you think about the Big Bang, it's really no different than looking at the moon.
	Or looking at your chair.
	Again, without an observer, not a single particle, whether it was in the Big Bang or in your chair, whether it's part of the Moon or your kitchen, has any definite properties.
	So until they're observed, they exist only in what we call probability waves, or they're only the potential.
	So again, as in the two-hole experiment, which again goes to the core of this whole issue, is that those particles Basically, we'll not go through one hole or the other until you look at them.
	And until you do that, they could be... Doctor, hold it right there.
	I'm sorry.
	We're at a break.
	But there was, prior to the Big Bang, there was no mass, right?
	So, let me think about that.
	I'm Art Bell.
	Heartaches and headaches.
	That's what you'll get from trying to think about what we're talking about tonight.
	My guest has been compared to Einstein, Robert Lanza, Dr. Robert Lanza, and he is a pioneer and still set as research.
	I'm going to ask him about that.
	We'll get to that.
	But if I think along the lines of what Dr. Lanza is saying, and I consider the Big Bang, the Big Bang, prior to the Big Bang there was We'll see if he agrees.
	No mass, so there was no gravity, and there was no time.
	Because time is a construct, according to Dr. Lanza, in our own minds, right?
	So, Big Bang, no mass, no gravity.
	My question would be, if that is so, and I bet he agrees, perhaps not with this part, then how did the Big Bang happen without Conscious direction, or without consciousness being involved, because at that time there was nobody, well none of us anyway, to observe.
	Right?
	So, there must have been consciousness involved with the Big Bang.
	Certainly wouldn't be our consciousness, would it?
	Dr. Robert Lanza back in a moment.
	Alright, let's try it out.
	So, Dr. The Big Bang, prior to that, no mass, hence no gravity, and I guess my question would be, how did The Big Bang happen without consciousness of some sort being involved?
	Well, part of the problem here is that we're thinking in terms of the old paradigm, and we know the world just isn't out there independent of the observer.
	So again, that indeed is consciousness, so that when you think about whether it's the early part of the universe, or even earlier, all the way back to the Big Bang, That is basically what you would see if in fact you were
	there.
	So in fact, if you were the observer, you could actually trace back your, you know,
	you talking to me right now, all the way back theoretically to the moment where the logic actually comes to an end.
	So if you think about right now, you're a human being, you're made up of the carbon molecules.
	Again, some of those molecules were made, you know, along the way, you know, during the evolution of.
	the Milky Way and other earlier stages.
	And then right just after the Big Bang, actually as you go back in time,
	actually the atoms start to then, the components that actually made up atoms will form.
	So the electrons and the nuclei, they will form.
	Then you can go back even further to, you know, there are different particles
	inside those particles that in theory go all the way back.
	And then just before that, when you come to the bottom of that whole,
	of the backwards in evolution, you come to the point of where the logic starts.
	So it's basically an extrapolation of our own existence, of our spatial-temporal things.
	So again, it's like that round globe we were talking about.
	You have the globe, and in theory you could go to Antarctica, but you don't know whether you can really get there, and so you probably could never go back to the Big Bang.
	It's only theoretical.
	But that is, in theory, what you would see.
	There is no observer, there is no reality, and nothing.
	So before the Big Bang, It's meaningless.
	It has no meaning because in fact at that point you're basically, you've gone to the bottom.
	But the Big Bang has meaning and without anybody to observe it...
	There would be nothing.
	Dot, dot, dot.
	There would be nothing.
	So how did it even in fact occur without a conscious direction?
	And you're exactly it.
	And if there's nothing, then there was nothing there to observe it.
	And so you're getting into this sort of circular world.
	Our languages and our science are very primitive tools.
	So what happens is that In physics, they say that everything exists in this probability state, and it's not until you observe it that anything, at any point in the universe, or any place in the universe, could exist.
	And that applies whether it's just after the instance of the Big Bang, if you want to talk about it that way, or in the future, or the present, or whether it's on the Moon, or here on Earth.
	Everything, even according to the experiments in the micro-world, they're probability states.
	And not until the observer is involved, and again, that's because reality is a process that involves our consciousness, they're not there.
	But anything that is part of that spatial-temporal logic, indeed, would only exist, you know, obviously, through the process of consciousness.
	I know, this is... You know, it's okay, I'm with you until we begin talking about that Big Bang.
	Right.
	And how did the Big Bang even occur without conscious observation?
	Well, again, this is it.
	The Big Bang no more occurs than anything else.
	So again, John Wehrler's line, no phenomena is a real phenomena until it's an observed phenomena.
	So whether you're talking about the Big Bang, or your table, or your chair, Again, every one of those particles is just an uncertainty wave, and they don't have real properties until they're observed.
	So whether you're talking about now or the Big Bang, nothing changes.
	Is that making any sense?
	I'm not sure.
	Yeah, it's tough.
	I'm not sure.
	In other words, nothing is until it is observed.
	And yet we know the Big Bang occurred.
	Though we didn't observe it, your theory suggests that it was observed.
	No, not at all.
	As a matter of fact, what even John Wuerl was saying is that there's light reaching the Earth today from distant parts of the universe that Don't didn't even exist and when you see him only then did
	the path of that light and the existence of that light actually
	Happen so there and there are probably many physicists who would also agree
	Possibly even Stephen Hawking so that the point is this whole pots of the history of our universe that until they're
	observed They don't exist and and it's uncertainty
	That's again one of the foundations of quantum theory in physics
	Is that is that there's uncertainty in virtually any possible event and until you observe it that uncertainty
	doesn't go away So anything in the past as in that science experiment what
	you do right now again In that experiment, they actually sent particles into it, and what you did now in the present actually could change what happened in the past.
	So there's uncertainty, and again, this is now Stephen Hawking's new top-down cosmology, that you have to have the present before you can have the history.
	And so again, this is the problem with the Big Bang, is that we're used to thinking of the universe in reverse, that it was the Big Bang and there were all these little All molecules bouncing around and here we are.
	And in fact that's wrong.
	The problem is that you need to, it actually goes in the other direction.
	It's the observer creates the properties of the particles and the causality that's associated with that then has collapsed.
	The probability wave for the whole universe, for our whole history, at that point Take on a real form, if that makes any sense.
	Well then, it would suggest there is a power or property in consciousness that we don't understand at all, just yet.
	Well, this is exactly it.
	I mean, what has happened, unfortunately, is that science has just made it like this big black box, and so they try to come up with these theories of everything, and try to explain the Big Bang, and they try to explain the universe, and without any reference to consciousness, which is exactly the problem.
	And exactly all the experiments, even Einstein, with his space and time, he knows that they're relative to the observer.
	So that's exactly what's going on.
	Until we tackle the problem of consciousness, We cannot know what's going on in the physical world, and our theories will not make sense, and they will never make sense until we understand consciousness.
	Yeah, I might be willing to go along with that.
	And we're not very close to it, are we?
	No, not until we change our mindset.
	I mean, I think that, you know, the fact that you recognize the importance of consciousness, I think this is the kind of thing we need to try to convey to get people to understand that, again, you know, you can't just dismiss consciousness as this little pesky thing, sort of like, you know, a biologist would swat a mosquito in your way.
	It's a very real problem, not just for biology, but for physicists as well.
	There seem to be suggestions that consciousness may be able, for example, mass-directed consciousness, may be able to affect complex things like the weather.
	It certainly can't dissolve the desk in front of me, nor the phone, nor the electronics I have in front of me right now, can't do any of that.
	But these complex systems, like the weather, And other things seem to be able to be affected by consciousness.
	Now I realize that's out on a limb, but that's where I live, out on a limb.
	Have you thought about that at all?
	Well, again, you know, I'm schooled in all the dogma of science, so I only can go very cautiously into certain areas, and so I've only ventured the first step of the way.
	But certainly, again, we know that every aspect of the weather obviously has something to do with your consciousness, obviously, whether it's color, the brightness, or whatever.
	All those things cannot be divorced from your consciousness.
	Now whether or not we can manipulate them, again, we do know at the micro level that
	your choices and what you think and what you can do can impact to a certain degree what
	happens to the properties of those particles.
	Now whether or not you can manipulate in any way the weather and how that might work, that
	Work out in terms of causality, you know, that's beyond me.
	But, you know, maybe someday we'll figure out if there's something to it.
	Like I said, I mean, there's so much we don't understand, and we only probably understand less than 1% of what's really going on.
	So who am I to actually say what could really be going on or potentially be possible?
	Well, Doctor, considering your background, even what you call the small step you've taken is a gigantic step, and I imagine it's caused all kinds of controversy.
	In other words, I would think that a lot of the people in the hard sciences are pounding on you for what you're saying in this book.
	Absolutely.
	The problem, too, that makes it doubly difficult is that every time they criticize the idea, they're criticizing it from within the old paradigm, which of course makes no sense.
	And so they'll actually say something to me that actually has nothing to do whatsoever with the way it's being presented in this new system.
	So I think this is nothing new.
	Anytime you have a new worldview, I think it was actually Arthur Schopenhauer once was famous for having said that, I'm trying to think of the exact quote, it was something about all truths go through three phases.
	First, they're ridiculed, then they're violently opposed, and then they're accepted as self-evident.
	And I think any time you introduce any new idea, they're going to go through that phase.
	And I think I've gotten the ridicule and, you know, and now violently opposed, and the next thing you know is that once people start to realize that, you know, you can put the clock together better this way, that then they'll say, oh, that's self-evident, you know, we've known about this, people have been saying this for thousands of years.
	And this is the problem.
	You can get accused of pseudo-science if you're too far apart from the existing science.
	And on the other hand, if you're not sufficiently different, then they'll just say it's old news.
	So you're sort of caught between a rock and a hard place.
	Well, you jumped in between the rock and the hard place by writing this book.
	Did you think long and hard before you wrote this?
	Yeah, it's very, very difficult, because again, you know, I mean, you know, I'm not totally stupid, and I realize, you know, I grew up in this society, and I know, you know, I used to, you walk down the street, and the street's there, and the moon is there, and believe me, I mean, that's how, you know, I grew up with that same worldview.
	And then when I started to see the contradictions and that it just didn't add up and then started to consider the
	experiments, you start to move and move and you go, well, you know, we
	haven't moved far enough.
	And then I knew that you're going to run up against, you know, remember, ever since we were little kids,
	you know, we get bombarded through our books, our schools, and all with all these ideas, and you can't just throw them
	away.
	So yeah, when I wrote this, I knew I would get hammered. I knew I would get slammed. And so I tried.
	as best I could to explain it in terms that I thought people could understand.
	And it's hard, unfortunately, to explain it, like, you know, in a few minutes or even an hour.
	And so that's why I wrote the book.
	But if you don't read the book, then what happens is you trip up very easily.
	In other words, you're showing someone the nucleus of a new world view,
	and it's like walking around in the dark.
	You can trip and stumble, and you go, oh, this is silly because of this or that.
	And you can come up with all sorts of reasons and ways to refute this, because, you know, you're unfamiliar with it.
	And every time you try to think of something, you revert back to the way you were trained to think.
	All right.
	Look, Doctor, we're near the end of our two hours.
	That's how quickly it goes.
	Now, if you're unable to stay any longer, There are a couple of questions I've got to ask you.
	Can you stay longer or not?
	I can add on another 10-15 minutes if you'd like.
	10 or 15 minutes, that's not much.
	You were part of the team that cloned the world's first early stage human embryos for the purpose of generating embryonic stem cells.
	We all know about all the controversy involved in that.
	What I would like to ask you is where we are now.
	With adult stem cells replacing fetal cells for the purpose of cloning, are adult stem cells going to end up to be as useful as fetal?
	Well, what is happening is, you know, obviously there are embryonic and fetal tissue and there's also the adult and there are pluses and minus for each of those.
	I mean, we've been actually using adult stem cells For bone marrow transplants, for instance, for cancer, for literally decades.
	So we know that they work very nicely.
	The problem with those is that you can't make all the types of cells and tissues you would like to try to cure various diseases.
	So they have limitations.
	But what has happened is that there's been a very remarkable breakthrough very recently that hopefully is going to solve all these problems.
	It turns out that we can actually make Stem cells, just like those fetal or embryonic ones, from adult tissue.
	We can take a skin cell and actually we've now learned how to do sort of what an egg or what an embryo does in terms of actually having this plasticity to become every type of a cell.
	So if I take a skin cell, I can actually up-regulate certain genes and make it now a stem cell, just like an embryonic stem cell.
	And it can make all the tissues of the body.
	So that's where we're at now, and this is what we call IPS cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, and so we're on the verge now of hopefully getting that technology To work in a way that we can now use it in the clinic to help people.
	In fact, I just published a paper a few months back showing that we can now actually make those kinds of human stem cells using proteins in a way that's safe.
	The way it was originally discovered a couple years ago was using viruses, which of course the FDA would never allow you to use in people.
	So we're moving very quickly and I think you're going to start seeing some treatments appearing very, very soon.
	In fact, we've applied with the FDA to start to try to treat blindness
	using retinal cells that we made from these embryonic stem cells and hopefully we'll
	start clinical trials this year on that. But we're also in the process of
	now using the one the IPSL cells that were actually created from adult skin cells
	and so so I think you're going to see a lot of exciting things happening very
	soon. So the answer is yes and no. In other words yes eventually adult
	stem cells will be what you use but at the moment there are still properties in fetal
	cells that simply have not yet been...
	I'm not sure how to phrase this.
	Haven't been what?
	The adult stem cells are not yet quite as useful as the embryonic ones?
	Yeah, so again, in the scientific community, in the stem cell field, what we call an adult stem cell is a cell that you get from the body and it's normally in all your tissues.
	So for instance, your skin you have stem cells and in your brain you have stem cells that can make the various Brain cells.
	And those cells are very limited in that, say for instance, a brain or a nerve stem cell can only make other kinds of nerve cells.
	So we're now learning how to turn those cells in so they can do everything.
	Dr. Hold tight.
	We're at a break point and then I'm going to steal 10 more minutes from you and then we'll go to open lines.
	So Dr. Hold tight.
	Dr. Robert Lamsa is my guest.
	Biocentrism is his book.
	I suggest if you want to know more and really understand Biocentrism.
	You go buy the book.
	Other side of the world.
	Howdy, everybody.
	Dr. Robert Lanza is my guest.
	And back in 2001, he was the first person to clone an endangered species.
	Well, I guess it was a team, but he did that.
	And, Doctor, I want to ask you, if you can clone an endangered species, I think you also cloned a wild ox, why can't you?
	Is there any scientific reason why you can't clone a human being?
	No, not at all.
	As a matter of fact, you know, we published a paper not long ago actually showing we could do human cloning and actually take a cell from a person and actually create an embryo that is, through all the gene analysis, absolutely identical to a normal embryo.
	So if you implanted that, you could, in theory, possibly create a person.
	Yes.
	Remember when they created Dolly?
	Yes.
	I have this sort of foggy memory that the offspring, the clone of Dali died an early death.
	Was that because the clone of Dali was born with telomeres at the same extended rate as the original?
	Well, I think that that was originally what scientists had thought.
	Now, of course, we know that cloning causes all sorts of abnormalities, which is why, you know, most scientists consider it unethical to think of trying to clone a human being.
	And so the world view at that point was indeed that Dolly was prematurely old and her telomeres were short.
	Uh, what we published was a paper in Science right after that in 2000, which we showed actually quite the reverse.
	It turns out that cloning is like a little time machine.
	You can actually take an old, decrepit cell back in time and restore it to a youthful state.
	and that work has now been subsequently verified by many, many groups.
	So it actually turns out that a senescent or old cell can actually be rejuvenated
	and in fact in our study we actually showed that those cells actually could live longer
	than their normal counterparts.
	Wow.
	Is there any reason why we shouldn't imagine that in a lab somewhere,
	perhaps not in the United States, but I don't know, in China, Russia, somewhere,
	that a human clone has already been accomplished.
	Well, I think it's certainly a possibility, but the human cloning is very difficult.
	I mean, we've obviously cloned many species.
	At this point, there have been a couple dozen species that have been cloned successfully.
	But the human system is very, very difficult.
	And every time you try to clone a new species, you run up against a whole new set of problems that requires a lot of troubleshooting.
	And the problem is right now getting human eggs is very, very difficult.
	There aren't many.
	So when you try to clone a mouse or a cow, you can get hundreds or thousands of the eggs
	and try to figure out how to make it work.
	But I can tell you that someone who is inexperienced that tries to do this, that they'll kill the
	eggs.
	It just won't work.
	I can tell you that if you apply the published techniques that have been out there for using
	for cloning animals, it just simply doesn't work in the human system.
	And there have been some very smart, brilliant scientists who have tried to do this without
	any success. So it's going to take a lot of resources to achieve this. I'd like to
	ask you how you feel about legislative regulation of cloning and of all the
	rest of it that's involved. In other words, should there be legislative
	oversight or are these guys simply not smart enough to make those decisions?
	Well, yeah, no.
	I think, for sure, actually many, many years ago, the United Nations tried to pass a law worldwide, or to pass a rule that would basically say that human reproductive cloning would be illegal.
	And they had the support of most countries in the world.
	But at the time, President Bush I was was in office and he was trying to kill the potential
	medical applications.
	And so it ran into a roadblock.
	But I think we definitely need worldwide laws that will prohibit the use of cloning to clone
	people.
	It's not only unsafe, but it's also considered unethical.
	I don't think anyone wants to see a thousand copies of Dolly Parton or Michael Jordan or
	whoever.
	So I think that we do need these laws and they actually should have been enacted quite
	some time ago.
	Last question.
	Stem cell research, is it eventually going to provide us with some sort of immortality?
	Is that where it's headed?
	Well, I don't think, you know, the word immortality would be right, but I think, you know, sort of like a bicycle tire that, you know, you can keep catching it.
	So, for instance, right now we've done experiments where we showed For instance, that we could actually cut the death rate
	after a heart attack in half, that we can completely restore the blood flow to limbs that
	would otherwise have to be amputated.
	We're actually able now to grow blood in the lab.
	So I think we're going to be able to eventually replace all the worn out parts of the body.
	And so one day, and probably not too far in the future, you'll go to the doctor if you lose, say, a kidney in an accident, and the doctor will just take the skin cell and grow you up a new kidney.
	So I think that that's possible, but I think you can only, as you know, with a bicycle
	tire, patch it so much.
	That's not to say that we may not come up with different kinds of approaches to bypass
	that, but at this point I would say we certainly will be able to extend life probably out to
	perhaps at least 120 or so years.
	Beyond that, I think we're going to run into problems because we think of ourselves obviously
	as a brain, and while we can repair that damage with stem cells, the question is, you know,
	how long can you continue to do that?
	Okay, final, final question, and that is, what about the possibility of actually stopping the aging process?
	In other words, at some point early on, I know that we start having more cells dying than we do new cells.
	Right.
	Might it be possible one day to simply halt the aging process itself?
	Well, yeah, it's a very interesting question, and I think that one of the problems we have with that is that, in fact, you know, you can make cells immortal, and, as a matter of fact, what they're called are cancer cells.
	And so the problem is that if you escape that regulation that causes the aging, you end up with cells that just grow unlimited.
	And then that leads to all sorts of problems, because, you know, your body is very exquisitely fine-tuned to operate, you know, all sorts of ways.
	So when you start tampering with that, You're going to run into all sorts of abnormalities and problems.
	But I think, yes, we know that there are ways to do this.
	There are enzymes known as telomerase that can extend the telomeres.
	Certainly, you know, can replace the old tissue with youthful tissue.
	But you can start running into problems when you start messing with that whole apparatus.
	Doctor, I hope your book sells well.
	I hope lots of people read it.
	It's a new way to think.
	And I'm sure that lots of people go out and grab your book now.
	And I want to thank you for appearing with us this night.
	Well, thank you.
	It's been a great pleasure.
	Let's do it again someday, huh?
	Absolutely.
	Take care, my friend.
	All right, that's Dr. Robert Lanza.
	And again, his book is Biocentrism.
	And it was all fascinating.
	In fact, you're welcome to comment on it.
	What we're going to do...
	Is go to Open Lines.
	I haven't done this in a long time and I welcome it.
	I'd love to hear from you.
	So we're going to go to unscreened Open Lines.
	That means you can talk about anything you want to talk about.
	I've got a couple of comments when we come back.
	We're going to take a break now.
	And when we do come back, it's Katie Bar the Door.
	Anything you want to talk about is fair game.
	This is Coast to Coast AM.
	I'm Art Bell for George Norris.
	Stay right where you are.
	Well, all right.
	We're going to do unscreened open lines now.
	As I mentioned, coming up in just a moment again, I want to remind you that everybody here is well.
	Everybody always asks.
	All the ABs are well.
	And if you want to see a picture of Asia that's about two days old, It's up on coast2coastam.com on the website, and if you click on it, you go to an area where it gets bigger.
	So it's a pretty good picture, actually.
	And another thing people are asking me about all the time, my cats are fine, Abby, Yeti, who's getting to be an old guy now, he's just fine, and Dolly, of course, all here with us.
	Asia's now talking up a storm, and...
	Guess what?
	I got my antenna up.
	The long, long, long process of getting permissions and writing to the government here and doing all kinds of things finally paid off, and I got my antenna up.
	It was quite a job.
	You know, I'm in a condominium here, so in order to get the cables from here to the roof, instead of going, you know, 40 feet out the window and then up 20 feet, actually, Um, we had to run it through the ceiling and in this little space of concrete and do all kinds of things to get it up there professionally.
	It was quite a job.
	Incidentally, we had an earthquake a couple of days ago.
	We had a 6.1 earthquake.
	Which was very interesting up here on the 19th floor.
	We kind of rocked and rolled up here pretty well.
	It was wild.
	All right, that said, that's kind of the news.
	Let's go to the lines and see what's out there.
	On the first-time caller line, you are on the air.
	Good morning.
	You should be on the air.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	Going once.
	Oh, hi.
	Hi.
	Yes, you are there.
	Good.
	Okay, yeah, I'm calling from Hawaii.
	Okay, do me a favor and pick your phone up rather than being on a speakerphone.
	Talk to us directly.
	Oh, okay.
	I have to plug a mic in because I'm calling you on my computer.
	Is this any better?
	Well, that's cool.
	It's a little better, yeah.
	Okay, thanks.
	Actually, I really enjoyed the last guest and it's kind of a hobby of mine reading about consciousness and I think I tend to agree with Your perspective on the Big Bang Theory, that there had to be some consciousness, an observer there, just seemed to be some flaw in the logic of his thinking.
	That may be.
	That's what I thought too.
	I thought that his theory sounded good until you got to the Big Bang.
	In other words, he kept saying, nothing is until it is observed.
	Well, that all falls apart at the Big Bang, right?
	Well, actually, if you put consciousness, the way I see it and some of the things I've read is, if you have consciousness as the fundamental reality, and this physical frame as like a virtual reality frame, then we are the observer and we're just consciousness shifting our perspective as to what's physical and what's not.
	So when he was talking about when we go to sleep and we start dreaming, You know, that seems very physical to us and very real.
	And then when we wake up, our consciousness just shifts back over to this reality or dimension, and this seems physical to us.
	But I think where these physicists get stumbled up is, they're trying to study consciousness, which is totally subjective, as an objective thing.
	And they're trying to apply these physical rules in this reality to something that exists outside of our reality.
	So it doesn't apply.
	It has to be done from within.
	He has to go study consciousness from within himself, and that's where Einstein and a lot of these guys, I think they just, and Hawkins, they don't do that.
	They just try to map it through, you know, our physical laws, and I don't think it can apply to consciousness.
	It's not visible.
	Okay, well, here's where I was going with it.
	If nothing exists until observed, Then when you do get to the Big Bang, you have to maintain that there was consciousness present.
	And, Gene, now whose consciousness would that be one second before the Big Bang?
	Could that be a creator?
	Well, there's definitely a... I think the system of consciousness is the creative system that's evolving.
	It just consciousness comes in many different forms like you know like he was talking about pigeons and lower animals having More of a group-style consciousness and not the same kind of awareness as a human being.
	No, I don't think he said that.
	No, wait, wait, wait.
	I think that he said that a pigeon, that was a pigeon, he did represent that a pigeon had consciousness or self-awareness.
	He said self-awareness.
	Thank you very much for the call.
	Self-awareness was what he said.
	He said it gets, if I'm remembering correctly, a little foggier as you go down the chain from there.
	But again, if nothing technically exists into observed, then when you're talking about the Big Bang, there had to be a consciousness there, right?
	And that consciousness, well, gee, who could it have belonged to?
	Because we weren't here yet, right?
	There was nothing.
	There were no planets, there were no moons, there was no universe, there was nothing to measure time, because you need a couple of objects moving around, you need movement to measure and then hence have time.
	You know, I don't know any more of what I'm talking about than anybody else does in this field, but I'm just going by what He represented, and that was that there is nothing until it is observed.
	Well, if you just drag that theory all the way back to the Big Bang, then there had to have been a consciousness involved for it to have occurred, right?
	Right.
	Well, Cardline, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Hey, it's Bob from Los Angeles.
	How you doing?
	Yeah, not too bad.
	Boy, that's some really deep thoughts there.
	It's terrifying just to think about it.
	It is, yes.
	Because think about it.
	For instance, so many things, I mean, our mortal minds are so weak.
	I mean, we'd have to actually, the best person to ask this question would be an E.T.
	You know, have an E.T.
	tell it to us, because our mortal minds can't wrap our minds around something this big.
	It could be as simple as we're not even here.
	It's like that TV show.
	You remember that TV show where the whole series turned out to be some guy's dream?
	I mean, this could all just be some sort of dream.
	We could be just like in cocoons of some spaceship powering something in space, you know.
	Because a lot of things that defy logic, number one.
	Like the psychic phenomena, for instance.
	All these things defy logic.
	I mean, it really makes no sense that somebody could predict the future I mean, I've done this since I was a little kid.
	I've had this weird ability.
	My parents have passed it on to me.
	I'm in school and throughout school, I'll tell the teachers stuff before they even say it.
	And the teachers go, how do you do that?
	Do what?
	You know?
	They go, how do you know what I'm going to say before I say it?
	And it's weird.
	I go, I don't know.
	It's weird.
	It's like you're out of phase.
	But it's bizarre.
	The psychic world is weird.
	You can even influence people and stuff, because I could take somebody who's sleeping.
	I got a roommate I used to play with.
	I say, hey, watch this.
	I could actually, if somebody's sleeping, I could hit them with a bolt of electricity and make them jump out of their bed asleep.
	You mean psychic electricity?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, it's called remote influencing, and I was curious what it felt like, because I was being electrocuted.
	I made a roommate sort of meme.
	I just shot him up off the bed about three feet in the air, and he was like, ahh!
	Well, there is a world out there, and that's just one example of things that are completely unexplained.
	You know, today's science just takes them and shoves them into a corner and says, we don't get that stuff and since we don't get it and it doesn't fit into any of our paradigms, we're just going to leave it there and we'll sort of look at it later someday when we can understand it.
	Right, exactly.
	And you know, it's really strange, because I really think there's something to this ET stuff, because I think a lot of humans are learning this from something else, because I used to have dreams when I was a little kid, like five years old, of some weird-looking being going in my room.
	I'd be terrified and it would run its face right in front of my face and its eyes were
	in my eyes and it'd just go like this, relax, don't be scared, relax, don't be scared.
	And when I was five years old, I used to do this to my pets.
	I learned it from whatever this thing is.
	I'd get my cat and I'd put my head up to it and I could actually make the cat fall asleep
	by what this being or whatever was doing to me when I was small.
	And it's really, really bizarre, but there is something to this E.T.
	thing, because I don't know if people's children, if you have a child, and it's like four or five years old, and it puts its face real close to its pet, it learned that from something.
	And I could actually, just looking into an animal's eyes, I could put it to sleep.
	And there's part of the government, you know, like James was involved in part of the remote influencing program, where they're trying to, you know, harm people, which is sort of demented.
	uh... and it's it and that's a third of sick when people actually don't want
	to take someone's body and and and harm and that's sort of metal
	it is really true that uh... i i I've done some weird things.
	I actually moved a solid object.
	I couldn't believe it.
	When I was in my 20s, when you're really strong and healthy in your 20s, your psychic abilities are really, really strong.
	I could go into a room.
	I could change the temperature in a room by meditating and turn the whole room humid.
	Almost the ceiling would be wet with water.
	We're coming up on a break, so I'm going to have to go, but changing the temperature in a room, I'd be very, very interested in seeing that done.
	If I were a little closer, I might suggest that I would like to see you do it.
	And E.T.s?
	I've got a word or two about E.T.s, remembering something Seth Shostak said to me.
	We'll be right back.
	Regarding E.T.s, just before the break, it was quite a number of years ago, but I remember Seth Shostak of SETI.
	said to me that Art, you know, the 50th anniversary of SETI is coming up in a few years.
	This was, as I mentioned, years ago.
	And he said at that time, if we have received nothing at the 50-year mark, Art, we're going to have to consider, strongly consider the possibility that they are not out there.
	And I just read this just a few moments ago.
	The search for extraterrestrial intelligence is 50 years old next month.
	Still no sign of intelligent alien life.
	Paul Davies of the Beyond Center, also chairman of the SETI Post Detection Task Group says, it's time to rethink and expand the search for ET.
	Now, Seth alluded to the possibility of actually ending the search for ET,
	but that was then, this is now.
	So I guess they're going to expand it.
	Certainly they've gone to light alongside radio.
	You know, they've been looking at the hydrogen frequency now or near it for some time.
	But they're way beyond that.
	They're looking at light and other things.
	So I guess they're not going to end the search for ET, but rather I'd love to have Seth on the air right now and ask him about that remark that he made to me years ago.
	Nevertheless, that's the current status of SETI.
	They're going to keep looking.
	They're going to expand the search and keep looking.
	We will be right back.
	There's one other little thing I want to drop on you.
	The title to this article is Chief Exorcist Father Gabriel Emer says the devil is in the Vatican.
	Let me read just a little bit of this to you.
	Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that the devil is at work inside the Vatican, according to the Holy See's chief exorcist.
	That's who this priest is, the chief exorcist at the Vatican.
	Father Gabriel Amroth, now 85 years of age.
	By the way, we've looked into him as a guest, and listen, and I'll tell you why.
	He's been the Vatican's chief exorcist for 25 years.
	He says he's dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession.
	So the consequences of satanic infiltration include power struggles at the Vatican as well as cardinals.
	Who do not believe in Jesus and bishops who are linked to the demon.
	These are strong words.
	He added, when one speaks of the smoke of Satan, a phrase coined by Pope Paul in 72 in the Holy Rooms, it is all true.
	Including these latest stories of violence and pedophilia.
	And the article goes on, but that's strong, strong stuff and scary stuff.
	And it's reminiscent Of another guest.
	that I had on this program.
	I was honored and lucky enough to have Father Malachi Martin on this program so many times, and these are words that came from Father Martin.
	The same words about the inside, goings-on in the Vatican, in the Catholic Church.
	These are the same words.
	Now, Father Amarth, he doesn't speak much English, unfortunately, or he'd have already been on the program.
	It'd almost be worth trying to do with an interpreter, although it's a very clumsy way to do a show with, you know, somebody doing a translation.
	It just doesn't come through with the same kind of passion as interviewing the original guest.
	But this is so serious and so important that it almost might be worth trying.
	Anyway, back to Open Lines, on-screen to Open Lines, Wild Card Line.
	Good morning, you're on the air.
	Yes, thanks for taking my call, Art.
	Look, I think that the Western philosophical slash religious mind is ill-equipped to understand things like consciousness and the universe.
	When you talk about the differences between matter and how we perceive matter, such as what your guest was talking about earlier, and also the conscious human mind, And the relation of the conscious human mind to the matter that's in our environment.
	It seems to me that Western religion and Western philosophy is ill-equipped to deal with that.
	In the Eastern philosophy, you have a concept of oneness, and also in some of the other more indigenous religions, they go back thousands of years.
	No, you're absolutely right.
	Look, Buddhism is a great example.
	Oh yeah, that's what I'm thinking of pretty much.
	And also, you know, the animism in Africa, and then in some of the other tribal religions throughout the world.
	I think going into the future, people throughout the world will probably be able to understand things like the Big Bang, and how there could have been a universe before that, and then how there's also a universe today.
	But what I think people will come to realize is that at one time, matter and consciousness were one.
	And the thoughts that we have might be separate from matter, in a sense, in the time that we're living in now, you know, 13 billion years after the Big Bang.
	But I think before the Big Bang happened, the nature of the universe was very different and it's entirely inconceivable that all could have been one.
	Well, I do think that it's significant that men like the guests that I just had on.
	I mean, really hard science guys.
	And this fellow was right at the top of the list.
	I mean, we're talking about the guy who did the first cloning.
	We're talking about somebody who is as much of a heavyweight in science as you can be.
	You know, by writing that book and by even suggesting the things he was talking about tonight, he was jumping off a scientific cliff.
	And more and more scientists are beginning to do that, obviously, not yet a majority by a long shot, but the fact that these deep thinkers are beginning to move in this direction I think tells us there's really something there.
	It tells me that he's a trailblazer.
	That's right.
	Again, if the deep thinkers are occasionally willing to jump off this kind of a cliff, there really is something to all this.
	And if you look into the Buddhist religion as an example, as you point out, it may be a lot closer to this reality.
	If it is a reality, it's still just a theory, but if it is a reality, Buddhism may be a lot closer.
	I completely agree with that, and I hope someday that people throughout the world are able to incorporate some of those ideas from other philosophies and other religions into their way of thinking.
	And I think by doing that, when you see a synchronistic way of thinking emerge in the future humanity, whatever that humanity might become, I think that could cause more people to understand the world that's around them and the nature that they are surrounded by than people that understand it today.
	I agree completely.
	Thank you very, very much for the call.
	I doubt very seriously that's going to occur in our lifetimes.
	Look at the schisms that we currently live with.
	If anything, they've grown stronger.
	There are a lot of people in the world now who wish us to convert to their way of thinking.
	And if we don't wish to convert, they've already made up their minds that we need to die.
	So, that's the world we live in today.
	And I guess it's been the world, you know, that way in the world now for some time.
	So, not in our lifetimes, but eventually.
	Buster the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Hello, Art.
	Hi.
	It's nice talking with you, and it's so exciting.
	You have a wonderful guest tonight.
	Thank you.
	And, you know, we know who was there before the Big Bang.
	God was there.
	I guess that's what I was driving at.
	There has to be a consciousness.
	He said it again and again and again.
	Without consciousness, there is nothing.
	Well, there was nothing, and then there was something.
	So there had to be a consciousness involved.
	Now, whose would that be?
	Well, I understand because two of my brothers have their doctorate in physics.
	So, we've got, you know, I've been listening to this all my life.
	But what I think is that consciousness has no boundaries.
	I'll go along with that.
	I don't think it does either.
	I can jump further off the cliff than he did.
	I did experiments.
	I think consciousness has a power that eventually may be realized to be a power greater than the splitting of the atom.
	Yes, but it seeks form.
	So, wherever it can jump into form, perhaps, that's what is happening.
	So, all these thoughts and all these questions bring up so much, but I don't want to forget two things.
	And one is, I'm number 15 on the predictions list.
	Oh?
	And what is it?
	I don't have the list in front of me.
	What was your prediction?
	New species will be realized.
	Oh, that's right.
	Well.
	Uh-huh.
	What could that be?
	Are we going to have a clone come forward?
	Is that the new species?
	Wouldn't that be just too awesome?
	And what about the chimeras?
	And more and more are born, you know, that are male and female?
	Perhaps, like God, he was both.
	And he was made in our image, both male and female.
	And perhaps his sperm just went inside his body and created Either or, or both, you know?
	Wouldn't you go there first to clone someone?
	Wouldn't you go to a chimera?
	Let's clarify your prediction a little bit.
	When you said a new species, do you mean... I mean, there are new species, of course, discovered all the time.
	Do you mean a major new species?
	Yes!
	Yes!
	Look what's happening so fast in our world!
	Come on!
	We're within the grasp of anything!
	Anything.
	Remember, this man's even saying, anything we can observe.
	So, I mean, let's go all the way.
	Come on.
	And Art, you may live another 40 years.
	That's a terrifying thought.
	For me too.
	But just can't we wait till these next few years come into existence.
	It's going to be so exciting.
	And my last thing is I want to say, how is your beautiful bride?
	We don't get to hear much about her.
	She is just wonderful.
	She couldn't be better.
	She takes the opportunity when I'm on the air, it is afternoon, you've got to remember it's afternoon here, to go to the mall.
	That's right, that's exactly where she goes shopping.
	And my youngest three-year-old, she decided she wants a yellow dress today.
	So they're off buying a yellow dress.
	Oh, it's awesome.
	I have a three-year-old granddaughter, so I've been going along with you as you've been
	going along, and it's so exciting to hear about the family.
	Thank goodness she came along, and I know it's all meant to be.
	And so thank you so much.
	It's so awesome to hear your voice and to have you with us again.
	I've been with you since, I think, the beginning.
	I got my nurse's license in Vegas.
	I think I heard you on the phone in 1973, talking about bodies found in the desert.
	We go back a long way.
	We were in the war together, Art.
	You just didn't know.
	Thank you for the call.
	Those were the days, of course, in Las Vegas when all those lumps you saw out there in the desert, not all of them were just lumps.
	A lot of them contained bodies.
	You know, those were the days in Las Vegas where it was run in a different, oh dare I say, more efficient way.
	I guess I really shouldn't dare to say that, but a lot of people know that's true.
	I mean, the mob ran Las Vegas and it was, I guess I better be careful here, but it was run rather efficiently.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Is this me?
	Yes, you.
	Oh, great.
	Listen, I turned on my radio one night many years ago and heard this voice from the high desert and I've been hooked ever since.
	I'm telling you, you are a true pioneer.
	I think that there are a lot of things that's going on now with the new paranormal programs that's on TV and the consciousness and people's expanding their thinking because you taught us to listen to everybody and to think, but keep ourselves grounded.
	And I want to thank you, and I know I'm much late, but congratulations for the Radio Hall of Fame.
	I was wondering how much input you had in getting George Norrie because it seems like George is about the only one that could follow in your footsteps.
	How much input did I have?
	I don't know.
	I sat down with George, had an opportunity to sit down with George before he took the chair, but not as much as you might think.
	Not as much, really, as you might think.
	There were a number of things that went on, you recall, in years past that affected my ability to do the program at that time.
	Not as much as you might think would be my answer.
	But as I mentioned, I did have an opportunity to sit down and talk with George before he took over.
	And I'll leave it at that.
	So, I am here filling in tonight for George and Rory, who's taking a well-deserved vacation.
	I know that when you do this program, doing it as I do it right now is a luxury.
	In other words, only every now and then.
	If you're in the seat every single night, I certainly don't want to say it's a grind, because it's a pleasure, it's a joy, but on the other hand, when you do it every single night, night in and night out.
	I remember years past, I did it six nights a week.
	I used to do a five and six hour show.
	This was before the network.
	Five and six hours, six nights a week.
	Can you imagine that?
	It's not a show, it's a way of life, I guess, that would be the way to put it.
	Good morning.
	I think it's the International Line.
	You're on the air.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	Oh, no.
	I'm Wildcard, I guess.
	Are you a Wildcard?
	I guess so, yeah.
	Wait a minute.
	Where are you?
	I'm in New York.
	New York, huh?
	I guess you're Wildcard.
	Yeah, I called on the Wildcard Line.
	All right.
	Well, it doesn't matter.
	Okay.
	All right.
	It's great to hear your voice.
	I'm really glad to see you appearing more regularly on the show.
	Again, I miss you.
	Something awful.
	But at any rate, it was a great show tonight.
	I wanted to suggest a book, because you seem to be really curious about a lot of things, if you're open to it.
	I'm listening.
	There's a book called Consciousness Speaks.
	It answers a lot of the questions you were asking, but from a philosophical viewpoint instead of a scientific one.
	Who wrote it?
	A fellow by the name of Ramesh Belzakar.
	Ramesh Belzakar.
	Yeah, he was a successful banker in Bombay, India, someplace like that, and studied under a bunch of people, and wrote a book where it's just, it really, I think you'd find it truly interesting.
	Just wanted to suggest it to you, because a lot of the things that you wonder about, kind of, no book is going to tell you the answer to your questions.
	But this book kind of is a pointer.
	It points you in a direction, you know?
	And in fact, when you open it up and you look at the editor's notes on the beginning, it says, all there is is consciousness.
	If that is understood completely, deeply, intuitively, then you need read no further.
	Put the book down and go on joyously with the rest of your life.
	And then it says, if, however, you belong to the massively larger group of people who consider themselves people, Then perhaps there may be something here for you.
	And it goes on.
	I'm not going to read you the whole book.
	I mean, that's why I suggested for you to pick up and take a look at.
	But I think you'd find it very interesting.
	I know that I had studied spirituality for some 20 years or so, you know, living on the ashram, on the mountaintop, the whole bit and everything, and learned a lot of things that gave me a general idea, like a bunch of beads loose in a box.
	And this one book for me, It kind of was like a thread that sewed them all together, or started to sew them all together.
	Well, trust me when I tell you, I will look for the book.
	I wanted the author because that's the way I'll look it up, and I will indeed try to get hold of it and read it.
	Yeah, no, definitely, and sometime in the future I might call you up and ask if you ever read that book.
	But anyway, it's great to hear your voice again.
	I hope that your wife and child and everybody's doing well.
	You said something about coming back to the high desert.
	Are you coming back to the stateside again?
	No, I didn't say that.
	I said that pretty soon, if we don't get some rain here, this is going to be like the high desert.
	Where I am, we have rainforests.
	There are, well, not in Manila, but the Philippines is full of rainforests, you know, monkeys, a variety of everything in the world.
	And if it doesn't rain here pretty soon, we're going to be in big trouble, as all of Asia is.
	El Nino is raging, and we have not had rain in months and months.
	So, this place will turn into a desert if it doesn't happen pretty soon.
	From the high... I'm Art Bell.
	That's right, from Manila, Philippines.
	A country where they do turn back time.
	That's where I am.
	Prior to the break, did you hear me say from the high?
	And I stopped myself.
	They didn't cut me off.
	I stopped myself.
	I almost said from the high desert.
	But no, no, no, no.
	I'm here on the other side of the world.
	A country where they do turn back time.
	The big news for me is that my antenna is up.
	Ham Radio again is raging away.
	By the way, those of you who know Dennis Mockenbecker, I'm slaughtering his last name, at the Yaesu Company, tell Dennis I'm looking for him.
	I've got to get a hold of Dennis at Yaesu, so if somebody out there knows him, tell him Art Bell's looking for him.
	I found out something very interesting, and this is going to go to the ham operators out there, and then we'll go back to the other topics very quickly.
	It's not the same here as it is back in North America.
	And by that I mean something I found out, a good friend, Fred K3Z0, I was talking to him the other night back in Washington, D.C., and he informed me.
	I always thought, you know, here I am down near the equator.
	We're not far from the equator here.
	Uh, but Fred told me that the weird, very weird conditions that we find here for you hams, for example, 15 and 20 meters are open literally almost 24 hours a day.
	Uh, I can talk to my friends over in just, you know, over the water there in Thailand In Bangkok, Northeast Thailand, virtually any time of day or night on these frequencies, 15 and 20 meters, which normally back in the States, particularly when we're not having sunspots, which are few and far between these days, I can talk to them just about any time.
	Or my friends over in South Africa, and there's a reason for it.
	And that reason is called the geomagnetic equator.
	The geographic equator, which isn't far away, but the geomagnetic equator, which is a totally different animal.
	And the geomagnetic equator runs right through the Philippines, and then runs right through southern Thailand.
	And as a result of that, and why, I don't know.
	I'm not an expert in this area, but as a result of the fact that the geomagnetic equator runs right through here, we can talk to these people who are also located on the geomagnetic equator, Uh, so very easily, and so everything's upside down here in more ways than one.
	We're not just on the other side of the world, but at night, the bands open up.
	During the day, they're quiet.
	In fact, it was so weird, when I first put up an antenna here, I would listen during the day and I'd hear nothing.
	I'd go, oh man, this place is just...
	Dead.
	You know, radio dead.
	But one night, just by accident, I turned the radio on and, oh my God, the bands are going nuts.
	I'm hearing people from all over the world.
	After the sun goes down.
	And that's backwards from the way it ought to be.
	And the reason for that, I finally found out, Is that we're virtually sitting right on top of the geomagnetic equator, as opposed to the geographic equator.
	So, it's something brand new.
	I've got a chart.
	I actually put it up on the website for a little while.
	It's not there right now, but I'll get it up so you all can see it.
	Those who care about such things, it's really weird, really strange, but then again, it's a strange part of the world.
	The geomagnetic equator.
	We'll be back with open lines in a moment.
	All right, here we go.
	Open lines, unscreened open lines.
	I have no idea what's coming up, but you do.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Yeah, good morning, Art.
	Yes.
	It is a pleasure to speak to you again after so many years.
	You were talking about the country that turned back time.
	I want to talk a little bit about turning back time, if I may.
	My grandfather was a scientist.
	He died 10 years ago at the age of 94.
	And he worked for NASA for many years, designed a lot of the parts that went up in the early moon satellites.
	And before that, he was an officer at the Philadelphia Navy Yards.
	And I don't know, I may be totally out of line with this, but I want to get your take on this.
	It's too bad that your guest isn't still there because I'm sure he could have given me some input on it, too.
	Several months before my grandfather died, he took me out on his back porch one day, and he was trying to tell me something.
	It was something that I guess he had held as a secret for so many years, and he kept repeating over and over again, the dead should not rule the living.
	And he was talking about something that happened during World War II, and I'm wondering if he wasn't somehow, someway involved in the Philadelphia Experiment.
	I thought that's where this might be going.
	Yeah, I haven't heard anybody talk about it for years.
	I think most everybody who was involved in it is probably dead.
	And what's your take on that?
	Well, alright, I'll try and comment on it.
	I've done a number of interviews, as you well know, on the Philadelphia Experiment.
	And they were riveting interviews.
	Did our U.S.
	Navy attempt to produce a cloak of invisibility for a naval ship?
	Because of the war?
	Well, I think the answer to that is probably yes.
	I'm sure they have tried.
	If not then, then now.
	Certainly, as a matter of fact, they're getting very close to three-dimensional invisibility.
	That's another story.
	Back then, did they try?
	I can imagine that they did.
	Did it have results that went well beyond invisibility?
	It's entirely possible.
	Did people get welded into the deck of that ship?
	Did it disappear?
	Did it, in fact, go to another time?
	I have no way of knowing these things for sure.
	I have a feeling that they tried.
	Whether the results of that experiment were exaggerated or not, I don't know.
	But did they try?
	Yes, I think so.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Yeah, hello.
	I didn't know if it was me or not.
	Only you know that for sure, but it sounds like you.
	Where are you calling from?
	Yeah, it must be.
	I'm calling from Florida.
	Okay.
	I wanted to talk about our founding fathers a little bit because of the recent legislation,
	which is a great power grab of the federal government.
	The general welfare clause of the Constitution has been used as an excuse for these kinds
	of programs, starting back with FDR.
	Jefferson was probably one of the most liberal founding fathers we had.
	And this is what he had to say about the General Welfare Clause.
	Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
	There are 18 enumerated powers in the Constitution.
	The federal government cannot do anything other than those 18 things.
	James Madison wrote the Constitution.
	This is what he has to say about the general welfare.
	If Congress can do whatever in their discretion, can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
	Now, they fought their entire lives to leave us with a constitutionally limited federal government.
	The states have very general powers.
	The federal government has very specific, limited powers.
	In other words, social programs are constitutional at the state level, but not at the federal level.
	Another quote from James Madison.
	The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives.
	It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general.
	Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
	James Madison... Alright, well, hold the quotes there.
	I'm pretty much familiar with what our Founding Fathers have said.
	Here's what I will say, without trying to inject myself into the big fight going on right now about health care.
	Something had to be done.
	You cannot tell me that a nation as wealthy as the United States can allow its citizens
	to, when a major health crisis comes along, be devastated.
	In other words, you get to whatever age you are, you get cancer or some other life-threatening
	disease, and everything can be taken from you.
	Everything.
	Not just your family.
	It's not just you.
	Perhaps you're doomed with your cancer.
	Who knows?
	But everything can be taken from you.
	Your house, the future that you've arranged for your family and your children, all of
	that can be taken from you because you're sick.
	And so whether or not the right thing is being done with the current programs just signed
	into law, I won't comment on that.
	But I will comment on the fact that something had to be done.
	And I just I have never in all my life been able to believe that the U.S.
	Hello?
	as it is, perhaps misplacing its money, and you can make that argument, spending without
	thought, but with regard to health care, something had to be done.
	It simply could not go on the way it was.
	It was wrong.
	It was wrong that somebody could lose everything simply because they became sick.
	And I won't comment beyond that at this moment.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	Hello, Art Bell.
	Hello, Art Bell.
	Yes.
	Oh, it's me, calling you from Youngstown.
	It's great to hear your voice again.
	It's great to be heard, sir.
	We've got a slight time delay because I am on the other side of the world.
	It's great to be heard.
	Thank you.
	Well, I'm not a physicist or anything like that, but I was kind of following along with your guest earlier in this very interesting take.
	And the lady caller also had a very eloquent way of putting things.
	I kind of have to agree with her, with consciousness and all that, and my take on this entire thing is perhaps because we only can view things from a three-dimensional plane, that, you know, we don't have an entire grasp on everything, and perhaps there isn't a beginning and an end as far as the universe is concerned.
	You know, maybe it's always been in existence.
	I mean, that's just a thought.
	I could be wrong, but... Well, I think there's a theory called steady state that represents there was no real Big Bang.
	There never was.
	It's always been here.
	Uh-huh.
	But I think science has pretty much disproved that.
	I mean, we sort of know how everything was formed, including the Earth and the Moon.
	We know that the Big Bang did happen.
	We can still listen to the echoes of it.
	I mean, we know all that happened now.
	I actually have a question for you, a little bit off the subject of that.
	Are you familiar with the Billy Mayer case, the Swiss farmer?
	Yes, of course, yes.
	Yeah, what's your take on that as far as whether you think he was legit in having contacts with the plagiarians or what do you think about that whole thing?
	Okay, Billy Mayer.
	I think that like all I'm not.
	Let's see.
	How can I phrase this?
	Like all lies, there's some truth at the basis of it.
	I think that Billy Maier did have some contact.
	I think that Like all things that have some basis in truth, something happened.
	Now, did it get exaggerated?
	Was there perhaps a little hanky-panky after a while?
	Yes, I think so.
	Was there some truth to it?
	Yes, I think so.
	So, you wanted my take on it?
	That's it.
	Something really did happen?
	Did all of that happen?
	Are all of those photographs real?
	I have my doubts.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Yes, hello.
	That last guest he had on the show, he needs to talk to people that have been in a coma before, or you know, not in the big words, Art.
	It's a great pleasure talking to you.
	Wait, why would talking to somebody who had been in a coma, why would that?
	When you're unconscious, You know, your body function is moving and sometimes you've got a breathing tube in your throat and they pull the plug on you.
	Sometimes your body kicks in, you know, out of a miracle or whatever, whatever that might be.
	But it kicks in and it keeps your mind occupied and it operates your lungs.
	Well, your brain, of course, keeps the basic functions of your body going under normal circumstances, but I can't see why talking to somebody who's been in a coma would shed any light on all of this.
	I don't get that at all, sorry.
	Unless they had some sort of experience that they would tell us about that was beyond the body.
	First time caller on the line, you're on the air, hello.
	And, Citroen Manila, good afternoon, Art.
	Good afternoon.
	What came to mind with your guest tonight was the old query, if a tree falls in the forest, do you remember that?
	Of course, yes.
	Yeah, if you're not there to see it, did it really fall?
	And I don't know, the other thing that I was going to mention is Well, when I take a walk in the forest, I see a lot of trees that have fallen.
	I wasn't there to see them, but nevertheless, they're on the ground.
	There are.
	If a rock rolls down a hill and destroys a house, if no one was there to see it, did it really roll down the hill and destroy the house?
	That's right, yes.
	The three things, time, space, and matter, have to exist at the same time.
	Time, space, and matter have to exist.
	Well, yeah, I guess that's right, sure.
	You can't have one without the other.
	You can't have matter without space to put it in.
	You can't have time without something to time.
	So before the Big Bang, there was nothing, not even time, not even space.
	And the Creator created all three.
	Well certainly, I think there was not time.
	I have no argument with that because we had no way to measure one object's movement versus another.
	So there couldn't have been time.
	Certainly there could have been space.
	There could have been empty space.
	Maybe there was a universe of empty space.
	We have no way of knowing that that did not exist.
	It's an interesting question, but time could not have existed until we had mass.
	And, of course, with mass you get gravity.
	Let's go west of the Rockies and say good morning.
	You're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Hello.
	Yes, good morning.
	Well, it's really a pleasure to talk to you.
	Art, long time listener and it's great to be talking to the master.
	Thank you.
	And just a little shout out, you were talking about ham radio operators and I think K6SQ wanted to say hi.
	Okay, hello back.
	And you know, the reason I called, the guy kind of stole my thunder, right?
	Because I really did think the guy was making that same argument about trees falling.
	You know, in the forest, if there's nobody there to hear them.
	In other words, nothing exists unless we perceive it.
	Not even history.
	But I do think they fall.
	That's the thing.
	I mentioned, and you can verify it yourself, take a little walk in the forest, you will see maybe fallen trees.
	The fact that you weren't there to see them, apparently, they still fell.
	Yeah, well, I mean, I don't necessarily agree with him, but that seemed to be kind of the crux of his argument.
	Clearly it was.
	Yes.
	So and then that just had a little story.
	Unrelated story.
	We had time.
	Um.
	I had a friend who, uh, used to collect rocks.
	He was a stonemason.
	And make custom fireplaces.
	Around the more affluent areas of L. A county.
	And he used to go to the desert.
	This is in the late sixties, early seventies.
	Okay, very quickly, because we're coming up on a break.
	And so?
	And so, yeah, he was out there spending the night on his truck, on the back of his truck, and he was woken up in the middle of the night by a humming noise.
	And he looked up to his left, and there was a black object that appeared to be humming and maybe spinning about four feet away from him.
	And it sat there, and he looked at it, and it observed him.
	Very quickly.
	About 15 or 20 seconds.
	Actually, we don't even have 15 or 20 seconds.
	I'm sorry.
	I've got to go.
	But that's one of a million stories of the kind that we were really talking about.
	Things that are completely inexplicable.
	Things that get put up on the shelf that they can't explain, so they don't try.
	They just put them away.
	We'll be right back.
	Don't forget, you can also go to the website www.coasttocoastam.com and there you can send what's called a fast blast and I receive it on the computer.
	Magic!
	All the way to the other side of the world, just like that.
	And I've received many, many fast blasts.
	So if you have a question, go ahead and fire away and I'll see if I can get to it before the end of the program.
	All right, we're going to take a break and back with unscreened open lines.
	From the capital city of the Philippines, Manila, I'm Art Bell and this is Coast to Coast AM and I guarantee you we own the night.
	There's no question about that.
	By the way, coming next week back to New York and the grand WOR that just has a signal that will not quit.
	So hopefully I'll be with you next week to sort of celebrate that fact.
	I'm Art Bell and we'll be going right... well, let's just go straight back to the line, shall we?
	I think this would be the international line.
	Let me give it a try.
	You're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hi, Art.
	My name is Philip.
	I'm calling from Montreal.
	We spoke three years ago, as a matter of fact.
	You approved my appearance on your show to reveal I'm an independent quantum gravity researcher.
	And you gave the go-ahead for me to appear on your show, however I had to postpone due to a cancer in the family, but if you'll allow me, I'd like to perhaps clarify a few things your guest was trying to say.
	Well, go ahead and try.
	Okay.
	It's an old debate.
	What he's labeled as biocentrism is really a famous debate between Einstein and Niels Bohr and the Copenhagen Institute, and it's properly called positivism.
	It's the positivism versus realism debate.
	And really, in a nutshell, it comes down to what he was trying to say, that we live in an observer-created reality.
	And this is John Wheeler's phrase, whom he quoted often.
	And the philosophical dilemma here is that We live in an observer-created reality in the sense that we should really think of reality as our consensus reality.
	Science seeks to explain those things that we measure and can measure, and only those things which in fact happen.
	We don't need a theory, for example, to explain why, you know, lava doesn't come oozing out of a tree while you're having your picnic in the park.
	This is something that never happens, and we don't need a theory to explain that.
	So we don't need theories to explain things which don't happen, only things which do happen, which in a nutshell is what we observe.
	Yes, but when you get to the quantum world, you need a theory to explain the inexplicable.
	Well, you need a theory to, you need to sort out your observations.
	So we need theories to describe our, to explain, if you will, our observations.
	And we need to be careful about the use of the word explain as well.
	Underlying principles, those are explanations.
	Science itself is a description.
	Science is the what and the how.
	And philosophy and principles and axioms are the underlying reasons, and those are the why.
	And our theory, the structure of a theory, is the global explanatory model that we're making to explain or give the reasons why Nature appears to be behaving as it does.
	So, our consensus reality is what we're seeking to explain, and it's because we can never isolate ourselves from the universe.
	We are using consciousness to try to explain consciousness, and that's a self-reference problem.
	The scientific method, you see, would have us isolate ourselves from those things we seek to describe and explain.
	But we can never do that in the absolute case with ourselves, because we are part of the universe we're trying to explain.
	And so that is exactly the problem in a nutshell, is that we should think of reality not as a reality as it really absolutely is.
	Science does not uncover reality as it absolutely is.
	We cannot make absolute statements, because we cannot separate ourselves Okay, well, I now feel the headache that I had earlier coming back.
	I certainly appreciate your call, sir, though, and your attempt to, again, explain the inexplicable.
	I don't know.
	I've got to think about, I've got to give a lot of thought to what my guest said.
	That, well, that all of this around us, everything we see, everything we perceive, is only there
	because of our consciousness.
	And were it not for our consciousness, it would not, presumably, would not be here.
	Or it would be... Well, that's what causes the headache.
	First time caller line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Am I on?
	It's you, yes.
	Outstanding.
	First time caller, this is the first time I've actually gotten through.
	All right.
	Where are you?
	Dallas, Texas.
	Dallas, okay.
	So, just unrelated to your guest, since these are open lines, I have an experience that happened to me.
	Just wanted to know if you have heard anything like this.
	That when I was eight years old, I was looking out my bedroom window.
	And granted, uh, I grew up in, uh, Virginia, right by a military base.
	And at eight years old, it was actually on my eighth birthday, I was looking out, you know, the bedroom window that night and saw a flash of light.
	Well, I woke up the next morning and I have an unexplained scar on my arm.
	It's very faint.
	Looks like it's been there for years, but I never had it the night before.
	You think you were abducted?
	I honestly do not know.
	I mean, but again it happened on my 16th birthday.
	Then nothing on my 24th.
	I'm wondering if anything's gonna happen on my 32nd birthday.
	Well, if it does, be sure and give us a call.
	You know, I don't know what to say about that, nor about abductions in general, but it is a fascinating topic.
	It really is, and I know it's on the fringe of even what we talk about, but I've talked to a lot of abductees, and That's what I was saying a little bit earlier.
	Even at the base of most lies, there is some truth.
	So, there's something going on.
	Are we being told about it?
	No.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Is that me?
	That's you.
	Hey, cool.
	How you doing?
	I'm fine.
	I'm sorry, it's Joe from where?
	Chucking around Atlanta.
	Oh, okay.
	I've got a question.
	There's been a lot of scandal going on in the U.N.
	with the comet survey thing.
	Wait, I don't know all the exact words.
	What's your opinion on that?
	Because I read your book, The Global Plum Pit, The Coming Global Superstorm.
	The Coming Global Superstorm?
	Yeah, I read that back in the early 90s, or excuse me, in the early 2000s.
	And, you know, it explained to me a lot about why the woolly mammoths are encased in ice 5,000 years ago and other such squandering.
	I just wonder what you think about this climate survey having all these scandals with the information being doctored, so to speak.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Yes, he's referring, of course, to the infamous now emails.
	I think that, once again, there is some basis in truth to the fact that some of the numbers were fudged.
	However, there is simply no question about the fact that the climate is changing.
	Now, the argument, as always, is about how much of a percentage is due to man's hand and how much is due to natural cyclical changes in the global climate.
	And I remain convinced, despite the emails, that it's a scientific certainty that we are having some effect on the climate.
	By us, I mean man.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what to say about that.
	It's a shame that that occurred.
	Do I think that it means that the whole global warming thing is a scam?
	No, I don't.
	I understand why those who always thought that jumped on this as hard as they did, but I don't think it changes the basic science.
	I truly don't.
	So, if that answers your question, fine.
	If not, we can take it up in the future and talk more about it east of the Rockies.
	No, that would be west of the Rockies.
	I'm sorry, you're on the air.
	Hello Art, this is downtown Dave.
	I used to call you quite a bit from Anchorage, Alaska, but now I live in Washington.
	Art, I just want to tell you how much I miss you and how much I appreciated you over the years.
	You're like an old friend.
	And my question is tonight, your happiness level seemed like around 1997 there was a lot of bad stuff going on, and now your life has changed quite radically.
	Could you comment on where you're at when it comes to being happy and also any benefits or challenges you have with the new wife that you got?
	Because I really admire you for that.
	God bless you, Art.
	God bless you, brother.
	Thank you very much.
	Oh, I don't know.
	My happiness level is high.
	Things are going well in life and challenges.
	Challenges.
	Well, I'm keeping up with my young wife and that's a challenge.
	My daughter is a challenge and a joy.
	My general happiness level, I can't spend a lot of time on this, but it's high.
	I'm very happy indeed.
	Very happy with my life and very happy to be where I am right now.
	I think my happiness level went up several notches when I was able to get my antenna up.
	No, I'm happy.
	We've got a remarkable life here and I really would love sometime to talk about what it's like to live in an exotic country like the Philippines and just chat with you about it.
	There are so many differences that I wouldn't even know where to begin.
	If you've ever come to the Far East, and not many Americans do, they just don't come to the Far East.
	They tend to go on vacation in Europe or wherever, but very rarely do they come to the Far East.
	And Southeast Asia is an amazing part of the world.
	It is so very different.
	That I would need a full program to explain it to you, to discuss it with you.
	It's an amazing part of the world, simply amazing.
	So, I'll leave it at that for now because there's just not enough time, but let me express the opinion that, again, I would like the time to discuss it with you.
	Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
	Good morning.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	Yes, hello.
	Hi there.
	I wanted to offer a theory that you mentioned about Before the Big Bang, what was the consciousness that had to make that real?
	And something I came across was that there is just one singular consciousness and that me and you and everybody else is just all one.
	And so the Big Bang is is a We're still kind of in this bubble, and it's just a different form of that.
	And then we have the subconscious level, where you are Mike.
	That's the physical plane we're in, but we're still inside that singular consciousness, and that's what created the Big Bang.
	Well, it may well be, sir, that God is inside all of us.
	I read somebody's prose that suggested that There was God, and he was lonely.
	And he was so lonely that he blew himself up.
	And that was the Big Bang.
	And that we are now, that God is within all of us.
	I don't know if that is so, but I found it compelling and interesting to think about.
	Let's go back to the first time caller line, giving somebody a chance.
	You're on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello, this is Richard.
	I'm out here in the desert by Baker, California.
	That's near a home.
	Yes, sir.
	It's an honor and a privilege to talk to you.
	I've listened to you for years and I miss you very much.
	I had a theory on the trees falling in forests.
	If a tree falls in a forest and a man's standing next to it and he hears it fall, But he has no one to tell it to.
	It is still making noise, absolutely.
	That's a new one.
	And I think that we should just appreciate the trees that are still standing.
	Oh boy, isn't that a fact?
	And I do believe that, I believe I'm God, I believe that we're all God.
	The question I ask myself every morning is, What kind of God am I going to be today?
	You know?
	Well, hopefully a good one, sir.
	Thank you very much for the call.
	So short on time.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Hi.
	Hi, Eric.
	This is Jeff on the Mendocino Coast.
	From Machu Picchu to Michu Cacu, all places in between, and points way beyond, thanks for all you've brought to the air over the years, man.
	You're very welcome.
	I talked to you on New Year's Eve.
	I was caller prediction number 69 and I talked about the Mendocino triple
	junction and an earthquake occurring in that area.
	I said it would be eight plus but nine days after I spoke to you Art
	there was a six five and I actually felt the earthquake that I predicted
	although it wasn't as intense. Nine days later is pretty imminent which I also
	mentioned. Yeah I know but six five and nine five that's uh look up the difference.
	Well, yeah, it's like... You know, you wouldn't be here bragging to me about the 6 if there'd been a 9-5.
	Well, I'm not really bragging.
	My point is, if you were to take an hourglass as a metaphor for time, the point where it's narrowed down being where we have consciousness and measure that time, the sand below would be events that have already happened that we remember The sand above is where we would maybe pre-member future events.
	And as they pass through, maybe we can see them on that event horizon as they come through.
	And of course, shortly thereafter, there was an 8.8 in Chile, which was labeled as catastrophic.
	My point being, maybe we see some of these grains of sand close together in the future when they happen pretty much, I mean, they were a month apart or so.
	And with all that occurring, Of course, the whole ring of fires lit up.
	I mean, you just felt it the other day.
	But with all that occurring, I wonder how much, you know, we forget sometimes what's happened in the past.
	Was it this event or was it that event and the details of it?
	It's pretty incredible, all the guests that you've had over the years that have predicted things.
	And I guess if we put the Ed Dames test to it, maybe I was a little closer than that.
	I mean, certainly I wasn't completely right, but I definitely wasn't entirely wrong either on it.
	I just wonder if maybe we're seeing that coming through that narrow point where we measure time, we have consciousness, kind of put a metaphor on what was discussed earlier tonight, if that's not part of it, and that sometimes things get a little bit scrambled.
	So I'm not trying to brag here, I'm trying to kind of dissect and understand why maybe some of those things are seen ahead of time that maybe aren't exactly placed in the right place because of the movement coming towards us.
	Okay, I can accept that.
	Believe me, I can accept that.
	Nevertheless, the difference between a 6.1, 6.2, and 9.5 is big enough that I'm afraid
	it's going to be a bonk as opposed to a ding.
	And as I mentioned, if it was a 9.5, why in all probability you wouldn't be able to, well
	I won't use the word brag, but even mention your prediction number 6.
	So, it's going to be a bonk, but you know, I understand what you're saying.
	There was a little shaker and it was exactly where you said it would be, just a long way from the kind of severity that you suggested it would be.
	And by the way, our 6.1 felt On the 19th floor of a condominium.
	Felt pretty big.
	And he's right about the ring of fire.
	It is shaking, rattling, and rolling.
	Listen everybody from Manila in the Philippines.
	That's it this night.
	Boy the time flew.
	I'm Art Bell and I'll be back soon for another ride.

▲