The Joe Rogan Experience - #1828 - Michio Kaku

Episode Date: June 8, 2022

Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist, author, and science educator. He is featured in the UFO/UAP documentary "A Tear in the Sky," now available on all VOD and digital platforms.  http://www.atearinthesky.com/  https://mkaku.org/

Thanks for doing this, I really appreciate it. My pleasure, anytime. It's very nice to meet you in person. We actually did a radio show together once remotely a long time ago. I was on the Opie and Anthony show and you called in. That's right. That was their live. Yeah.

That was a blast. Yeah, it was very fun. When a person like yourself, you're in this documentary, A Tear in the Sky. And for a person like yourself who is a very well-respected scientist to be discussing the subject of UFOs, to me it signifies that there's been a shift in the way our culture perceives these things. That's right. It used to be the third rail of a scientific establishment. If you talk about UFOs, you are pretty much relegated to being a nutcase, and the giggle factor kicks in, right?

Yeah. But things have changed then, you know, because of the fact that the military is now basically releasing hours of videotapes of things that defy the normal laws of physics. And the military has admitted that, quote, they're not ours. Before there was always that ambiguity that maybe it's a new stealth bomber or a new fantastic device being prepared by the military. Nope. The military now admits that they're not ours. Then the question is, whose are they then? Yeah. The 2017 New York Times article, in my mind, that was a big shift because when the New York Times is reporting about it and saying

that this is major news and this is real and there's video evidence that they can't ignore, when you talk to high level people at the government and people like Commander David Fravor, who had that infamous spotting off of the coast of San Diego, when you hear about people like that, that are very reputable, it starts to change the conversation in a lot of people's eyes. Right. See, it used to be that one person would see something in the sky and say, look, Martha, look, there's something up there. Now things have changed. Now we have multiple sightings by multiple modes. That is the gold standard, the gold standard for looking for these objects. Not just one person, but several people that are reputable. Not just radar, but visual

sighting, infrared sensors, telescopic evidence. Now we have multiple sightings by multiple modes. And so the burden of proof has shifted. It used to be the burden of proof was on the people who believed in UFOs. They saw something, prove it. Now the burden of proof has shifted. It used to be the burden of proof was on the people who believed in UFOs. They saw something, prove it. Now the burden of proof has shifted to the Pentagon, to the military. Now they have to prove that these aren't extraterrestrial. And so I think there's been a sea change, a sea change in the last just several years. You know, 50 years ago, there was a congressional hearing, and it was coming out of Project Blue Book. And there was a lot of laughter and a lot of jokes about little green men in outer

space. 50 years ago, that's the way it was. Now, things have changed. Now, people are looking at, are they a threat militarily? What kinds of sensors do we have? What kind of metrics do we have? We now have frame by frame an analysis of these objects. These objects travel between Mach 5 and Mach 20. That's 20 times the speed of sound. These objects can zigzag, and we can measure the g-force inside this object.

The g-forces are several hundred times the force of gravity. In other words, any living person's bones would be crushed by these objects, so they're probably drones of some sort. These objects can drop 70,000 feet in a few seconds. Think about that. It can drop a tremendous distance in just a few seconds and they can go underwater. This is something that we didn't realize before, but yes, they can actually go underwater. And they also move without creating an exhaust or breaking the

sound barrier. So these are things that we can now document frame by frame looking at these videotapes. So for yourself, what was the shift? And how did you feel about UFOs, say like 10, 15 years ago? Well, there is this giggle factor, and it's the third rail, of course, of your scientific reputation if you believe in these things. But the evidence is accumulating over the last several years. Now, when I was first approached by Carolyn Corey, the producer of this film, A Tear in the Sky, I was skeptical. I said to myself, come on, I mean, five days? Five days you're going to look for flying saucers in the sky? What happens if the aliens are camera shy and they don't show up in five days? So I was pleasantly surprised when they actually found something. They actually have photographic

evidence of objects that can gyrate just the way the Pentagon has said. And so we now have a sea change. A center of gravity has changed with regards to looking at these objects. We no longer simply look at one individual seeing something in the sky. No, we demand hours of videotape, multiple sightings by multiple modes. That's the gold standard now. So what do you think is happening? Do you think that this is something that maybe another government from another country has created that far surpasses our abilities? Or do you think that this is coming from somewhere else? Well, the Pentagon has listed, I think, five different options. One option, of course,

is that there are weather balloons or something that's an artifact of our space program, maybe a piece of rocket that is plunging back into the Earth's atmosphere. That's one category. Another category is anomalous weather events. They happen, and they have to be looked at very carefully. But the last option, the last option is other. That is not just the Russians or the Chinese, because these objects apparently can gyrate faster than what the Chinese and the Russians can muster.

But it opened the door to the possibility of other. They didn't specify what other was, but you can fill in the dots yourself. Now, one possibility for other is hypersonic drones. for other is hypersonic drones. We see that in warfare now. The Russians in the Battle of Ukraine is actually using hypersonic drones to hit targets inside Ukraine. To be hypersonic, you have to go faster than Mach 5. Anything faster than five times the speed of sound is called hypersonic. And so the Russians are now fielding hypersonic drones in warfare. But you see, this is something just in the last few months. These sightings, they go back decades into the past with objects executing these gyrations decades ago.

And that's why you have to take them seriously. So the Commander David Fravor event that we talked about off the Nimitz, that was 2004. Do we have an accurate understanding about military capability in terms of like drones and propulsion systems from 2004? Or are there things that are classified that we are not going to have access to? Like, is it possible that, you know, 18 years ago, they had the capability to have a vehicle or a drone move this way, that just that information has just not been released? Well, two years ago, the United States military admitted that it stopped working on these hypersonic drones. Why? They're unstable. They zigzag. And that's why the Russians have put a premium on

this technology to evade our Star Wars program. The Russians wanted a rocket that can maneuver and therefore outwit a stationary Star Wars system designed to shoot down these drones. So that's why the Russians have put a priority on this, and they're now fielding in warfare. We actually see them as a military weapon. Two years ago, the United States military stopped its program. They're too unstable. They were not reliable, and it was not worth the amount of money to put into it because the military was invested in the Star Wars program, not the anti-Star Wars program. But because Vladimir Putin announced the Star Wars program, not the anti-Star Wars program. But because Vladimir

Putin announced the hypersonic drones, then the United States military said, oops, nope, we have to get into the game too. So now the United States is also working on hypersonic drones, as well as the Chinese. So the Chinese, the Russians, and the Americans are all working on these things. But you can see how primitive they are. We're talking about objects that define the known laws of aerodynamics with a technology beyond what we have today. And so that's why people are scratching their heads. Whose are these things if they're not the Chinese, the Russians, or the United States? So one of the main points of contention is the lack of visible propulsion method, right? There's no, essentially, there's no heat signature. There's nothing that we understand

to be present that normally exists when something is going at a tremendous rate of speed. That's right. Not only that, these objects create no sonic booms. When you exceed the sound barrier, you create a gigantic boom that then shatters windows and can be heard miles around. These objects can effortlessly break the sound barrier and not create a sonic boom. And they don't create any exhaust. We don't see an exhaust trail from these objects. So either they're an optical

illusion of some sort, or they have a set of laws of physics beyond what we can muster. Now, if they are an optical illusion, if an object were to move in front of your eyes traveling at a very slow velocity, but you don't know how far they are away, you may think that object is very far away from you traveling at enormous velocities. So a weather balloon drifting in front of your eyes can simulate an object traveling at hypersonic velocities if you think that weather balloon is far away from you. So how do you tell the difference?

Well, you look at wind patterns. It turns out that many of these sightings, these objects, defy the direction of the wind. If they are weather balloons that you can fuse with a flying saucer, then they would be moving with the direction of the wind. But these objects do not do that. These objects can go against the direction of the wind. Not only that, but we have multiple sightings. If an object is very, very far away, I mean, if an object is close to you, but you think it's far away, then it's traveling at an enormous velocity while it's actually just drifting

in front of your eyes. How do you tell the difference? By having multiple sensors, radar, infrared sensors, visual sighting. Then you can tell how far this object is away from you, and then you can say that, nope, it's an optical illusion. Well, we do that now. We have multiple sightings of these objects. By radar, we know how the velocity, the distance, each time it comes out to be real. the velocity, the distance, each time it comes out to be real. And so that's why we're scratching our heads.

Who has this capability? And the answer is we don't know. Is there anything that's theoretical that you're aware of that could be applied, like from some other planet or some other galaxy or whatever, something that maybe we have theorized that could be responsible for the way these things are able to move? Well, you know, when I talk to my friends who are physicists like myself about these things, they sort of like laugh, giggle, their eyes roll up to the heavens,

and they say something very simple, that a rocket, using conventional means, would take 70,000 years to reach us from the nearest star. Therefore, these objects cannot exist. 70,000 years for a Saturn rocket traveling at 25,000 miles per hour to go from a nearest star to the planet Earth. That's why most scientists disregard these sightings because they defy the laws of Einstein. But isn't that kind of silly? Isn't that kind of like saying, like, you know how long it would take you to get a horse from Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia?

Isn't that kind of like saying that? Exactly. And that's why I say that that assumes that these aliens or whatever are maybe 100 years more advanced than us. these aliens or whatever are maybe a hundred years more advanced than us. But open your mind to the possibility that they are a thousand years more advanced than us. A thousand years is nothing compared to the age of the universe. The universe is about 13 billion plus years old. That's how the age of the universe. And so the age of a civilization, just a few thousand years ahead of us, that is just a blink of an eye to the universe itself. And once you go to higher energies, the laws of physics begin to break down. The laws of Einstein and the laws

of the quantum theory break down at something called the Planck energy. Why is that important? quantum theory break down at something called the Planck energy. Why is that important? That's what I do for a living. I work on something called string theory, which lives at the Planck energy. The Planck energy is 10 to the 19 billion electron volts. That is a quadrillion times more powerful than our most powerful atom smasher outside Geneva, Switzerland. Any civilization that could harness the Planck energy would be able to become masters of space and time. Space and time as we know it become unstable at the Planck energy, which is far beyond anything that we can muster here on the planet Earth. So we physicists theorize how advanced do you have to be to access the Planck energy? Well, we rank them.

The Kardashev scale says that there could be Type I, Type II, or Type III civilizations. A Type I civilization is maybe 100 years more advanced than us to maybe 1,000 years, sort of like Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon. They control the weather. Volcanoes, earthquakes, anything planetary, they control. That's type one. Then there's type two. Type two is stellar.

They harness the power of an entire star, like Star Trek. Star Trek would be a typical type two civilization where they manipulate entire stars. Then there's type 3. Type 3 is galactic. They roam the galactic space lanes. They play with black holes like the empire of the Star Wars series would be a typical type 3 civilization.

Then the next question is, what type do you have to be to harness the Planck energy? The energy at which space and time become unstable, where wormholes may develop, gateways through space and time, portholes through empty space. You have to be type 2 or most likely type 3. Then the next question is,

how long will it take before you become type 3? Well, we are maybe 100 years away from being type 1. We're maybe a few thousand years from being from type 2. And we're maybe 100,000 years from being type 3. And 100,000 years is nothing, nothing on a galactic scale. The age of the universe is, as I said, over 13 billion years old. And so once a civilization reaches the Planck energy, that is a Type 3 civilization, space and time become your playground. How do they make the estimates of how long it would take to develop such technology? By looking at the gross national product of nations, we know that most nations grow at the

rate of maybe 2% or 3% per year in energy consumption. Given that number, 2% to 3% per year, we then calculate how much energy they would have in 100 years, 1,000 years. Now, we are about a civilization, about 0.7. Carl Sagan did the calculation. We're not a type 1 civilization yet. We're type 0.7. But that means that by the year 2100, at the turn of the century, will probably be Type 1. And you can see that everywhere you go. What is the internet? The internet is the beginning of a Type 1 communication

system. We're privileged to be alive to see the first Type 1 technology fall into our era. What about sports and culture? The Olympics, the beginning of a type one sports. Soccer, the beginning of a type one fashion with Gucci and Chanel, the beginning of a type one language. The number one and two languages on the internet are English and Chinese. So we're seeing the beginning of a type one language. So in other words, the greatest transition in human history is maybe 100 years from now when we become type one, a planetary civilization harnessing planetary forces. That is perhaps the greatest transition in modern history. And we're about 100 years from becoming type one.

So the type one, we would be able to control weather events, and we'd be able to control planetary events. That's right. Like you believe that by Type 1, we'll be able to prevent supervolcano eruptions, things along those lines? That's right. We'll have the power of an entire planet at our disposal, and we see the beginnings of that today because that's been the biggest

change in the last hundred years. Hundred years ago, we existed as a fragmented civilization, nations battling each other for small turfs. Now we're beginning to see the emergence of planetary blocks, a planetary economy beginning to develop. And the internet, as I said, is the first type one telephone system to fall into this century. When you think of technologies that could potentially change the pattern of progression, meaning that we're on this sort of exponential rate of increase in technology, what about something along the lines of what Elon Musk is proposing with Neuralink, something that would change the way a human being's brain interfaces with information and with each other? Yeah, I think that's coming. First of all, when you look at

the history of science and technology, the first phase was the Industrial Revolution of 1800, The first phase was the Industrial Revolution of 1800, when we physicists worked out the laws of steam engines and thermodynamics. That was the first great transition in human society. The second great transition was when we physicists worked out electricity and magnetism. They gave us the electric age with dynamos and generators and radio and television. The third great transition was the computer revolution when we physicists worked out the quantum mechanics of transistors. So all of a sudden we have lasers, transistors, and the Internet. Now we're entering stage four.

Stage four is physics at the molecular level, meaning artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and biotechnology. You are now talking about the fifth wave, the fifth force, and that is physics at the atomic level, meaning brain net. Brain net is when we harness the power of the brain connected to the Internet. Also, quantum computers, when we start to use individual atoms to compute with, not simply transistors, but no, atomic transistors. These are called quantum computers, they're coming.

And third is fusion power. We're gonna have the power of the sun in a bottle in the fourth stage of technology. So Elon Musk, I think, is ahead of his time, but it's going to take time to develop the brain hooked up to the computer, hooked up to the Internet. So the future of the Internet, Internet 2.0, is brain net. When we mentally control the Internet,

you simply think and all your commands or your wishes are fulfilled. We put a chip in the brain. This has already been done. The chip in the brain is then connected to a laptop. The laptop deciphers the electrical impulses of the brain and then operates the internet, operates a typewriter, operates a wheelchair, operates the lights, so that a person who's totally paralyzed can now live a reasonable approximation to a normal life. We can actually connect a human to an exoskeleton and have them kick a football to initiate the soccer games in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Whoa. Two years ago in Sao Paulo, Brazil,

it made headlines when a paralyzed man was hooked up to an exoskeleton designed at Duke University, and he kicked the football initiating the international soccer games in Sao Paulo, Brazil. So is there a video of that available? Oh, yeah. Google it. So you can find that. Yeah, you can simply Google it. You can see him. You see him walk up to the ball and kick the soccer ball.

And so eventually we're going to connect the human mind to the Internet. So this means that emotions, feelings, sensations can be sent on the Internet, not just digital signals. And that means that entertainment is going to be totally revolutionized. You know, Charlie Chaplin used to be this great actor, dominated the movies until the talkies came. And when the talkies came, nobody wanted to see Charlie Chaplin anymore. You wanted to see actors talk. That lasted for 50 years. And once we have BrainNet,

then the actors of today could be put out of business because people will want to know what actors are feeling, their emotional state, their sensations. And that's then going to be the internet of the future, Internet 2.0. What is the bottleneck in terms of communication? Is it like if we do develop some sort of a method where human beings can communicate through technology with our brains via neural link or some similar technology. Would the bottleneck be language? And if so, would there be a way to create a universal language? Like we, are we married to the languages that we currently have because of our region?

Because of, you know, you live in America, you speak English or Spanish, or whatever you speak, but it's primarily English and Spanish. But if you live in Chinese, you speak the various dialects, you know, obviously, there's a lot of languages, and that is an impediment to understanding each other. Do you think that it's possible that a universal language could be created? And if so, would it be created in a way that is very different than any language that's ever existed before? Well, we're not there yet.

First of all, the impulses of the brain are digital signals, little blips on a computer screen. And then a computer simply tries to interpret what these little blips are and then tries to construct, for example, an alphabet so that you can type. You can type by thinking about it. But that requires you to take the signals from the brain and then have a computer decipher it through the English language into

text. You want something different. You want a universal brain language. We're not there yet. What about a visual language, like a hieroglyphics, like something along those lines, like where you could have a universal visual language that everyone learns at a young age? Well, we already at the University of California at Berkeley have been able to put the human brain into an MRI machine, which calculates blood flow at thousands of points inside the living brain. Once you know the blood flow at thousands of points on the human brain, you feed that into a computer and the computer prints out a picture, a picture of what you are thinking. Now, I've seen these pictures. They're not very clear.

But the very fact that we can extract a picture from a living brain is incredible. Yeah, I've seen that. It's pretty fascinating. It's fascinating stuff. And even when you go to sleep, the machine keeps on going and will eventually print out your dream. Whoa. Now, this has not been done. I've seen pictures of the dreams.

They're not very good yet. But that's just a matter of time. Because, of course, the number of pixels that we have is about 20,000 pixels of the human brain. In the future, we'll have millions of pixels of the human brain to have a much finer resolution of your dream. And, of course, after your dream, just make sure that your wife or husband doesn't get access to the picture. Ha, ha, ha. Or get a better wife or husband if they're getting mad at you about dreams.

Do we have a video of the Sao Paulo? Yeah. Let's see this. Not a lot. So this is the guy. Can't see much happen either. Oh, that's okay. It'll replay it. Yeah. Oh, so it's very. Not a lot. So this is the guy. Can't see much happen either. Oh, that's okay. It'll replay it.

Oh, so it's very simple. Wow, what a machine he's connected to. And do you liken that to ancient technology like Morse code as opposed to what we could do now with cell phones? Eventually this is going to get far, far better. Yeah, I remember this is the first time in history that someone with an exoskeleton has been able to, on national television, execute something that we just take for granted.

Yeah. And that's today. Can you imagine what's going to happen in the future? Well, one of the things that Elon has said is that one of the first uses of this Neuralink technology will be to help people that have damaged spinal cords and help them regain full motion of their body. Right, to bypass the spinal cord. Yeah. You know, the human brain, we can have a map of the human brain where the arm,

the leg, the tongue are attached. So this creates what is called the homunculus. The homunculus is an image of a human body superimposed on the surface of the brain. So when you want to activate your leg, you simply know what part of the brain is connected to the leg and you simply put a chip there and by thinking of through that chip you can then move your leg. Well, obviously, by putting many chips throughout the surface of the brain, you can control the entire human body and stick that into an exoskeleton and become Iron Man. And Iron Man can fly, but, of course, we can put jetpacks with hydrogen peroxide fuel inside a jetpack,

and you can start to fly just like Iron Man. Now, we're not there yet, but I'm just saying that in principle, it is possible. Do you, I mean, how old are you now? 75. Do you wonder how much you're going to see before your time on this earth is done? Well, you know, digital immortality is something that's coming. I was going to bring that up next. For example, William Shatner sat for, what, three or four days

answering questions and having it then recorded. And then a computer homogenizes it, cuts it up, puts it in a logical sequence so that you can talk to William Shatner years after he has passed away. And so this gives you a form of digital immortality. Pretty crude, though. Pretty crude. But then the question is, what do you do with it? Right.

One is you can talk to your great, great, great, great, great grandkids. Long after you're gone, you can talk to them because all your thoughts, your feelings, your history, your dreams have been recorded. And you can impart your knowledge, your wisdom to your great-great-great-great-great-grandkids long after you're gone. Another application is then to take this digitized human, put it on a laser beam, and shoot it throughout the universe at the speed of light. I call this laser porting. So you digitize the human. So all the responses of the human are on a digital signal. You put it on a laser beam and shoot it to the moon. In one second, your digital brain is on the moon. In 20 minutes, you're on Mars. And in four years, you're on Alpha Centauri, the nearest star. And so what do you do when you're on the moon? On the moon, you download your digital information

that codes who you are onto an avatar. And the avatar then can roam the moon and not have to suffer from weightlessness, cosmic rays, accidents, loss of oxygen. No, you are an avatar controlling all the movements on the moon. In other words, you can explore the galaxy this way. At the speed of light, the fastest known velocity in the universe, your digital brain waves and information about your brain and thinking can be shot throughout the universe. Now, this is all well within the laws of physics, and this is something that could easily be done within the next 50 to 100 years.

However, I'll stick my neck out. I think this already exists. Really? I think that aliens in outer space don't use rocket ships. They don't use that rocket ship because they crash, they have problems with gamma rays, radiation, food, whatever. They've digitized themselves, placed their consciousness on a laser beam, and there's a laser highway.

A laser highway that could be right next to the earth for all we know, carrying the digitized souls of civilizations. And we're totally clueless. We're so stupid. We don't even know that that's how the aliens move from place to place. What other options are there? I mean, isn't there an option of, with a lack of better words, folding space-time and generating enough power where you can move from one point to another point almost instantaneously? Yeah, there are two ways to do that. First of all, in 1935, Einstein, with his student Nathan Rosen, wrote a paper about wormholes. So a black hole is like a funnel. Take two funnels, stick them back to back, nose to nose.

That is a wormhole that connects one funneled universe to another funneled universe. So I have two universes connected by a gateway, which is called the Einstein-Rosen bridge, otherwise known as a wormhole. That's one way to do it. The second way to do it was done by Michael Bier, a friend of mine who was watching Star Trek one day and noticed how the Enterprise zapped across space by contracting the space in front of you and expanding the space behind you so that you do not go to the stars. The stars come to you. So think of walking across a carpet. You can walk across the carpet, which is the long way, or you can contract and compress the carpet in front of you, expand the carpet behind you, and then simply hop, hop over to the other side of the carpet. That is called the Alcabier Drive. Now, then the next question is, what's the catch? There's always a catch someplace, right? Otherwise, we'd be zapping across the universe today.

And that is energy. You would probably have to have energy comparable to that of a black hole. In other words, a type three civilization would have the power perhaps to utilize wormholes or compressed space to go across galactic distances. This, of course, is science fiction, but it's well within the known laws of physics that wormholes and alkyl beer drives that are there possible within the laws of physics. What kind of an energy source could at least theoretically be used to generate that kind of power? Well, in Star Trek, of course, they talk about the dilithium crystals. Of course, there's no such thing as dilithium crystals. But there is something that could energize this machine, and that's called negative energy. Now, energy, as we know, is positive. But there is a situation where energy

can become negative, and that's called the Casimir effect, which is actually measurable. We've actually measured in the laboratory. The Casimir effect is negative energy, and that's the fuel for a wormhole. Wormholes are stabilized by negative energy. In fact, it was Stephen Hawking who actually created a theorem using Einstein's equations to show that all possible wormholes, all of them, are based on negative energy. That's Hawking's theorem. Well, he proved that mathematically, which means that if you have enough negative

energy, then in principle, you could rocket to the stars. And you could rock to the stars pretty quickly. Oh, instantly. Instantly. Right. So if we're talking about a civilization that is 100,000 or a million years more advanced. Type three, right. Yeah.

That's what we're possibly looking at. That's right. Yeah, that's what we're possibly looking at. That's right. So when you have these encounters like they had with that tic-tac-shaped object that went from, I believe it was 60,000 feet above sea level to 50 feet above sea level. Seconds. Yeah. So when you're talking about that kind of speed, possibly that's what you're looking at. That's right. We're talking about them reaching us through a method that is far beyond chemical rockets. Chemical rockets, as I said, take 70,000 years to reach us from the nearby stars. While if, this is a huge shift,

if you could harness the power of Einstein's wormholes or Alcabier's drive, then you could do this almost instantly. But you would need negative energy on a fantastic scale, stellar scale. In other words, you're basically type three. So if you are a type three civilization, then you do have access to the Planck energy, which is the energy of a black hole. So we're doing a lot of looking at the potential for the future and we're looking a lot at you know what we think human beings are capable of doing thousands of years from now what about are we are we looking at the potential different kinds of life forms like we're the only intelligent life form on earth that manipulates its environment in the sense of like what humans do we build

houses and planes and things along those lines we have other intelligent life like orcas and whales but they don't have the same capabilities that we have is it possible that there's something that exists that evolved in a way far different than us that has access to intelligence beyond what we think is possible? Well, there are three basic ingredients that made us become intelligent. First is the opposable thumb or a claw or a tentacle, a manipulation device. Second is predator eyesight, eyesight of a predator. Predators are smarter than prey. Predators have to scheme. They have to stalk. They have to have camouflage. They have to deceive, which is much more difficult than that of a prey, which simply has to run. So in other words, some kind of stereo eyesight of some sort. Third, language. A baby learns, you know, several words a day. By the

time they're in high school, they know several thousand words. Animals are lucky if you can get maybe 50 or so words out of them. So those are the three ingredients that made us intelligent. And then you ask yourself a simple question. How many other animals have all three? An advanced language, a posable thumb of some sort, and stereo eyesight. Well, we're the only game in town. But that doesn't mean that in the universe there couldn't be other situations with different combinations which have these three ingredients. Communication, manipulation of the environment, okay, and coordination of that. That's how we became intelligent. And it could happen in other planets.

Do you think that one of the impediments is what we were talking about earlier, that the languages are so different? Like in order for us to share knowledge with people in China, we have to learn their language, share knowledge with Germany. We have to learn their language. There's got to be some sort of communication. What if a species developed where they didn't have a language barrier, or perhaps they communicate in a method that we don't understand yet, or that we're not capable of because we live in a completely different environment than them. Like maybe they communicate from the jump telepathically. Well, they would have a definite advantage if they could communicate telepathically,

because then they can share knowledge almost instantly. That's not outside the realm of possibility, right? Not outside the realm of possibility. However, it'd be very difficult because our brain has not developed a universal language that allows us to communicate with other brains. Now, we do have what is called synthetic telepathy. Synthetic telepathy already exists, but that's mediated by a laptop computer. You take two people who are paraplegics or have problems with their brain. You can connect the two brains together, but the language that these two brains speak is still English. So that's a problem. You want a universal language.

Yes. But we do know that there's some species that communicate without language, like bees. I remember we were filming this television show on Sphere Factor, and one of the things we did was we had this stunt that these people had to get covered in bees. So this beekeeper who was hired to cover these people in bees had to stop the production down because a neighboring beehive had come over to investigate. And so these bees flew up into the air to visit with the neighboring bees and they communicated. And I said, well, what do you have to do? And he goes, we just have to let them work it out. He goes, they're going to figure it out. It'll take a little while though. So everybody should just move away. So we all moved away and he watched his bees communicate with these other

bees. I go, what are they doing? He goes, we don't really know. We really don't know. We think they use pheromones. We think there's a, but somehow or another, they're going to relay that they are not moving in, that they're just temporarily here, and that will be enough for the neighboring bees to say, well, enjoy your time here and take care. And that's what happened. I mean, obviously, I'm simplifying it into language, but something happened where they've worked out that these bees somehow or another knew that these other bees were not from there. Well, when you look at ants in your own house, for example, or in the forest, you notice that when two ants meet, they exchange chemicals, invisible chemicals,

and they move on to the next ant, and they bump into them, and then they exchange chemicals, right? So we've tried to decipher that language. And it turns out there's only a handful of chemicals that we've identified that are exchanged between ants. And then at MIT, they tried to construct artificial ants, robot ants. So when two robot ants meet, they exchange a limited vocabulary, just like what ants do in real life, a limited vocabulary. And then the next question is, ants do in real life, a limited vocabulary. And then the next question is, with these mechanical ants, can you reconstruct ant society, all of ant society, given a primitive language that exists between two ants? And the verdict is still out, but the answer seems to be yes, that given a limited vocabulary between two ants, it's possible to construct ant society on the basis of a rather

primitive language. And when you say ant society, do you mean like the hierarchy of queen and workers and all that? That's right. And building the nest and fending off invaders and disposing of dead ants. And yeah, all the things that ants do can be replicated by a rather simple language that ants use when they communicate with each other. What about really complex ant societies like leafcutter ants that develop these caverns that allow for fermentation and air vents? And have you ever, have you seen when they've poured cement into leafcutter ant colonies? Yeah. Fascinating. they've poured cement into leafcutter ant colonies.

Yeah. Fascinating. Like they have very complex systems of caverns and labyrinths. I mean, it's weird stuff. It's like it's all these tubes that lead to these rooms and there's vents that go up through the ceiling. And when they pour cement in it, it almost is a shame because it's the only way that you get to see it. But you have to kill all the ants and, you know, we get a chance to look at it.

But it's magnificent what they're able to do. And somehow or another, this is a universal trait amongst these leafcutter ants. I mean, they're able to do this all over the world. Yeah. But unfortunately, we humans are stuck with language. And these languages are embedded to a society that created that language, and there's no universal language, unfortunately. And it would be very difficult to extract a mental language using electrodes because

the language that we get from the brain is interpreted through English, and so it would be very difficult to have two brains communicate telepathically without having to go through English. But what about what the ants are doing? How are they doing that? Do you have a theory? Have you ever stopped and thought about the technology involved in the creation of all these labyrinths and these colonies and the fact that they're able to do this repeatedly? Well, think of for the moment that they have a language, a language that is chemical, and they're able to exchange maybe 10 to 100 different chemicals. What kind of society can you create with 100 words? Well, if you think about it,

we humans do pretty well with just a few hundred words to take a look at the evolution of human society. A few hundred words is enough to create a semblance of human society. A few thousand words, and then, of course, you're talking about accumulating new knowledge and new strategies, but just to have a society that operates, a few hundred words is probably enough. When people gossip, how many words do people use when they gossip? Just a few hundred words is probably enough. When people gossip, how many words do people use when they gossip? Just a few hundred words. And we know that because we have robots now

that try to communicate by gossip. That's hilarious. Yeah. And we realize that just a few hundred words is sufficient to communicate most human interactions. Now, to communicate power, hierarchies, engineering requires more than a few hundred words. But with a few hundred words, that's enough to create a model human society. And I imagine that these insects you talk about have a vocabulary of a few hundred words. But what's interesting that you just said, to communicate things like power hierarchies requires more words, but they have power hierarchies requires more words. But they have power hierarchies. So how are they communicating that?

Well, I don't know. I'm not an insect scientist. I didn't know that they farm fungi. Yeah. That might have a lot to do with it. You may have seen the impressive spectacle of leafcutter ant highway full of millions of bugs carrying cut sections of leaves grass or flowers back to their homes but did you know the leafcutter ants don't eat the leaves that they harvest so they use this to okay here it is leafcutter ants use leaves as their

fertilizer to grow their crop fungus they cultivate their fungal gardens by providing them with freshly cut leaves protecting them from pests and molds, and clearing them of decayed material and garbage. In return, the fungus acts as a food source for the ant's larva. So that's really interesting, right? Because we know that fungi and mycelium allows plants to communicate back and forth with each other through the soil. And they even use it to distribute resources.

But I claim that the number of words necessary to communicate with other entities like insects is probably not that large. A human being, for example, can reasonably work with about 5,000 words. Someone who is semi-educated, went through high school, knows about 5,000 words. But just to create a society that works probably requires only a few hundred words. And that's probably well within the capabilities of insects. Are we limiting our ability to theorize by saying words, by thinking of words? Is it possible that instead of words, they have an understanding of the tasks at hand without defining them with sounds or with symbols, and that this allows them a freedom of communication without all of the baggage

that comes with words, enunciation, context, all those different things? Well, it's possible to record memories now. This has been done in the laboratory. And these memories could be universal. Now, how do you do this? Short-term memories go through what is called the hippocampus. It's shaped like a horseshoe. It's at the very dead center of your brain. That's where the hippocampus is. If you put two electrodes, two electrodes on either side of the hippocampus, you can then calculate the impulses that go back and forth. You record it like a tape recorder. So I now have a tape recorder of a memory created by a mouse whose hippocampus was connected to the tape

recorder. Then I take that memory and put it into another mouse, or I play it back to the first mouse after they've forgotten that memory, and bingo, memories can now be transferred to the same mouse over time or to another mouse. So this has been done already. So it's possible that memories may be, in some sense, universal. The memory itself can bypass the English language and go directly to another human. And perhaps bypass ant language. Like there's no need for it, that they can express themselves without that.

Right. This has been done with mice already. Now it's being done with primates. We want to see whether or not primates can learn a simple task, like, for example, drinking water. That's what the mice were trained to do. Drink water, record the memory of drinking water, and then give it to another mouse. Was it a complicated way to drink water?

Like drinking water from a feeder or something? These are simple memories because, of course, this is the first time it's ever been done. Right. And so by doing this, you can actually transfer memories between organisms that seem to be universal. But isn't drinking water a universal thing with mammals? Yeah, but any feat that they learn, okay, can in principle be encoded in the hippocampus. And then the hippocampus in turn, its memory can then be encoded into another hippocampus. That's the point, that memories in some sense can be recorded. I understand, but how do we know that the memories of drinking water are recorded and transmitted to another mouse?

Because they learn skills. You can transfer skills that the other mouse did not have by transferring this. So skills on different methods of acquiring water? Yeah. So that different memories can be, and again, these are small snippets of memory. We're not talking about reading a book. We're just talking about a simple memory can be recorded by looking at the impulses that

go across the hippocampus. Wasn't there an experiment where they took a mouse or they took mice or rats and they put them through a maze on the East Coast? And because of that, the mice or rats, I forget which rodent it was, on the West Coast was able to go through this maze quicker. Well, it turns out that with monkeys, it's possible to train monkeys to do certain very simple tasks and hook that by the Internet to another monkey in Japan. And that these memories can be transferred via the Internet. And so that is something that's been done with monkeys, not just with mice. Right, but with the mice, I don't think there was an exchange of information in a traditional sense.

I think this was, if I'm remembering it correctly, this is Rupert Sheldrake's concept. He had this concept of morphic resonance. And the idea was that you could somehow or another bestow information, like in a primitive sense, through a species where one member of the species learns it, and that information somehow through some unknown method becomes more readily available to other members of that species that are not directly connected. Well, I don't know about that. We're talking about things that are reproducible in the laboratory using electrical signals. I don't know if that was reproducible. See if you can find if that's reproducible, if they did that.

Because I remember, I'm 99% sure it was Rupert Sheldrake who was talking about that. And I remember thinking, like, that seems to be something that would be, like, a lot more popularly known. Yeah. But we're talking about things that are done. These studies were done in Los Angeles. Right. And we're talking about these things are publishable. Other groups at MIT have replicated these experiments. And so we're beginning now to understand the ways in which memories are created and transferred. And when they transfer these memories from primate to primate through the Internet, what method are they using to transmit?

Electrical. Electrical. So how is the information encoded? It's encoded as impulses, electrical impulses that go across the hippocampus that you simply tape recorded. In other words, there's no translator. There's no intermediary that translates into English and back into electrical signals. We're talking about raw electrical signals, the raw signals that you don't process at all, simply being tape recorded, and then shot into the same person months later, and they recall the memory that they forgot. Right. And what was able to be achieved with these primates?

Well, that's what's being done now. First, it was demonstrated in mice. A simple task like drinking water can be then transferred onto the internet. I'm still confused about that because drinking water is a universal trait. There were other traits too. Any trait that can be- But when you say drinking water, doesn't every mouse know how to drink water? Yeah, but other things can be done. They started with the simplest first.

Right, but how do we know that this information is transmitted to the mice since water drinking is just from the womb? They know how to drink water. Well, what happened was they taught the mouse some tricks. And then they actually gave it a chemical which allowed the mouse to forget the trick. And then later, months later, after the mouse forgot the trick, they then shot the same electrical impulses into the hippocampus and the mouse immediately remembered

the trick. That's how it was done. And so what are they attempting to do with these primates specifically? The same thing, that what you can do with a mouse, they think they can perhaps do with a primate. And eventually, the goal is Alzheimer's patients, a memory chip. They want to create a memory chip that you push a button and then memories come flooding into the hippocampus of a Alzheimer's person so they know where they live. If they get lost, they know how to get back home. They know who to call, telephone numbers, and things like that. That's the ultimate goal is to create a memory chip for people that have fading memories like Alzheimer's

patients. That's the goal. And then once that's achieved, ultimately the possibilities are endless. Well, yeah. Learn calculus at college by pushing a button. The matrix. Just like the matrix, having whole memories shot into the brain. I'm sure you're familiar with Ray Kurzweil. Oh, yeah. I know Ray. What do you think about Ray's ideas that we're going to eventually be able to download consciousness into some sort of a computer or something, and you will essentially inhabit that rather than be a biological entity like that? Do we know enough about consciousness that

that's even possible? Well, digital immortality is coming, but digital immortality is coming in stages. What's being done now, today, is something that can be done anywhere. They took William Shatner, sat him in a room, and simply let him talk about his life. They recorded this huge volume of information, digitized it, so that in the future his descendants can talk to him with a holographic image. Right, but that's not him, right? That's not him. We always think of ourselves as how we feel. Like you're sitting here across from this table with me.

It's not just your voice. It's not just your voice it's not just your information that you have it's you like if i smile you smile back we laugh we joke around together this is two human beings interacting with each other if if it's just your digital memory and just your your voice and this digital more that's great for other people to experience, but you won't experience it at all. How far do you think we are or is it even possible to make you exist inside some sort of a computer or some sort of an electronic entity? This gets us into the Connectome Project, which I mentioned in my book, The Future of the Mind. project, which I mentioned in my book, The Future of the Mind. The Connectome project is to locate the connections of every single neuron in your brain. So far, the Connectome project has been able to take a fruit fly, slice up the brain of a fruit fly, put it in an MRI scan, and then map

exactly all the neural connection of 100,000 neurons inside the brain of a fruit fly. That's today. Now, that's 100,000 neurons. The brain has 100 billion neurons. So you see how far we have to go before we have the Connectome project, being able to create a digital copy of your brain. And then, of course, you would live forever. All your thoughts, memories, personality quirks, everything would live forever. Right, but would it evolve? I mean, it isn't a thing about your personality that evolves and changes depending upon your life experiences.

Well, in principle, it would be you. It would be a digital copy of you down to the neuron level. We don't have this. We won't have it for many decades to come. But we're making progress. Right now, we're up to 100,000 neurons being digitized. And in the future, it'll be perhaps a few million neurons, perhaps a mouse, a rat, a rabbit. That's perhaps the next jump.

And from there, perhaps jumping to a monkey. And then perhaps after that, jumping to a human. Right. But what is a person is the real question, because we fluctuate. We vary depending upon whether or not you got good sleep, whether or not your heart is broken, whether or not you got fired from your job, whether or not you've had a great success in what you do for a living or what your hobbies are. You change your mood. You change the way you interact with people. Like that's what a person is. Are we – the romantic idea of what a person is is something that creates and interacts

and there's so much more to a person than just your digital memory and the amount of information that you've accumulated and the standard patterns that you've expressed throughout your life up until now. I mean, you can have some sort of a profound life-changing experience tomorrow and decide that you're going to change your ways and essentially be a different person than you were prior to that experience. When we're talking about a digital identity or a digital life, we're really talking about this sort of static thing that you are now existing forever. But isn't what being a person is, one of the more interesting things about it, is that we evolve and that with adversity and new information and relationships and the way we interact with each other, it changes. We vary depending upon our company.

We vary depending upon the climate that we live in, the community that we find ourselves in. There's so many variables that we could think of as just data points. But there's something more complex about being a person. Okay. Now, there are two approaches to this question. The first approach is the top-down approach. The top-down approach says that we're nothing but a bunch of neurons, and you duplicate all the neurons, and you feed all the information necessary for these neurons to calculate,

and voila, we have a human. Now, the top-down approach meant a lot of problems because, of course, the sophistication of the robot you created was extremely primitive. People were not satisfied with that. The thing couldn't learn, couldn't adapt, couldn't evolve, as you said. That's the top-down approach. Now, we're looking at the bottom-up approach.

Bottom-up approach is when you bump into things. You learn. Every neuron has to be changed every time you learn a new task. And so the bottom-up approach is successful in doing things that we didn't think were possible. For example, a walking robot. It takes a lot of effort to make a robot walk because every single motion you have to include Newton's laws of motion, mechanics, leverage, and so on and so forth. That's a lot of work. However, bugs can walk instantly as soon as they're born. How do bugs do it when our most advanced military robot cannot do it? You take our most advanced military robot, put it in the forest, and ask them to move around, what happens? They fall over. They're upside down like a turtle that's upside down. How does nature

do it? Nature does it by neural networks, by rewiring itself after it learns every new task. So you make a mistake, well, you learn from that mistake. You make another mistake, you learn from that mistake. It's like what every mother says to their child taking music lessons. How do you go to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice. That's the bottom-up approach. So we now realize that human beings are both. We have the bottom-up approach when we're children and infants. We learn by bumping into things. That's why babies bite their toes. Why do babies bite their toes? Because they don't realize that their toes is connected to their body.

Their toe, they think, is just an alien thing. They have to bite it in order to convince themselves that the toe is connected to the brain. That's the bottom-up approach. The top-down approach is when we go to college. When we go to college, we take courses on literature, philosophy. That's the top-down approach. We now realize you have to have both. You have to have both.

One is the bottom-up approach, which is called the neural network approach, and the other one is the top-down approach, which is what most people think robotics is. And the other one is the top-down approach, which is what most people think robotics is. One of the things that we were talking about with the nurse outside before we came into this podcast is that I think that what we can create a jimi hendrix or that can make comedy create a richard pryor like that thing is emotions that thing is illogical sometimes impulsive but it creates these brilliant moving works of of art that affect, doesn't affect other creatures. I mean, I'm sure if you played a Jimi Hendrix song to a giraffe, it wouldn't give a shit. But to us, it's something incredibly magical. But I think that if you looked at what's possible in the future,

in the future, that might be more of an impediment than it is an asset. And I wonder if with our integration, if we have this symbiotic integration with technology, that that might be one of the bottlenecks that we have to lose and that our future selves, whatever we become, like if we used to be a single-celled organism, we became multi-celled organisms, we became ancient primitive primates, we become modern humans, we become symbiotic with some sort of an electronic thing. We intertwine with this. And one of the problems, if we look at all the things that are going on in the world, if we look at the greed that makes people become corrupt politicians, if we look at the horrors of war, we look at some of the more terrible things that people are capable of, how many of

those things are attached to our ancient primate minds and our ancient primate instincts. And wouldn't it be far simpler and far easier to evolve if we left all those behind? But in doing so, we're going to lose everything. We're going to lose art. We're going to lose love. We're going to lose creativity and chaos and laughter and music, literature. We're going to lose creativity and chaos and laughter and music, literature. We're going to lose it all because we're not going to be people anymore. We're going to be more efficient thinking machines. Well, some people ask yet another question, which is corollary to what you said, and that is at what point do the machines become dangerous and turn on us?

Artificial intelligence. First of all, our robots today, believe it or not, our military robots have the intelligence of a cockroach, a retarded cockroach, a lobotomized, retarded, stupid cockroach. You put them in the forest and they get lost. They get lost. You put a cockroach in the forest, they find food, mates, shelter. They do perfectly well in the forest.

But I can visualize a time in the future when our military robots have the intelligence of a mouse. And then maybe a rat. And then maybe a rabbit. And then maybe a dog or a cat. And by the end of the century, I think perhaps the intelligence of a monkey. At that point, I think they're potentially dangerous because they have a mind of their own. They realize that they're not human. Now dogs, you see, dogs are confused. Dogs think that we are a dog.

You met Marshall. You met my dog out there. Do you think he thinks you're a dog? my dog out there. Yeah. Do you think he thinks you're a dog? Yeah, because imprinting, when you're very young as a puppy, you imprint immediately on who's the top dog, who's the mother dog. And you're very early in your stage of growing up, you know your pecking order very, very clear because they are pack animals, unlike cats. Cats are not pack animals. They're hunter, lone hunters. That's why cats are very mysterious. While dogs are pack animals, they understand the hierarchy and they understand that you are the top dog. They are the underdog and you are the top dog. But if you've met my dog, you know that he reacts very differently

to people than he does to animals. If he meets another dog, it's a very different experience. I think he knows the difference between a dog and a person. I just think he accepts the fact that humans are the dominant animal, but I don't think he thinks we're dogs. Well, he thinks that this is tribe. Dogs are tribal animals, that whatever you call it, we are that this is tribe. Because dogs are tribal animals. Right. That whatever you call it, we are members of that tribe. And we're the top dog.

We're the leader of that tribe. But I don't think he thinks you're a dog. I think he's got the ability to discern between people and dogs. Well, it's a question of hierarchy. We are at the top of the hierarchy, whatever you call it. Okay. Now, what I'm getting at is what happens when they have the intelligence of a monkey. At that point, they're potentially dangerous because they can scheme. They know that we're not monkeys. We're alien to them. So I think we should put a chip

in their brain to shut them off once they have murderous thoughts. Then the next question is, what happens 200 years from now when the robots become so intelligent that they know how to remove the chip? They know how to remove all fail-safe systems. At that point, I'm guessing, maybe 200 years from now, I think we should merge with them. Oh, boy. Oh, boy. So when you say that they could have murderous intentions, aren't murderous intentions attached to all the things that we discussed earlier, like ego, like the need to breed, to control territory, all those things, all these biological functions that make competition a necessity for human beings in order to perpetuate the survival of the fittest. All those things exist because human beings are these complicated animals that are trying to advance.

But why would an artificially intelligent thing that's been created have any instincts to advance or to get better? Well, we would have to program it because we are the gods. In some sense, we have to create these things in our machines. Right. But that's where we're headed. We're headed toward creating machines that are smarter and smarter. And eventually they'll realize self-awareness. Now, robots do not know they're robots. You go up to a robot and congratulate it for doing a fantastic feat, it thinks you're crazy. Robots have no self-awareness. However, by the time they're as smart as a monkey, I think they will start to have self-awareness. At that point, I think they're potentially dangerous because they realize that we are not part of the self. We're not part of the

tribe. And why should they take orders from us when they're not part of the tribe? So I think as an interim measure, we should put a chip in their brain that simply shuts them off once they start to question who they are with respect to humanity. What I'm saying is what happens when they're so smart that they can remove that chip. Right. I understand what you're saying. But what I'm saying is all those feelings of wanting to do bad things, of not trusting people, of wanting to dominate people and take over, aren't all those things biological? And aren't all those thoughts and all the negative aspects of human beings, aren't they related to our biological need to reproduce and to control territory?

And why would they have that? They don't. Right, but they would never have that is what I'm saying. Oh, no, we could program to mimic our bad behaviors. If we wanted to do that. Right. But we wouldn't, right? Why would we do that? Well, for one thing, we have to realize who pays for all this. I mean, these are all very abstract concepts, but who is the largest funder of this technology? The government. The Pentagon. Yeah. Not just the government, the Pentagon. The military. Yeah. And the Pentagon does not create these objects to lose wars. They create these objects to win wars. Right. And the idea of war itself isn't the problem that human beings have these primitive

primate minds that are accustomed to tribal warfare. So we scale that up when we can control entire continents and perhaps even control the entire world that this is what we're doing so some people have postulated that what we need is a new philosophy toward AI good AI friendly AI as they call it yeah rather than having robots being created to kill other robots and kill humans which is the driving force behind this technology, to create robots that want to help, that want to nurture, that want to be cooperative. And of course, there has to be money involved because who's going to pay for all this? This is not cheap, right?

But that's ideally where you want to go. This is called friendly AI, where AI does not necessarily go in the direction of survival of the fittest. Right. But wouldn't there be money involved in cooperative interaction with all people? If our economies are based on interactions, they're based on exchanges, wouldn't more cooperation and more exchanging of resources and more cooperation in terms of intellectual properties, wouldn't that

be better for everyone overall because we would advance better? We would be able to solve some of our problems like climate change, pollution, things along those lines. Well, ideally, yes, but we live in a practical world, a world where sometimes idealistic notions don't get anywhere because there's no funding. There's no impetus. There's no desire in that direction. So we have to create one. We have to create a situation where we want to create robots, want to create entities that want cooperation and to build rather than to destroy.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. And wouldn't it be more intuitive for people to sort of accept those ideas if we slowly but surely abandoned a lot of our biological instincts? Like one of the things that freaks me out about aliens is that they're so uniform. And like when people have these visions of these greys. Now, I don't know if they're real or not. I have no opinion on that. But it's fascinating to me that they all take on the same sort of image. It's like this spindly thing with no muscle.

It has a big giant head. And it seems to have no sexual organs. And when I think about humans and all the things that trip us up and all the things that cause so many of the problems you experience as civilizations, it's ancient primate stuff. Like if we didn't have sexual desire, if we didn't have ego, if we didn't have all the biological necessities of breeding and controlling property and territory, all the things that make war and violence, if all that stuff was eliminated through technology and through the advancement of the species, we would look like that. That to me is almost like a window into the future.

If we go back from ancient hominids, Australopithecus, and look at what we hypothesize, what we theorize they looked like, they were very muscular, like chimpanzee-like, some sort of hairy creature. And then we look at what we are now. We're losing our hair. We're losing our muscles. Our brains are much larger. The doubling of the human brain size over a period of 2 million years, a gigantic mystery.

What are we doing? Well, we're becoming more like what we imagine those aliens to be. It's almost like they're a blueprint for us. Well, if you go back a few hundred years into the past, back then they didn't talk about aliens. They talked about gremlins and they talked about all sorts of forest creatures and things like that. And then you look at pictures, pictures created by people that were fearful of gremlins and leprechauns and stuff like that. You say to yourself, oh my God, they look just like the aliens of today. So in other words, God, they look just like the aliens of today. So in other words, there's a subconscious fear in our brains that these objects are going to be dangerous to us. And it's been with us for hundreds of

years. Now, there's something called sleep paralysis. Sleep paralysis afflicts about 5% of the human race. When you wake up in the morning, you are paralyzed. Now, of course, when you dream, you are paralyzed. Otherwise, of course, when you dream, you are paralyzed. Otherwise, you would act out your dream, which is very dangerous. So when you dream, you are paralyzed. And these people are, the 5%, these people are still paralyzed when they wake up. They can't move.

And they have an image, an image of something sitting on their chest, staring down on them. And if you don't believe me, Google it. There's several paintings done during the Victorian era. I'm well aware of it. Yeah. And they are the gremlins.

Yeah. So it's part of our subconscious mind that we fear this image of a dwarf-like creature's weak, big eyes. And that's the aliens that we see in the movies. It's part of our subconscious. But the gremlins, the images of the gremlins were always grotesque and terrifying. It's more nightmarish visions. It seems like it's more connected to the animal world than it is to some sort of a futuristic advanced civilization type thing. I wonder if we know when human beings started seeing that very specific iconic image, the image of the gray, because that's the, like, I mean, how much of it is through pop culture? We don't know, but I know Betty and Barney Hill

were one of the first people that experienced this. You know, ironically, it always happens at night, right? So it always happens when people are sleepy. And the problem that I have with that is that we know that when people are asleep, when they're dreaming, the brain releases all sorts of psychoactive chemicals. And that's responsible for these hallucinations and all these wild vivid imageries and I wonder how much of what's happening when people see these aliens it's just because it's permeated pop culture from Close Encounters of the Third Kind which is the you know the quintessential alien encounter movie I mean that's what they all look like. There's these tiny creatures with

the big heads. You remember that movie? Yeah. Well, I agree with you that there's a canonical alien that big eyes and a dwarfish body and spindly arms and legs and so on and so forth. But that may have nothing to do with the aliens that actually do exist in outer space. Right. I believe they are out there. I believe that there are intelligent life forms in the galaxy. Galaxy has 100 billion stars. And we know that 100% of them have planets on average. 100% of the stars you see at night have planets going around them. Therefore, they probably have life forms on them, but they don't have to look like us. As I said before, all you need is eyesight, an appendage to manipulate the environment, and language.

Beyond that, like an octopus. I believe you could take an octopus, breed it, breed it for a few thousand years, and perhaps it'll become intelligent because it has eyesight, which is kind of feeble, but it has eyesight. it has tentacles by which to manipulate the environment, but it has no language. But I think it is possible that we could, if we could orchestrate this, grow an intelligent species from the earth that don't look anything like us. So the fact that we see these alien creatures look just like a dwarfish version of us is imprinted in our hippocampus and in our amygdala of our brain. Is intelligence limited to language though? Because we do know that octopi do things that

seem to indicate intelligence. Like they know how to twist jars open. They know how to open things. Like they know how to twist jars open. They know how to open things. They know how to manipulate stuff. They know how to climb out of a fish tank, go into another fish tank, climb in, kill the fish, and then climb back into their fish tank. Have you ever seen those videos? Yeah. Amazing what they can do.

Yes. But they do these as solitary creatures. They don't do this in a coordinated fashion. To build a starship, you have to have lots of coordination, lots of minds put together to create a starship. But I'm not saying that they have the kind of intelligence that we have. But there's a type of intelligence. You can't say that octopi aren't intelligent. Oh, no.

I think they have a level of intelligence that we've underestimated. Yeah. And I think a lot of things like the porpoise, the dolphin, they have a language that we still have not deciphered. Right. We still have not deciphered the language of dolphins and sea creatures. Yeah. Yeah, that's really fascinating because they also have dialects. They have different sounds that they make if they're in different parts of the world. And we know they're intelligent because if you tape record their signals and run it through a computer program, the computer program looks for the repetition of certain sounds, like the letter

E. The letter E is the most common sound in the English language, and you can rank them in terms of how often you use these symbols, and then run Shakespeare through it, and you can actually tell whether two works of art were written by the same person, whether Shakespeare really did invent and write all these plays by running them through a computer program. You do that with the dolphin now, and sure enough, there's intelligence there. You can actually see the intelligence in a tape recording of the sounds made by a dolphin. How much of an effort is underway to try to decipher what they're doing and to maybe even communicate with them somehow or another

by recreating those sounds? Not much, unfortunately. But I think that's a shame because I think animals do communicate with each other. Their vocabulary, I don't know, I'm guessing is on the order of 20 to 50 words, but still that's enough for them to survive in the wild and they definitely

do communicate with sounds that are repetitive, indicating intelligence. Are you aware of John Lilly? No. John Lilly is a pioneer of interspecies communication who developed, he tried to come up with methods to communicate with dolphins. And they had this one study that they were running that got shut down because this woman was living with a dolphin, essentially. They filled a tank up and had it waist high in water and gave her a bed. So she would climb out of the water into the bed and she would live with this dolphin and communicate with it but the dolphin was always sexually aroused and it wouldn't communicate and it wouldn't participate in any of the things while it was horny essentially so she for lack of a better phrase manually manipulated the dolphin

to climax and they found out about that and they shut down the study because they thought it was disgusting that this woman was masturbating a dog a dolphin but what he was trying to do he was trying to come up with a bunch of different ways to interact with with dolphins and but he was trying to get the dolphins to communicate with human language like to get the dolphins to say human things and teach them I don't think they ever really got anywhere with it, unfortunately, but he was a wild guy. He was also the guy that invented the sensory deprivation tank. Well, I think it's the opposite, that instead of having dolphins learn English,

we should learn the language of the dolphins. But this was in the 60s. Also, back then, I still remember that the pleasure center of the human brain was isolated. And that by pushing a button, you can stimulate your own pleasure center. You take a mouse and you stick a mouse to a telegraph key. And the telegraph key stimulates the pleasure center of the mouse until the mouse dies of starvation. So the mouse would rather die of starvation than stop simulating his pleasure center.

Right. They go up the evolutionary scale and then they start to do the dolphin. They put a dolphin in a chamber. By moving forwards and backwards, the dolphin can stimulate its own pleasure center. So they wonder, well, what happened? Would it starve to death?

Well, what happened was the dolphin would hit the pleasure center repeatedly until it realized, I'm dying. I'm going to die. So the porpoise would stop, get some food, and then go back and stimulate himself some more. Well, you know, those dolphins or the mice, when they did that with mice and rats, the problem with that was they had put these things in a very unnatural environment, like the same thing they did with cocaine and heroin with rats. And that when they tried to recreate the study, but they gave them a much larger, more natural environment, they stopped doing it. They stopped taking cocaine until they died. They stopped taking heroin until they died.

They didn't self-stimulate the same way they did before. They essentially were doing it to medicate themselves because they were in a very unnatural laboratory environment of being in a cage and bright lights and the whole deal. When they gave them an environment that's much more normal and natural, they didn't do that. They would occasionally dabble with whatever drugs they were stimulating them with, but they went on to live normal rat lives. Well, as I understand, some experiments were done on humans years ago. This, of course, would be unethical probably today. But back then, humans had realized that this is going nowhere, that at a certain point they begin to stop. They're smart enough to realize this is madness. Well, do you know about the woman who, there was a woman in the 1970s, I actually have a joke about it in my act,

where she was allergic to pain medication. So they drilled holes in her head and they stuck wires into various parts of her brain and gave her an electrical device. And when she felt discomfort, she could hit this button and a surge of electricity would go into the pleasure centers of her brain and gave her an electrical device. And when she felt discomfort, she could hit this button and a surge of electricity would go into the pleasure centers of her brain and she would orgasm. And she orgasmed all day long. She stopped communicating with her family. She stopped personal hygiene. It was a very complicated study because they were trying to figure out what to do

about this. She begged them to take it away. and then she fought them when they tried to take it away from her. She developed an ulcer on the finger she used to manipulate the thing. I'll read it for you because it's very fascinating. I saved this study because it's so crazy because it tells you so much about human nature. It's, I think, see if you can find it, Jamie. It's somewhere in the 1970s, but this is from the study. At its most frequent, the patient self-stimulated throughout the day, neglecting her personal hygiene and family commitments.

A chronic ulceration developed on the tip of the finger used to adjust the amplitude dial, and she frequently tampered with the device in an effort to increase the stimulation amplitude. At times, she implored her family to limit her access to the stimulator, and each time demanding its return after a short hiatus. So they did try that with people. We're not ready. Also, there was an experiment that I think in the 50s with bulls. There was a professor at

Columbia University who located the part of the bull's brain that would stop them if they're charging. So what they did was, of course, bulls will charge, a bull in the wild will charge you if you enter an arena with them. He personally, a Columbia professor, would enter the bull ring with a live bull, and there are videotapes of it. I just saw it the other day. Videotapes of the bull charging this professor at Columbia. He had a button.

He pushed the button and the bull stopped immediately. Wow. And this, of course, raised a lot of eyebrows because we're no longer talking about reading the mind. We're talking about mind control, which is different from simply reading thoughts and transferring thoughts from human to human. We're actually talking about changing behavior from the outside. And so their videotapes, you can Google them, showing that there he is pushing this button.

He's right there with the bull, just a few feet away. And the bull comes to a dead stop when you push that button. Now, is the device connected by wires or is it wireless? I forgot whether it was connected by wire. Probably was. I'm not sure. Good boy. You would be really terrified if one of those wires broke.

Oops. Sorry about that. It just seems like such a risky move for the actual professor. I feel like you could hire a rodeo clown and teach him how to hit the button. He'd be better off. At least he would understand how to evade the bull. Yeah. But after that, people-

Here it is right here. So this is Jose Delgado, implants and electromagnetic mind control. So you have this bull. They operate on it, and we're watching this video, and it seems like it's a long time ago. What year was this? I think it was in the 50s. Wow.

So the bull comes at him, and it seems like he does something, and the bull just stops. Yeah, see? Stops and goes the other way. Wow. There he is. I'm confused as to how it's attached, whether it's a radio signal. Because it doesn't seem like there's a – it's hard because it's very low resolution.

It looks like it's wireless. Yeah, it's definitely something in his hand, but is it connected by a wire? Oh, I see what you're saying. Probably radio. Wow, boy. It's amazing. So what does it say there oh I'm just trying I'm gonna try to Google more says 1965 experiment with an implanted bowl Wow so the name of this video if you want to watch it folks Jose Delgado implants and

electromagnetic mind control now remember this was done at the height of the Cold War right when people were worried about the Manchurian candidate, you know, that movie. Yeah. And mind control. During the Korean War, certain GIs were brainwashed. So there was a whole hullabaloo around brainwashing, mind control. So what did the CIA do? The CIA constructed something called MKUltra. You've probably read about MKUltra, right? But that's one of the motivations for MKUltra, the fact that you could actually determine the behavior of a bull who's charging at you with a button. There's a fascinating book called Chaos, written by a guy named Tom O'Neill, who wrote about the 1960s and the Charles

Manson murders. And he connects it all to MKUltra, that Charles Manson was one of the... Oh, really? Yeah, he was one of the test subjects of this guy named Jolly West, who was one of the head guys of MKUltra. And they directly connect Jolly West to visiting Charles Manson in jail supplying him with LSD teaching him these sort of manipulative methods of controlling people with these

psychedelic drugs it's very very convincing it's detailed and researched over 20 years it's an amazing book because because of the Freedom of Information Act and because of what we know about MKUltra. And they did some wild stuff. Are you aware of Operation Midnight Climax? No. This is crazy. This is the CIA in the 1960s. They would set up these brothels, and they had them in San Francisco and one other place, I forget. But they would have these two-way mirrors, and they would have these johns go in there with the ladies, and the ladies would give the man a drink,

and the guy would drink it, and there was LSD in the drink. And so then they would observe them. So these guys were unwitting test subjects, and they figured they're not going to say anything because why were you in a brothel? Why were you hanging out with prostitutes? And so they just experimented on people, and they did they're not going to say anything because why were you in a brothel? Why were you hanging out with prostitutes? And so they just experimented on people, and they did it for years. And no one would complain, right, for that reason?

Exactly. I mean, what are you going to say? I mean, how would you even know what happened or what went wrong? Right. And one of them committed suicide in one of these experiments with LSD. Yes, I think quite a few. Jumped out the window. Yes.

Well, they were doing a lot of wild stuff with LSD. Yes. I think quite a few. Jumped out the window. Yes. Well, they were doing a lot of wild stuff with soldiers too. And not just the United States, there's a video from, I believe it's the late 50s, where these soldiers in England, and they dosed them and then filmed them. And it's this black... See if you can find that. Black and white LSD studies from these soldiers. And, you know, they were trying to figure out how to control people with LSD. They knew it had a profound effect on consciousness, but they didn't exactly know like what the

dosage were or operation money bags. So this is the British Army. And I want to say this is like 56. Does it say what year it is? I want to say this is like 56. Does it say what year it is? I feel like I remember it being in the 1950s, but it's really wild to watch. So these guys are stumbling around.

64, okay. So put the – scroll it ahead a little bit so you can see how these guys are behaving. So they had all these different ways of controlling it. And so these guys are all on LSD just wandering through the woods laughing. And ultimately they gave up on it. Like they thought that it was going to be a way of controlling people's minds. And then they thought, no, it's not that, but it might be a way of extracting the truth because they would abandon all their cultural ideas and all these preconceived notions and it ultimately

proved to be too blunt of an object to get surgical results yeah and they also did experiments on remote viewing and yeah we put people in front of a map of the world and ask them to identify the location of Soviet submarines. Yeah. Put pins in a map locating all the Soviet submarines. How accurate were they? They got everything wrong. Not a single pin went to the location of a Soviet submarine. That's a fascinating one because people want to believe that psychic powers are absolutely real.

Obviously, there's been the James Randi challenge that nobody has taken up on. It's like you had to prove psychic ability and you could win a million dollars. No takers. No takers. But you feel like, I mean, but people want to believe that there is some, either whether it's an emerging phenomenon or some ability that human beings innately have to understand things that you can't weigh, you can't measure, that they're not exactly the standard. We have the standard understandings of what people are able to do with their mind. But we always want to believe that there's someone out there that has just a little extra. And we find nothing.

Do you think that that might be an emerging aspect of human beings like we were talking about before? That like ants have a way of communicating, bees have a way of communicating, that it's not outside the realm of possibility that one day human beings could develop an ability to see things or to communicate without words. And that maybe that's what we're grasping for. Well, as I mentioned, there could be a universal language, a language of neurons.

So far, we take the language from the hippocampus, run it to our laptop. The laptop then converts these impulses into letters of the alphabet, let's say, and you learn how to type. You can type this way. What about bypassing the laptop and being able to communicate directly through these impulses so you can put two people together and they exchange impulses to each other? So that has not, it's an area that has not been explored, but it's a possibility because that would give you a universal language by which you could talk to people, not just exchange memories, but exchange words and communicate with each other. That has not yet

been done. What do you make of the idea that people have a connection to other people and that maybe you're thinking about that person and then they call you? And it could just be random. It could be luck. But there's a lot of people out there that are really married to the idea that there's some unknown phenomenon that's taking place. Well, synchronicity is probably evolutionarily programmed into the brain. Because if you think about Jane and the phone rings and Jane is not there, you forget about it. It's useless information that when Jane does call you, you freak out and you say, I'm psychic. I'm psychic. I think about Jane and she calls.

Why did the brain immediately forget all the attempts previously when Jane did not call? Because the brain has to get rid of garbage. The brain has to get rid of all the extraneous information because we'd be flooded. We'd be flooded with extraneous memories. So the hits, we remember the hits. We forget all the thousands of memories because it's good for evolution. Evolution does not want us to be cluttered when a tiger approaches us. We want to be alert.

And that means forgetting all the useless nonsense that goes through our brain. And that's synchronicity. The synchronicity is you remember the hits. You don't remember the misses. But is it possible that sometimes you're thinking about Jane and Jane's thinking about you, but Jane doesn't call you? And then one time you're thinking about Jane and Jane's thinking about you but Jane doesn't call you and then one time you're thinking about Jane and Jane thinks about you and she says damn it I'm gonna call him and she calls you well it's possible but like I said on average most of the times you just get

nonsense calling you on the telephone you know selling you things whatever yeah and the brain simply throws it out of its memory because it's useless information. And the brain has to sort out good versus bad memories. It remembers the hits but does not remember the misses. I think Sheldrake was also one of the people that theorized this morphic resonance thing and used it, applied it to dogs, that dogs are able to figure out when their owner was coming home. And critics and skeptics said, well, the dog probably has a biological clock and the owner comes home around the same time every night. But I'm not, I don't really remember the parameters of the experiment,

if they tried to work around that by having the person come home at random times. Well, if you take a brain scan of the dog's brain, you realize that it looks very different from our brain. For example, smells. The area of the brain of the dog, I think, is about 100 times larger than the counterpart in the human brain. And so the brain, as soon as it sniffs the presence of its master, even though the master is quite a distance away, the dog will immediately sense that. And that's been used for COVID-19 detection at Helsinki Airport, for example.

for COVID-19 detection at Helsinki Airport, for example, that dogs can be trained to recognize with 95% accuracy the presence of COVID-19. Also cancer. Dogs can be trained to recognize cancer better than most cancer tests because their olfactory area of the brain is much, much larger than the olfactory counterpart in human beings. So if you were to read the mind of a dog, you would not see the world as we see it. You would see a world of smells, a world swirling with hundreds of different kinds of smells that you are completely oblivious to. So the mind of a dog and the daydreams of a dog are quite different from the daydreams of a human being. Well, I can attest to that because my dog has a, what's the best way to describe this? He's got a fox friend. The fox friend visits the yard and shits in the yard. And my dog loves to roll around

in the fox shit. So the other day I let him out in the yard, and he's in the house, and I don't think anything of it. But my wife goes, what is on his neck? And I look, and he's just smeared all over his chest and his neck. And I go, oh, gee, I know what it is before I even smell it. So I go over to him and smell it. It's horrible. He's rolled in fox shit. So not only is his sense of smell far superior to ours, but it's very different because he liked that smell and he wanted to get it all over him for some strange reason.

I don't understand what that does. Is it maybe it hides his smell, he thinks, from other animals? Maybe it's so strong that he can sneak up on squirrels because they don't smell him. They just smell the shit. I don't know. Well, for my friends who own a dog, I asked them to do one experiment, an experiment that you can do with your dog. Teach your dog tonight the meaning of tomorrow.

And you can't. No matter how you try, you cannot teach your dog the meaning of tomorrow. So the dogs can smell things much, much better than you, but cannot imagine things much better than you. Right. Because humans live in the future. Think about what you're thinking about right now. Right now, you're probably daydreaming about, oh, I'm kind of like tired. I want to get a cup of coffee. I want to do this. Oh, maybe I'll do this after this show is over. You're constantly thinking about the future. We live in the future. OK, dogs don't. Dogs live in a world of instinct. They live in the world of now. And it was good for their evolution.

Now, for our evolution, we don't smell very well. We don't have claws. Very good. We can't fly. We don't have armor. So what do we have going for us? Nothing except the brain. And what does the brain do? Daydream. So I think the essence of daydreaming is how we became intelligent because we as an animal are pretty stupid looking from an animal's point of view. No claws, no fangs, no armor, can't fly. Our eyesight is horrible. We don't smell anything. We have nothing going for us except the brain. Right. But didn't we evolve that way because of the brain and tools and our ability to cook food and all these different things that sort of slowly but surely weakened our physical body. Yeah. Look at our jaw. The jaws of our ancestors, when you look at skeletons of Neanderthals and

things, huge jaws. Why? Because they had to eat raw meat. They had to crack bones apart to get the bone marrow. Huge jaws. Well, we humans, homo sapiens, have very tiny jaws. Right. And that's why your teeth are impacted. You know, the dentist has to remove your impacted back teeth because the jaw kept getting smaller and smaller and smaller, jammed all the teeth together. So at the back of your mouth, all the teeth are jammed together

and they have to be removed or else you get infected. And it's due to the fact that we learned how to cook meat and meat is soft while the meat of our ancestors was raw and extremely hard to eat and the bones had to be cracked apart. This is what I was talking about when I said that if you go back to look at ancient hominids and then you extrapolate and you think about what we're going to look like in a million years. Don't you think we would probably look like those aliens? Well, I tend to think that all those science fiction stories of humans having gigantic heads and small spindly bodies is wrong because we have stopped evolving. There's no evolutionary pressure on us anymore. You can have kids anywhere on the planet Earth. There used to be bottlenecks like Australia.

Used to be bottlenecks where evolution speeded up. That's why evolution speeded up in Australia because they were cut off from the mainstream evolution in Eurasia. It speeded up how so in Australia? In what way? In strange forms where it would shoot out because the gene pool was smaller. And if you have a very large gene pool, evolution is rather slow because odd genes are canceled out. They average out. In a small population, you can have mutants. Mutants jump out rather quickly. And that's why Australia has such strange animals because it's an island, basically, separated from the rest of the other continents. Kangaroos and wombats and things that don't exist anywhere else.

Right. Yeah. So you think that we're just this forever? I mean, obviously, there's been changes. I mean, we were talking about the changes to human beings from ancient hominids and Neanderthals to what we are now. You think this is just stuck because it's too easy? I think we're stuck because there's no evolutionary pressure, perhaps at the molecular level, to be healthy. Nobody wants to marry a sick person, okay? So there's always an evolutionary

pressure not to mate with a sick person. But if the person is reasonably healthy and makes a moderate good living, then you want to mate with that person and keep evolution going. And there's no evolutionary pressure. There was evolutionary pressure for us to have a big brain because we have nothing else going for us, right? So that's why we have a big brain. But there's no evolutionary pressure to do anything else with the body. And that's why I think that in the main, gross anatomical features have stopped evolving. Chemically, we're still evolving because we don't mate with sick people. But other than that, I think that for the most part, evolution has stopped.

But aren't we still in some way involved in natural selection? And isn't that one of the driving forces of evolution? Yeah, but what are the pressures on that happening? If you look at the movies, you'll find out that what they select for is people that are healthy, okay? And no diseases in their history, but healthy and healthy in turn correlates with beauty because beautiful forms tend to be healthy and vice versa. And so we mate with healthy people who are good looking because they're healthy. And as we continue this mating with beautiful people that are healthy, don't you think there's at least some members of the human race that are experiencing some form of evolution? And maybe that will all be radically accelerated by technology. When we integrate, when and if we decide to integrate via Neuralink or something along those lines, will that change the course of our advancement? Because when we're thinking about evolution, we're thinking about some sort of an improvement

and better adapting to our circumstances and environment. That's the difference between us as we are now versus ancient hominids with no language. Well, what humans do is enhance themselves. That's why we have makeup. That's why we have people that try to pump up their muscles. That's why we have tattoos. People have been trying to enhance themselves since day one because they think that increases their reproductive success. That's why they enhance themselves. In the future, we will be able to deliberately enhance ourselves. Yeah. And I think that is possible. I think on a scale of, let's say, 200 years,

it may be possible for us to mentally enhance ourselves, increase our memory, our capabilities, live on other planets, for example, by enhancing the human being because that's what we do. We enhance ourselves. So do you think that that would be the solution to the bottleneck? So if we are right now sort of stagnant in the terms of natural evolution, that some sort of a technological evolution, whether it's through things like gene manipulation, like CRISPR or the like, or some new, not yet invented technology that will be able to design a better human being.

Possible. In science fiction stories that I used to read as a kid, the human of the future has a gigantic head and very, very spindly organs of the body with a huge head to support. But you see, there's no evolutionary pressure in that direction. People do not want to mate with somebody with a gigantic head. There's no pressure in that direction. I think in the future, on the other hand, when we have artificial enhancement of the human body, we will enhance ourselves to look better looking. Not ugly like gigantic heads, but stronger, Superman and super women,

rather than these deformed creatures from science fiction. But isn't that because we have this biological imperative to breed naturally, the way animals do, the survival of the fittest aspect of it, the fact that, you know, the bigger, stronger animals breed before the weaker ones, and that we are sort of trapped in that dynamic by our biology, but we could escape that if we are willing to abandon that method of reproduction. And that would make us look like the aliens. That we would be these genderless, almost like muscle-less things. And that by integrating with technology and by having the satisfaction, being able to satisfy all of those biological imperatives, like the need for breeding, sex, all those things. If all those things are eliminated and we come up with

something that's far superior than that, and it exists technologically or electronically or whatever it is, wouldn't that be a way to solve that issue? Well, some of that is happening already. Decades ago in Brooklyn, the Jewish population had to worry about Tay-Sachs. Tay-Sachs is a hereditary disease that afflicts Jewish people. And by taking a look at the embryos, you can simply discard the embryos that have the Tay-Sachs syndrome and keep the ones that don't. What is Tay-Sachs? It's a disease of Jewish people where kids die very young. And it's one of 5,000 genetic diseases that afflict the human race.

But it's only in the Jewish race? Yeah. There was a mutation that took place in Eastern Europe several thousand years ago. It has since proliferated into a large number of Jewish populations. And they have to worry about that. And so matchmakers, in the early days, matchmakers would try to find out if the Tay-Sachs syndrome existed in your family. Today, we do it genetically, and we can eliminate it now. This has been going on for decades, the fact that people have a choice to eliminate embryos that have the Tay-Sachs disease.

So you can sense it? You can find it in the embryos that have the Tay-Sachs disease. So you can sense it? You can find it in the embryos? That's right. You can genetically alter your own evolution. So are they able to do that if a woman has the embryo in her body? So they would abort it? Yeah. In other words, they can get rid of embryos that have to be implanted. This is through, you know, the insemination takes

place outside. In vitro fertilization takes place outside the body. You can analyze the genes and discard the ones that you don't like. And that's today. This has been going on for decades in the Jewish community. Now it's pretty much available commercially. And I think in the future, then you're talking about evolution being changed at the chemical level, that genetic diseases like hemophilia and cystic fibrosis for Europeans and sickle cell anemia for African-Americans, these genetic diseases could deliberately be eliminated by choice. And that would just be one stage of our ability to manipulate people and improve upon what we think, when we think about the human race. That's right.

Once we identify genes, for example, that are associated with intelligence, personally I think it's more complicated than that. But let's say a family finds out through an advertisement that certain genes are correlated with intelligence. Then they can discard the embryos that don't have that gene. And so people can deliberately begin to alter the genetic makeup of their lineage. Their genealogy is actually controllable in this way to a limited degree. And that's to a limited degree. But ultimately, do you think that it's possible that we can actually design a better human being? Yes. However, the trick is to find which genes correlate with which things. Behavior is very complicated because every behavior probably has many

genetic links. If you take two twins, if you take two twins and take a look at their life history and so on and so forth, you realize that about 50% of their behavior is genetically programmed and 50% is not genetically programmed. So even with two identical twins, behavior is actually rather difficult. It's a combination of many factors. But in the future, if we get better at this, then that opens the possibility of people choosing which traits they want in their own family tree to propagate. So this is called gene therapy, And there's two kinds of gene therapy, somatic gene therapy and the gene therapy where you can actually change the genetic heritage of your lineage so that that gene that's afflicted your family for centuries can now be totally eliminated.

But when you extrapolate that kind of technology and that kind of ability, ultimately, if you look at 100 years from now or 500 years from now, where do you think this goes? Well, I think that as time goes by, there's going to be a black market. Somebody will advertise a smart gene, a good-looking gene, a muscular gene, even if it's totally fake, and put it on the internet. We have not been able to monitor the drug trade. Think of what happens when genes, illegal genes, are entering on the internet. How do you stop that? Because a gene is nothing but information, like A, T, C, G, the four nucleic acids arranged in a certain way. How do you stop that? That's a number. How do you stop illegal

genes from proliferating? But what about legal versions of it? I mean, especially, I mean, maybe we'll put some restrictions on it in this country, but I would imagine that there'd be other countries if they had access to that technology and they wanted to create a superior version of a human being. I mean, think about the horrors that Hitler created in Germany because he was trying to create the Aryan race. This is the Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In that society, they deliberately reduced the oxygen on embryos to make them mentally retarded. They deliberately made the workers stupid by depriving them of oxygen.

And therefore, they would control the intelligence of their society that way. Now that was a dream when he wrote that way back in the 1930s. But many aspects of the technologies that he wrote about are actually possible. But of course, morally, it would be, of course, a disaster to have these policies carried out. But what happens if you have a dictator, a dictator that wants soldiers that are mentally retarded but are very strong and obey orders to kill? Right. Okay. That's a definite possibility when we have dictatorships that still exist on the earth. Wasn't there an, there was an attempt at one point in time to combine human beings with chimpanzees to create like a super soldier

or at least there was if it wasn't experimental it was theoretical they were trying to see if it was possible see if we can find anything about that i want to say that was scientific ethics and stalin's ape man super warriors that's what it was. It was Stalin. So there was some sort of at least an attempt. I mean, I don't think obviously it never worked, but I think he was trying to figure out a way if he could combine humans and apes and create a superior soldier. By the way, when you take a look at the movie Planet of the Apes, the recent versions of the movie are actually becoming possible in the sense that we know the complete genome of chimpanzees. We know the complete genome of humans. And we look where

they're different. And they're only different in a very few select places. We are genetically very close to the chimpanzee with our are genetically very close to the chimpanzee with our genes. We separated from the chimpanzees six million years ago, and we have many of the same genes. The genes that differ are the genes for manual dexterity, which we have and chimpanzees don't have very much, vocal cords, and of course the size of the brain.

But we've located them. We know which genes created, in some sense, the big brain, better vocalization, and manual dexterity. So it is conceivable, though we can't do it today, conceivable that something like Planet of the Apes may be possible. So like what Stalin theorized could be something that we could introduce human specific characteristics into apes. And they could create like a super soldier. Well, how we would work, I don't know. All I'm saying is that we do know the genes that are different from chimpanzees and humans.

Right. We do know they accumulate in three major areas, manual dexterity, vocalization, and brain size. And we know which genes they are. And that's just one step, right? I mean, we could conceivably impart some of those characteristics into other animals. Yeah, it's possible. That's what gets weird, right? This is where ethics comes in.

We're not there yet, but sooner or later we will be at the point where we have to look at the ethics of what happens when we transfer genes between species. Well, I mean, we need to look at the ethics of what happens when we experiment with makeup on animals because we're still doing things along those lines. They're still doing all sorts of weird animal studies that may or may not be necessary. necessary. Well, the good aspect is that you can take certain organs of pigs that are compatible with humans and therefore extend the lifespan of people that have fatal diseases. That's the good aspect. Is that your ringtone? Let me hear your ringtone. It's just a gentle ding dong. It's an advertisement. It is? Yeah, I know the advertisement. Oh, you mean that you're getting a phone call from? Yeah.

You know, you can press that button on the right-hand side. It'll stop. The button on the right side of your phone. I love when super geniuses don't know how to operate their phone. Beyond me. It's hilarious. He was looking at the phone. Oh, it's an advertisement.

Yeah, he shut it off. How do you do that? You're too busy with string theory. You are one of the co-founders of the string theory. The string field theory, which in turn is a branch of string theory. I don't understand that. I'm too dumb for that. I've tried.

I've tried. I've heard multiple versions, explanations. I've heard it described. It's still Greek to me. It's music. Yeah. You know, Pythagoras was a rival of Democritus. Democritus talked about atoms 2,000 years ago. And Pythagoras said, no, no, no. Music is the language of the universe. So he looked at a lyre string and said, look at the vibrations. Each vibration corresponds to a musical note. The universe is music. The universe is created by vibrating things. Each vibration corresponds to a note. How did Pythagoras figure that out? He went to a blacksmith where there were long

bars of metal and they were clanging these bars of metal, he realized that the longer the metal, the lower the note. And he said, aha, there's a relationship between the length of the object, its strength, and the note. And then he looked at a lyre string, and he said the longer the lyre string, the lower the note. Why? More wavelengths. And then he said, this is the universe. What explains the diversity?

What paradigm is rich enough to explain the diversity of the entire universe? Atoms, but what makes atoms different? And then he said, it's music. But then that never went anywhere, because of course the atomic theory wasn't created for another 2,000 years. But finally, with the atomic theory, we now have subatomic particles. But why do we have so many subatomic particles? They're nothing but musical notes on a tiny, tiny little vibrating string.

So this is the electron. Vibrates this way. This is a quark. This is a neutrino. So why do we have so many particles in the particle zoo? They're nothing but vibrations on a tiny string. So why do we have so many particles in the particle zoo? There's nothing but vibrations on a tiny string. So what is physics? Physics is the harmonies, the harmonies of little vibrating strings.

What is chemistry? Chemistry is the melodies you can play when these strings bump into each other. Now what is the universe? The universe is a symphony of strings. And then what is the mind of God that Albert Einstein wrote about so eloquently for 30 years? The mind of God would be cosmic music resonating through hyperspace. That would be the mind of God. You're a really great science communicator, and I know you've been doing this for a long time, but how do you maintain, is it just innate, is it a natural thing that you

maintain this enthusiasm for all this new information? Well, my favorite Einstein story is, Einstein said that if you cannot explain a theory to a child, the theory is probably useless. Meaning that great theories are based on simple principles, concepts that you can see visually, pictures. Useless theories are just a bunch of algebra. They go nowhere. So if we take a look at all the great theories, they're pictorial. Take a look at Newton's laws. Newton's laws are based on billiard balls, planets, stars going around each other. Very pictorial, Newton's laws.

Look at Einstein's laws, based on meter sticks, levers, I mean, meter sticks and rockets and clocks. Take a look at string theory, little vibrating strings. So great theories have a simple pictorial representation. Theories that are easily explainable. That's right, and they're very profound. We can explain the entire solar system with Newton's laws of motion and gravity based on, you know, balls going around other balls. Have you always been a person, though, that has not

just been interested in these ideas, but also been interested in illustrating them to other people in a way that's comprehensible? Well, when I was a kid, well, first of all, when I was eight years old, something happened which completely changed my life. All the newspapers were saying that a great scientist had just died, and they put a picture of his desk. That's all. Just a picture of his desk with a book on it. The book was empty, and the caption said, this is the unfinished manuscript of the greatest scientist of our time. Well, I was fascinated. I had to know what was in that book. Why couldn't he finish it? Why didn't he ask his mother? Why didn't he simply make up a theory? So I went to the library and I found out

this man's name was Albert Einstein. And that unfinished book was the theory of everything, an equation that would allow us to, quote, read the mind of God. So I said to myself, wow, that's for me. But then when I tried to communicate this idea to other people, their eyes would glaze over. And it's because great ideas have a picture, have some kind of concept, a principle, that can be explained in a few words. Evolution, one of the greatest principles of biology, can be explained by saying survival of the

fittest. And so great ideas have very simple paradigms behind them. But to explain that is very difficult unless you know what the paradigm is. And so this idea of explaining the mind of God, do you think that we're going to ever come to a point as human beings where we can understand the creative force of the universe, of everything? Well, the driving force behind the universe is energy, and the energy of what? We think the energy of vibrating strings. And these strings, when they vibrate, create subatomic particles, and that's what the universe is made of, subatomic particles.

But there's some sort of an advancement to constant new levels of complexity. Mm-hmm. And that certainly exists with the human race, but it seems to exist with just the creation of the universe itself, from the Big Bang Theory to stars exploding, creating carbon, which is the source of all carbon-based life forms like us. All these things are constantly becoming more and more complex therefore your conclusion is what i don't have one

a universe without a scientist like you i'm just happy that i get to talk to you i mean i don't have a conclusion but i'm wondering why the universe tends to have this momentum towards further and further levels of complexity. Well, you're right. There's a cough button there. See that little red button? You can get crazy. Press that button and just rah. Yeah, let it out.

Okay. Got it. Well, one of the fundamental paradoxes of the universe is the universe is based on a simple number of constants like the speed of light, the mass of a proton. But where do these numbers come from? These numbers are tuned, tuned like a radio to be exactly those frequencies and energies which make life possible. If the nuclear forests were a little bit stronger, the sun would have burnt out billions of years ago, and we wouldn't be here talking about this.

If the nuclear forests were a little bit weaker, the sun would never ignite it at all, and we still wouldn't be here. Everything is just right to be tuned to allow for life. So when I was in second grade, I'll never forget, my elementary school teacher said, quote, God so loved the earth that he put the earth just right from the sun. Not too close, oceans would boil. Not too far, the oceans would freeze. And I said to myself, my God, that's right. The earth is tuned,

tuned just right to allow for life. The nuclear force is tuned just right. If gravity were stronger, the earth, the universe would have been blown apart billions of years ago. The universe is tuned just right to allow for life. So, my elementary school teacher said, therefore, God exists. Well, now we have discovered thousands of planets which are too close, which are too far from the mother sun, and there's no life as we know it on these planets. So, in other words, it's a crapshoot. That there are probably billions and billions of planets out there, but only a handful of them have things just right from what they should be. Do you think it's possible that we're the most advanced life form in the universe? Probably not.

Because on average, well, first of all, we've discovered 5,000 planets orbiting other stars. And of the 5,000 planets, maybe 20% of them are Earth-like. And our galaxy contains 100 billion stars, each one on average with one planet or more going around it. So the probability of life in the galaxy is almost 100%. 100% life, but what about intelligent life? That's probably smaller. Yeah, that's what I was getting to. Because all the bottlenecks, all the issues that keep all the other animals on this planet besides us from being the intelligent, manipulative creatures that we

are, the way we manipulate our environment, I mean, and our constant thirst for innovation, that doesn't seem to exist in other animals. Yeah. So in that sense, we could be special to the earth, but in outer space, there could be other different kinds of life forms dependent upon different factors. For sure. Like the octopus, the porpoise, spiders. It's possible to imagine other life forms that could also be intelligent if there's an evolutionary pressure on them. But dinosaurs were around for 200 million years. And to the best of our knowledge, not a single one became intelligent. They got lazy.

Now, we humans, we've been around for 200,000 years. That's nothing. Nothing 200,000 years. That's nothing. Nothing 200,000 years. And we became intelligent. The dinosaurs had 200 million years to become intelligent. None of them made it. So it's not common on Earth. But there's enough planets out there that it's most likely common in the universe

for some sort of an intelligent, innovative species to exist in not just one planet, but maybe an infinite number of planets. And just remember, the dinosaurs did not have a space program. And that's why they're not here today. No space program, not intelligent enough to have a space program. So to have a space program could be an evolutionary bottleneck. If your species does not develop a space program, sooner or later you're going to get wiped out. And you've got to develop a space program before you get hit with an asteroid. That's right.

And that's where we are now, either before you get hit with an asteroid or to become one of those societies, what is it, level one, where you're able to do something about super volcanoes, to do something about... A type one civilization could deflect asteroids, deflect meteors. They're masters of their planet. That's type one. And that's what we need to get to.

And then we need to eventually become interstellar so that we can escape. If our star burns out, if there's a supernova at a nearby galaxy, if there's something that happens that kills us all, we at least can propagate the universe. Right. And that's type two. And we actually found evidence of something that may look like a type two civilization, though that's very, very speculative. There's something called Tabby's star that decreases in intensity by 20% periodically. Now, that's incredible. Stars don't simply diminish by 20% in intensity after a few years. It's intermittently?

Intermittently, right. So the theory is that maybe there's a Dyson sphere. A type 2 civilization creates a sphere around the mother star to absorb all the energy from the mother star. That's called a Dyson sphere. And so the thinking was that maybe a Dyson sphere is orbiting around Tabby's star,

diminishing sunlight by 20%. Well, that's a theory. Some people think it's comet dust or a smudge on a telescope, but there it is, 20% reduction in starlight in a star which is unheard of. Now, if a planet goes in front of the mother star, sunlight diminishes by less than a percent. If Jupiter goes in front of our sun, starlight from our sun diminishes by one percent. But 20 percent reduction in starlight is incredible. That's why some people think that's evidence of an intelligent object orbiting the star, diminishing starlight by 20 percent. Is that the best evidence that we have in terms of the observable universe? That's right.

That's the only evidence we have of a possible Type II civilization, which is called a Dyson sphere, a gigantic sphere that uses up all the energy of the mother star. How do you think the human race would handle it if we were confronted with just complete, absolute evidence that intelligent life exists on another planet and they have the capability of coming here. Well, everyone thinks that when a flying saucer lands on the White House lawn and the aliens come out promising advanced technology for all of us, that there are

protocols. Protocols. Who's going to be contacted first? all of us, that there are protocols. Protocols. Who's going to be contacted first? Secretary of Defense, the Vice President, so on and so forth, the United Nations. Nope. There's nothing. There's no protocol for us to confront what happens

when an extraterrestrial civilization lands on the planet Earth and announces its existence. If anything, there'll be chaos. Different planets will try to angle for an advantage. They'll try to be friendly with the aliens to the exclusion of their enemies. I think it's going to be a real mess. Do you think that that's possible inside of our lifetime? I think within our lifetime we could definitely see that we will intercept a signal from another

intelligent civilization. This is called the SETI project. I think that's very possible within this century. Now there's also the METI project, which I tend to disagree with. The METI project is- What does that stand for? To message, to message extraterrestrial intelligence to advertise our

existence. You think that's a bad idea? I think it's a huge, huge mistake. Because look what happened to Mexico when Cortez met Montezuma hundreds of years ago. Montezuma made the biggest mistake in ancient history. He thought that Cortes was a god. Nope, Cortes was a bloodthirsty pirate looking for gold. But what did Cortes have? He had the horse. Aztecs had no horse. He had steel weapons. The Aztecs had bronze weapons. Cortes had the written language, Spanish. The Aztecs had no written language. They had a pictorial language, but not a written language. Cortes had the horse. Nope, the Aztecs did not. And within a few months, the Aztec civilization was destroyed. So I think before we know the intentions of the aliens, we should not advertise our existence. Don't you think that

the technological advantage that Cortez had over the Aztecs is also, there's a biological similarity. They were not much different from each other. They were the same species. We would be dealing with something that would be akin to us observing ant colonies or us observing some sort of primitive life form. It would be far superior. It wouldn't be like other dolphins cruising in on a new pod of dolphins that didn't know any better and taking all their stuff, which is essentially what happened when Cortez met Montezuma. Right. It's like going down a country road and seeing a bunch of ants on the floor and going down to the ants and saying,

I bring you trinkets. Yes. I give you beads. I give you nuclear energy. Right. Take me to your ant queen. Or do you have this politically incorrect urge to step on a few of them?

I think we have to worry about that. Now, let's say you're walking down a forest to see a squirrel. At that point, you may want to talk to the squirrel. Squirrel must have an interesting life. So you try to talk to the squirrel. But after a while, you get kind of bored because the squirrel doesn't talk back to you. It doesn't have anything interesting to say to you. So what do you do? You simply leave the squirrel alone. So these are two possibilities. One is the aliens may simply step on us because we're irrelevant.

And the other one is that they'll simply ignore us because we have nothing to contribute to them. What do you make of the stories and reports of nuclear weapons facilities being shut down when there was a sighting and that these things hovered over these nuclear facilities and they shut them down. Right. That happened in 1967

at the Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana where there were 10 ICBMs that shut down. Remember, this is our nuclear strike force. They have to be operational 24-7, right? They shut down. They shut down. And in the presence of a glowing ball in the air. Yeah. So people put two and two together and said, maybe the aliens want to neutralize our ICBMs for the hell of it. We don't know. All we know is that these are military men. These are military-grade equipment. There's plenty of documentation. And I think there's 120 military men over the years who've said that there are things like this at other missile bases.

Now, that means at least one of two things. Either the aliens are interested in our nuclear capability, or our military simply has sensors everywhere that the average amateur does not. And therefore, of course, the military is going to pick it up because they have the radar, they have the sensors, and we don't. But it's random, basically. So there's several ways of looking at that. So it could be random that the machines and that all the ICBMs shut down at the same time that they're being visited by an unexplained aerial phenomenon. That's also possible, right? It's possible.

But if you were an intelligent species that had an eye on Earth and you're like, you know, they're coming along, but they're kind of crazy. They're wild territorial apes with thermonuclear weapons and they get jealous and greedy and some of them are evil sociopaths and they lack moral intelligence and they do crazy stuff. We have to just make sure that they don't destroy themselves. We have to just make sure that they don't destroy themselves. Because one of the things about UFO lore that I find fascinating is the uptick, the generally agreed upon uptick that happened after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Like that those bombs were dropped and that once they realized that we not only had nuclear capability, but that we're willing to murder hundreds of thousands of people, that that's when all the sightings started. Like they go, oh, Jesus. Okay. Well, we got to go visit these people. Well, that's possible. That's one theory. Other people say that after World War II, people got used to the idea of things in the sky, gigantic bombers and weapons of war in the sky. And every time someone saw something in the sky, they would think, oh my God, they're not U.S. bombers,

they're alien bombers, right? We don't know. But that's a possibility. You see, when you start to hit type one status, you become interesting. Because before type one, you cannot destroy yourself as a civilization. Right. Nothing known to science can completely destroy a Type 1 civilization unless there's a virus of some sort. Because they have no weapons that can do that. Once you're Type 1, you have nuclear weapons. You discover Element 92. As a Type 0 civilization, you discover Element 1, 2, 3, 4.

What is Element 92? Uranium. Yeah. So once you go up the scale and you're type one, you eventually inevitably hit element 92, which is uranium, which has a finite critical mass, about 20 pounds, and you're able to create a nuclear weapon. And that's at the instant that you have become a type one civilization. And that's at the instant that you become a type 1 civilization. So if I was an alien with an advanced civilization, I would monitor those planets that are on the verge of becoming type 1 because those are the planets that have the capability of discovering element 92. And once they did discover element 92 and implemented it in warfare,

then I would think if you were really concerned concerned that would be the time to step in yeah now that's of course purely hypothetical yes but that's there is a logical basis to thinking about that because we are about to make the greatest transition in human history from type zero to type one. Are you aware of the story of Bob Lazar? No. No, really? Interesting. Oh, yeah. He's the guy that supposedly worked at Area S4, and he worked on back engineering spacecrafts.

And this was in the late 1980s, and George Knapp had him on television, and he discussed it because he was concerned that they were going to possibly have him killed because he had access to this information. He worked at Los Alamos Labs, and he was a propulsions expert, and they brought him on board to try to back-engineer this craft. It's one of the most famous stories in UFO folklore

It's one of the most famous stories in UFO folklore because there's a lot of chicanery involved. It's hard to know what's true and what's not true. But one of the things that he said was that this alien civilization that created the spacecraft had harnessed a stable version of Element 115. And he talked about this in the late night late 80s and i don't believe they isolated element 115 outside of it being theoretical i don't think they isolated until somewhere in the 2000s well i get a lot of emails and some of them talk about conspiracy theories yeah and my advice to them is if you are ever kidnapped by a flying saucer, for God's sake, steal something. An alien chip, an alien hammer,

an alien paperclip, steal something. Because there's no law against stealing from an extraterrestrial civilization. There's no law at all. He wasn't claiming to be kidnapped. He was claiming that the United States government had in their possession more than one of these recovered crafts.

Now, for those people who make these claims, my only thing is we need something tangible. Yes. Because science is based on things that are testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That. Because science is based on things that are testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That's called science. If somebody says something, maybe it's true, maybe it's not true. But what are we supposed to do if there's no evidence pointing one way or the other? You see, these recent photographs that the military has released, that's a gold mine, a gold mine of data. We're

analyzing them frame by frame because these aren't things that are testable, reproducible on film. But when you're talking about alien craft that's crash landed, maybe, maybe not. What are we supposed to say? Right. The only thing that they have pointed to as evidence is, and it's not from this particular situation with Babelzar, but they've found objects that are made in a very sophisticated manner, some sort of a form of metallurgy. Have you ever seen any of that stuff? No. I've heard that some people claim that they've been able to get globs of melted metal when a flying saucer landed. And among the debris, they saw some pieces of melted metal. But these have never been analyzed to my degree. We should put them through a spectroscope to see what they're made of. I think they have. I think there was, was it, who, what scientist had,

What scientist had, there was a piece of something that they had from unknown origin that was. The nitinol thing? Yes. Nickel titanium mixture. It was so complex that to be able to do that, it was possible. It's possible to be able to do it. It's not like it's an impossible thing to do on earth. But it would cost an insane amount of money to recreate this metallurgy. And that this was from supposedly some sort of a crash site.

And what was the guy? Was it the guy from Stanford that analyzed it? Wasn't it? Sorry, there's a name I saw. I don't think it's... This doesn't say Stanford. I don't know. I don't know. There is a Professor Sturrock at Stanford

who investigates UFOs and things like that. But you mentioned element 115. Yes. I remember now, there is a conjecture that was made about an element like that. Actually, we've created that element. Yeah.

And it tends to be unstable, and it does not seem to have any magical properties, but it's actually been created very briefly with our particle accelerators. Yes, that's what Bob Lazar discovered, or that he discussed, rather. But we didn't find anything unusual about it. I see people have looked for what are called metastable states that are transuranic, that is beyond uranium. Some people have theorized that way beyond uranium, there's an island of stability so that these elements are stable and you can make maybe bombs out of them. So the military was interested in that concept. But so far, no one's ever seen this island of stability that's way out there. What he was trying to say is that this extraterrestrial civilization had either developed or was in possession of a stable version

of 115 and through that stable version of 115 they were able to distort gravity and that that's how that thing manipulated the environment around it to move at insane rates of speed. And what's interesting is what he described, they actually observed on one of the videos that the government had gotten from fighter jets. The same way the craft, this is it right here. This thing right here on this table, that a recreation of what bob lazar had this is a guy named it's designed by perry uh the e and perry is like a three i believe and he's created this uh artistic version that is a recreation of what bob lazar described seeing at area s4 and what bob lazar S4. And what Bob Lazar says is this thing turns sideways or it turns like, instead of like being perpendicular or parallel rather, it goes up and down and then moves at insane rates of speed.

And it uses this element, obviously this sounds like crazy talk, uses this element to bend gravity around it. And the way he described it was as if you were taking a bowling ball and placing it in the center of a mattress, that the weight of the bowling ball would push down and make everything else come around it. Well, I don't know. Yeah, obviously. All I know is that in gravity theory, there's something called the equivalence principle, and that pieces of matter of the same weight basically operate the same under gravity. Everything falls at the same rate. If I have a piece of metal here, a gigantic piece of metal or a small piece of metal,

they both fall at 32 feet per second squared. Right. So if he claimed to have a new element, it would also fall at 32 feet per second squared. Right. So if he claimed to have a new element, it would also fall at 32 feet per second squared. I don't think he's saying it falls. I think what he's saying is this generator, something in this element 115 allows this advanced civilization to bend gravity around it. And that's the propulsion system that it uses. Well, I don't know. However, if it's possible that you are a type three civilization, it's possible to have energy on a scale that is incomprehensible by our standards. And then you can start to manipulate gravity at will. Okay. But again, this is not for type one,

not even for type two. But if you're at the Type 3 civilization, you can manipulate Planck energy scale physics. At that point, it might be possible to manipulate gravity. As I mentioned before, negative energy is something that you can use to drive a starship. But you need large quantities of negative energy to do that. And that's the Alcabier Drive. So if somehow they're able to harness that kind of energy, then yeah, things might be possible. But I have to see it. Right. Of course. You are a real scientist. One of the things that I'm really interested in is

supposedly there is evidence that hasn't been released. There's video evidence and photographic evidence that the government is in possession of. Christopher Mellon, who formerly of the Department of Defense, he discussed it, that there's some really high resolution, fascinating videos and photographs, and that what we've seen is just a drop in the bucket, and that the government is in possession of much more of this stuff. Has anybody ever discussed that with you? Well, no, but the military now admits that there is much more data out there that they have not been released, and that their pilots many times shut off their cameras because no one would believe them, but they would report it verbally, but there's nothing, no record

of it because they realized people would laugh at them. So the military has now issued a statement saying that pilots should report these things rather than simply erase these things. So there's a lot of stuff out there. In fact, there's one report that said that these would go on for days. For days, these objects would be flying around, not just one second or whatever. So yeah, there's a lot of stuff that's been not released to the public. Well, it's a very fascinating subject. And to me, it means a lot that someone like yourself, who is a very respected physicist, is willing to entertain these thoughts and discuss it with people. And I'm glad we're in a new era where that's possible.

Yeah. Well, remarkable claims require remarkable proof. And as long as the claims are remarkable and there's some kind of proof to go with it, it's worthy of scientific investigation. Well, thank you very much. And thank you for your time. Thanks for coming here, I really, really appreciate it. If anybody wants any more information on you, what's the best way to go about it? Do you have a website? Yeah, I have a website, mkaku.org, M-K-A-K-U dot O-R-G. That's the best way?

Yeah. Okay. And my latest book is called The God Equation, The Quest for a Theory of Everything. And is it available in audio form as well? Yeah. Did you read it? Huh? Did you read the audio book?

No. I have somebody else read it because it takes about a week. Yeah. It takes about a week for someone to sit down and read everything. Unfortunately, though, you have such a specific sound to your voice that I think people would appreciate it if you did read it. Oh. Well, I'll think about it. Well, thank you very much.

I really appreciate it. It's been great talking to you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Bye, everybody. Bye. Bye.