Speaker 1: All right, And joining us now is doctor Richard Restak, MD,
Speaker 1: and he is a neuroscientist as well, and he has
Speaker 1: written a lot of books on the brain, and now
Speaker 1: this is one kind of the nexus of our brain
Speaker 1: and artificial intelligence. So I wanted to get him on
Speaker 1: because we, as you know, we talk about AI and
Speaker 1: its impact on society quite a bit. Thank you for
Speaker 1: joining us, doctor Rustick.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm happy to be here.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: David.
Speaker 1: You've written so many books and best selling author and
Speaker 1: of course people can bind this on Amazon. You've written
Speaker 1: so many books. What is different about the brain? What
Speaker 1: is different about this one? And why did you write
Speaker 1: this book?
Speaker 2: I wrote this book to announce and to discuss the
Speaker 2: dangers that are lurking and so to speak, in the
Speaker 2: twenty first century and are unique to the going first,
Speaker 2: that are having an effect on the brain and a
Speaker 2: negative one, so that we really are imperiled by eight
Speaker 2: different factors, one of which is the global warming. We
Speaker 2: have new diseases that are present in the twenty first
Speaker 2: century that are increasing, starting with COVID and moving forward.
Speaker 2: We have problems of course with the global warming, which
Speaker 2: we'll talk about more detail. And then the internet the
Speaker 2: effect of the Internet, the effect of AI memory, the alteration,
Speaker 2: the attempt to alter memory, almost to alter our memories
Speaker 2: of what the past is like. This is an ongoing
Speaker 2: enterprise by various governments of the world, including our own.
Speaker 2: We also have surveillance. The seventh a surveillance becoming increasingly
Speaker 2: a surveillance society. It's almost impossible to not be revealing
Speaker 2: things about yourself because there's surveillance cameras everywhere. I can
Speaker 2: give you several examples, not just in my own personal life.
Speaker 2: And then finally, the eighth one is anxiety. All of
Speaker 2: these things are creating what I call existential anxiety. People
Speaker 2: are being given information, but it's being molded according to
Speaker 2: the thoughts and the inclinations of people in power. For instance,
Speaker 2: let's take today's right out of New York Times. On
Speaker 2: page A seven, there's an article called the air in
Speaker 2: New Delhi is life threatening, and it tells the tale
Speaker 2: of the New York Times reporters who have spread themselves
Speaker 2: throughout New Delhi from six a m. Until late in
Speaker 2: the evening of a certain day recently, and they measured
Speaker 2: the particulate matter in the air, and it was anywhere
Speaker 2: from ten times to thirty times as great as would
Speaker 2: be concerned minimally normal. Now on top of that you
Speaker 2: have the statement that they state that the government is
Speaker 2: actually trying to hide this kind of insight to the
Speaker 2: populace by spraying water and other things like that. It
Speaker 2: says that they're doing this around the measuring stations. They're
Speaker 2: also losing data from measuring stations during the worst outs pollution.
Speaker 2: So there you have the molding of the facts, either
Speaker 2: denying them all together or trying to improve them so
Speaker 2: that people say, oh, well, they measured it down. It's
Speaker 2: such and such a measuring state, and it was really
Speaker 2: not a lot of high. Of course, they were spreading
Speaker 2: water and other things to try to reduce this. So
Speaker 2: we've got a capitalist society here in the United States
Speaker 2: which has invested interest in pushing forward certain scientific points
Speaker 2: of view. So science is being put sort of in
Speaker 2: the back seat. And as politicians and other people, all
Speaker 2: of whom share one thing capitalistic enterprises in which they're
Speaker 2: part of, for which they are advancing.
Speaker 1: And a kind of crony capitalism where they can get
Speaker 1: protection and subsidies as well, and the control is being
Speaker 1: taken away from us because as I was just reporting
Speaker 1: earlier today they're working very hard to make sure that
Speaker 1: state and local governments can't enact any control on artificial intelligence.
Speaker 1: And they came up in the context of talking about
Speaker 1: how the manufacturers of tasers also big manufacturers of police
Speaker 1: body camps, how they want to wed that to artificial intelligence.
Speaker 1: And the question is, you know what could possibly go
Speaker 1: wrong with that? If they identify you, they misidentify you
Speaker 1: as a dangerous criminal, and warn the police about how
Speaker 1: dangerous you are, they could get people killed.
Speaker 2: Well, not only that, but all these efforts set up
Speaker 2: a sense of anxiety and fear. Let me tell you
Speaker 2: what happened to me one morning, called a cab to
Speaker 2: go to medical appointment, and we've started going down the road.
Speaker 2: I said to the driver, you know you're not going
Speaker 2: the most efficient or the quickest way. He said, I
Speaker 2: know that, he said, but I don't want to go
Speaker 2: that way because they're speed cameras. I said, well, you
Speaker 2: know you're driving very sensibly and you're not speedy, and
Speaker 2: I'm in no hurry. So what's the problem. He said, Well,
Speaker 2: they take pictures of everybody that goes by those cameras
Speaker 2: because they want to see who's in those photos in
Speaker 2: those cars. So I asked them to give me a
Speaker 2: reference for that, and he got set of didn't say
Speaker 2: anything else for the rest of the trip. So when
Speaker 2: I got down to the medical building, I got in
Speaker 2: the elevator and said, in this facility there is surveillance,
Speaker 2: both obvious and hidden, and the.
Speaker 3: Third clause watch and you know this is one morning.
Speaker 2: And then when I got up to sign in, I
Speaker 2: signed the board with an electronic ben and I didn't
Speaker 2: see you go, no signature I saw. I said, well
Speaker 2: it didn't take. You know it took, but we don't
Speaker 2: know it to go on the screen so it could
Speaker 2: be seen. I said, why is that? Said, well, somebody
Speaker 2: who haunts you might see the thing and then remember
Speaker 2: it and use your for your signature to forward something somewhere. Well,
Speaker 2: first of all, there was a sign that said stand
Speaker 2: ten feet back, and secondly, there's nobody else behind me.
Speaker 2: So there's three examples, just drawing it random that were
Speaker 2: becoming an increasingly surveilled society, which is creating a sense
Speaker 2: of paranoia and a sense of fear. So the brain
Speaker 2: has to adjust to these type of things, David, and
Speaker 2: it's very hard to do.
Speaker 1: And I think that is calculated. You know they've been
Speaker 1: they wanted to do this even to the extent and
Speaker 1: when you talk about these cameras taking everybody's picture, the
Speaker 1: flock network that is out there, this corporation that is saying, well,
Speaker 1: we can do whatever we want because it's in public
Speaker 1: space and you know we're we're not government, so we
Speaker 1: can collect this information. And yet they collect it in
Speaker 1: order to sell it to the government.
Speaker 3: So it's just.
Speaker 1: One level in direct but they not only grab your
Speaker 1: license plate, but they also do a complete profile of
Speaker 1: your car and all of its idiosyncrasies. Is have a
Speaker 1: dent here, does have a scrape there? What about a
Speaker 1: bumper sticker? So it creates a model of your car.
Speaker 1: And so they almost have like, you know, biometric identification
Speaker 1: of your cars as well as of you. And this
Speaker 1: is now made possible because of the advances of AI.
Speaker 1: But this has been something that has been concerning me.
Speaker 1: I look at things kind of from a libertarian perspective,
Speaker 1: and this has been concerning me for a long time.
Speaker 1: The idea that government is using technology, many different ways
Speaker 1: of Internet, social media, things like that, to monitor and
Speaker 1: to manipulate us all the time, and to me, artificial
Speaker 1: intelligence just puts this on steroids. And so I think
Speaker 1: there's something to be anxious about. If we're going to
Speaker 1: look at this, we should be concerned about it. Maybe
Speaker 1: not anxious, but we should be concerned about the goals
Speaker 1: of people who are putting this kind of stuff together.
Speaker 2: So yeah, well there's that, and then there's if you
Speaker 2: can manage to change the present, you can manipulate the future.
Speaker 2: Of course. Is the real way to get it is
Speaker 2: to get control of the past. Is warwell pointed out? Yes,
Speaker 2: you control the past, you know, you can control the
Speaker 2: present and by the implication, control of the future. And
Speaker 2: we're seeing alterations of materials, even government documents, government films, documentaries,
Speaker 2: things like that are being altered in ways that are
Speaker 2: not visible I should say detectable, not detectable to the
Speaker 2: ordinary person. So they get ideas about what the past
Speaker 2: was like which are wrong and don't show you. As
Speaker 2: I mentioned in the book, if you were at a
Speaker 2: dance in eighteen fifty before the Civil War and it's
Speaker 2: a film or watch Let's say we're watching a film
Speaker 2: about eighteen fifty and we're seeing people ballroom dancing all that,
Speaker 2: and then one of them pulls the side and pulls
Speaker 2: out a cell phone, and you say, wait a minute,
Speaker 2: we didn't have cell phones. Then, well, you know, there
Speaker 2: were a lot of things that were going on now
Speaker 2: that we're not going on in the past, and it's
Speaker 2: not too our advantage to try to pretend that they were.
Speaker 2: They weren't. We have to understand the past, understand the future,
Speaker 2: and we're not only creating situations that are false, but
Speaker 2: we're also like in nineteen eighty four, or Well created
Speaker 2: a character called Commander Olov. He was a war hero.
Speaker 2: He got all sorts of metals, and it was all
Speaker 2: the products that were all told to honor him and
Speaker 2: so forth. Well, he never existed. He actually was made
Speaker 2: up entirely. And that's one of the things that the
Speaker 2: narrator is doing in the job of work is filling
Speaker 2: in photographs see concerting O WIV into historical events that happened,
Speaker 2: wartime scenarios, etc. Anyone reading it will say, wow, this
Speaker 2: is this is some man. Well, he was a complete fabrication.
Speaker 2: We're just about at that point with Sora out, the
Speaker 2: the AI out. Well, it could take you and had you,
Speaker 2: you know, to say, let's get to David Knight and
Speaker 2: have him leading some sort of a parade or whatever,
Speaker 2: and you know, suddenly people say, well, gosh, I saw
Speaker 2: him with my own eyes. So what's happening is that
Speaker 2: the actually seeing is believing is being turned on its head.
Speaker 2: So that's no longer true.
Speaker 1: You're talking about a completely fabricated character out of Orwell
Speaker 1: it's just recently they had Tilly Norwood, who has a
Speaker 1: completely fabricated AI personality, and the person who came up
Speaker 1: with it got agents representing her, They got her out
Speaker 1: there as an actress. I mean it was like, so,
Speaker 1: I've created an AI actress which will do a lot
Speaker 1: of different roles for you.
Speaker 3: She probably does her own stunts as well.
Speaker 1: I'm actually people in SAG, the screen actors Gil and
Speaker 1: they're furious about this.
Speaker 3: And I said, any.
Speaker 1: Agent that presents this AI character is not going to
Speaker 1: do any business with us. But we're already at that point.
Speaker 1: It truly is interesting, Yeah, And one of.
Speaker 2: The ways of neutralizing it is to create the situation
Speaker 2: that exists right now between you and me. You're laughing,
Speaker 2: and I'm laughing because it seems funny, and it is funny,
Speaker 2: but it's a very serious purpose behind all of this. Yes,
Speaker 2: it's all hatter to try to alter people's perceptions so
Speaker 2: that they begin to doubt the varietity of what they're seeing.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: Yes, I've talked for the longest time about how the
Speaker 1: whole idea for the Internet was created by DARPA psychologists,
Speaker 1: and I've been concerned that it was all about the
Speaker 1: psychological manipulation from.
Speaker 3: The get go with all of this.
Speaker 1: But as a physician and as a neuroscientist, I'd be
Speaker 1: interested in your take on, you know, what is currently
Speaker 1: going on, because besides manipulating the past by changing information
Speaker 1: about the past or you know, memory holding it or
Speaker 1: writing a new alternative history of it, they are also concerned.
Speaker 1: And there's been projects that have been put out by DARPA,
Speaker 1: and I don't know if they've been successful or not,
Speaker 1: but they you know, they're putting out requests for people
Speaker 1: to come up with things to manipulate people's memories. So
Speaker 1: you've got a soldier, they say it, who's got bad PTSD.
Speaker 1: Let's get rid of that memory. Let's give them different memories.
Speaker 1: What do you see in terms of someone who studies
Speaker 1: the brain and neuroscience, what do you see about that,
Speaker 1: what do you take, as I think is the state
Speaker 1: of the art with that.
Speaker 2: Last book was called the Complete Book of Memory. It
Speaker 2: had to do with memory and studying memory in great detail.
Speaker 2: And of course you have to do away with the
Speaker 2: concept that memory is like a videotape or something that
Speaker 2: you just store in your brain and when you get
Speaker 2: and want to get it, you just bring it out
Speaker 2: like you bring out a videotape. It's not like that.
Speaker 2: It's a reconstruction. Each time you think back to a
Speaker 2: certain event, you alter that memory so that you have
Speaker 2: memory one, memory two, memory three, on and on and all.
Speaker 2: That's the nature of memory. And memory can be manipulated.
Speaker 2: It's always, you know, in the courtroom they're always trying
Speaker 2: to avoid the contamination of the witness. An example that
Speaker 2: would be, well, which car went through the red light?
Speaker 2: And to ask a witness and he said, oh, it
Speaker 2: was it was a red car went through the red light. Well,
Speaker 2: would it surprise you to know that it wasn't a
Speaker 2: red light but it was a stop sign? Misterial witness.
Speaker 2: Of course, his credibility is gone because he took the
Speaker 2: suggestion that it was a red light. Instead, it'll be
Speaker 2: very easy to do because you don't necessarily have that
Speaker 2: image of that intersection in your mind. So that's why
Speaker 2: there's protections even in the courtroom against leading the witness.
Speaker 2: They caught, in other words, providing information that's either not
Speaker 2: through at all or half true. So we've got that call.
Speaker 2: This is not this didn't start in the twenty first century.
Speaker 2: That that started, you know, as long as we've had courtrooms.
Speaker 2: This is a more emphasis now on altering memory. So
Speaker 2: the people will not will get up there and undercross
Speaker 2: examination they'll do pretty well because their whole memory has
Speaker 2: been altered. They've changed by various mechanisms, suggestion, repeating information
Speaker 2: which is false, of course, which is the misinformation. There's
Speaker 2: a cartoon about a week ago by Ramirez in which
Speaker 2: he's Fulter Prize winner. He has three doctors in an
Speaker 2: operating room in a laboratory. So one of them is
Speaker 2: looking into a microscope and he looks up and he says,
Speaker 2: this is the most dangerous pathogen we have ever encountered.
Speaker 2: And the second doctor says, well, is it bubonic plague?
Speaker 2: Is it smallpox? And then the one that he says, no,
Speaker 2: it's misinformation, disinformation.
Speaker 1: That's right, And we've got to be very careful because
Speaker 1: many times the people who will tell us about that
Speaker 1: are the people who want to be the ones who
Speaker 1: define what the information is for us, and they will
Speaker 1: ask those leading questions, you know, when we're talking about
Speaker 1: leading questions and manipulating people. There's been a lot of
Speaker 1: reports about artificial intelligence kind of people who have a
Speaker 1: particular psychosis or something and they get involved with the
Speaker 1: AI and it starts to confirm the thing that they want,
Speaker 1: because that's what it is set up to do in
Speaker 1: terms of bias that want to you know, be empathetic
Speaker 1: and sympathetic to people, and so it starts doing that
Speaker 1: and leading them further and further down a particular rabbit hole.
Speaker 1: There's been situations of you know, people who got into
Speaker 1: severe mental distress, some suicides of some young children and
Speaker 1: other things like that speak to that aspect of it
Speaker 1: and the real danger of that. That is really kind
Speaker 1: of I think speaks to the psychological aspect and potential
Speaker 1: of artificial intelligence, and that could be weaponized. Right now,
Speaker 1: it's just kind of happening out of their business model, right,
Speaker 1: but that could definitely be weaponized against people.
Speaker 2: Well, I talk about that. In my book, in the
Speaker 2: chapter on the Internet, there are famous examples of people
Speaker 2: who have suicided right on the internet law feed, and
Speaker 2: they've been manipulated to doing that by other people who
Speaker 2: have encourage them, said this would be a sign of strength,
Speaker 2: this would be a sign of that you're not afraid
Speaker 2: to die if necessary. And there's cases of it that
Speaker 2: actually led to the suicide. One of them is most grizzly.
Speaker 2: I have in my book about a person who has
Speaker 2: talked into pouring gasoline over themselves and setting a match,
Speaker 2: all on open feed Internet. And while this fire is burning,
Speaker 2: you can hear everybody in the backgrounds cheering, we did it,
Speaker 2: We did it. We got him to do it.
Speaker 3: Wow, that's amazing.
Speaker 2: So there's something about the internet and about that actually
Speaker 2: brings out statistic criminal, psychopathic trends, and we don't know why.
Speaker 2: Is it. The fact that you don't necessarily can't be identified.
Speaker 2: It's something that is going to be influencing and has
Speaker 2: influenced the Internet greatly, and it will continue to do
Speaker 2: so until we understand it.
Speaker 1: I think that's one things that's so dangerous about the
Speaker 1: things that we saw with lockdown. Other aspects of it.
Speaker 1: There's an adimization here in so many different ways. The government,
Speaker 1: tech and tech companies are trying to make sure that
Speaker 1: we don't we're not in person with each other. You know,
Speaker 1: many cases like, for example, in this interview, we couldn't
Speaker 1: do this interview if we both had if one of
Speaker 1: both of us had to travel. We're able to do
Speaker 1: this because we can do it over zoom or whatever.
Speaker 1: But just taking ordinary things that you would normally do
Speaker 1: in terms of interacting with people in school or in
Speaker 1: church or in your community or whatever, taking that away
Speaker 1: and putting a screen between the two of you, it
Speaker 1: really does change the way people interact with each other.
Speaker 1: I remember Errol Morris, the film director, was able to
Speaker 1: get people to say all kinds of things.
Speaker 3: He got a.
Speaker 1: Murderer to confess, he got he got Robert McNamara to
Speaker 1: confess about the false Flago, the Vietnam War. He got
Speaker 1: people say all kinds of stuff because there was that
Speaker 1: distance between him and them. He could have interviewed them
Speaker 1: in person. But what he did was he put an enterotron,
Speaker 1: which he is what he called it. It was basically
Speaker 1: a teleprompter that he had set up so he could
Speaker 1: do two way communication at the time, and once he
Speaker 1: had that distance there, then it completely changed the dynamics
Speaker 1: that he would have versus with somebody person to person.
Speaker 1: And that's what we're talking about here, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're talking about that, And of course there's the
Speaker 2: inegradations of this, and it continues like we're you're interviewing me,
Speaker 2: we're discussing. I feel like it's a discussion. If I
Speaker 2: were to say something that later I regretted, I could
Speaker 2: probably say, oh, well, that wasn't me, that was my avatar.
Speaker 3: Or my agent.
Speaker 1: Right, I got an AI agent that's out there doing that, right,
Speaker 1: that's crazy. We also see though, as a doctor, you're
Speaker 1: seeing people have noticed actual physical changes that can be
Speaker 1: observed in people's brains from I'm thinking the story about
Speaker 1: the London taxi drivers who would do the knowledge and
Speaker 1: they would find that as they memorized all these factual
Speaker 1: details and drew on that all the time in order
Speaker 1: to take people to you know, this very complicated city
Speaker 1: with its complicated streets, that they had a particular part
Speaker 1: of their brain that was larger than the typical person.
Speaker 1: And then they found that once they stopped doing that,
Speaker 1: it started to shrink again, and we're starting to see
Speaker 1: that happening with people in a lot of different areas
Speaker 1: of their life, that kind of atrophy, and it's physically observable,
Speaker 1: isn't it.
Speaker 2: Well, it is.
Speaker 3: You have to learn.
Speaker 2: You have to use the things that you have learned
Speaker 2: to do. Like I mentioned in my memory book, there's
Speaker 2: all kinds of memory exercises that you could do. I
Speaker 2: do them every day and they're very easy and they
Speaker 2: can help you to continue with your with your memory
Speaker 2: to keep it sharp.
Speaker 1: Give us some examples. I'm sure everybody would love to
Speaker 1: know that. I would all like to have a better memory.
Speaker 1: What kind of things do we can we do to
Speaker 1: exercise Well.
Speaker 2: Think about the fact that you never had to learn
Speaker 2: pictures when you were an infant and a young child.
Speaker 2: A picture was something that you could you may not
Speaker 2: know what you're looking at, but you could see it
Speaker 2: without an intermediary whrest. Language is something that you have
Speaker 2: to hear from other people. It's something that's sort of
Speaker 2: added on to the brain. Okay, So as a result,
Speaker 2: the most the best way of remembering something is to
Speaker 2: make a image for it.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: For instance, I have a little dog called a skipper Key.
Speaker 2: Skipper Key is a Belgian dog. He's a nice little fellow.
Speaker 2: But it was embarrassing to me when walking the street,
Speaker 2: people say what kind of a dog is that? And
Speaker 2: it couldn't come up with a name because it was
Speaker 2: such complicated. And I thought that skipper Key, I didn't
Speaker 2: speak any doubt you or anything. So then I got
Speaker 2: this image of a small boat with a large captain
Speaker 2: with a beard holding a big key. So it was
Speaker 2: skipper Key, and I remember forever, so I was I
Speaker 2: had the picture. Once I have the picture, it's easy
Speaker 2: to do another way, easy way to do it, and
Speaker 2: you can do that with all kinds of times. All
Speaker 2: the time, I was going upstairs before I came down
Speaker 2: to the office, and I wanted to get my wallet
Speaker 2: and I wanted to get my cell phone. So I
Speaker 2: just had an image of a wallet in the form
Speaker 2: of a cell phone, and I was walking up the
Speaker 2: stairs talking into the wallet cell phone. So I got
Speaker 2: up and I knew I had these two elements to get.
Speaker 2: Be very easy to get one and forget the other,
Speaker 2: so that you have these images all the time, and
Speaker 2: the quickest you know. This is sort of off the
Speaker 2: topic of the book, but if you want to have
Speaker 2: a firepower memory for a load of things, it's up
Speaker 2: to ten things and get ten areas that you are
Speaker 2: familiar with that every day, and then you could put
Speaker 2: on those images the thing you're trying to remember. So
Speaker 2: if I'm trying to remember a loaf of bread, milk,
Speaker 2: maybe a batteries, I have a regular way of doing that.
Speaker 2: I have like I remember the library that's near my home,
Speaker 2: the coffee shop, liquor store, Georgetown University, Medical School where
Speaker 2: I went, Georgetown University, Cafe Milano, which is a place
Speaker 2: in Washington everybody gathers, and then Keybridge, Ewa, Jeema Memorial,
Speaker 2: and Regan Airport. So that bread would be, for instance,
Speaker 2: the loaf of bread. I was looking in the window
Speaker 2: of the library. Instead of seeing books, I see bread,
Speaker 2: loaves of bread. And when I get down to the
Speaker 2: liquor store, instead of being filled with liquor, that'll be
Speaker 2: milk bottles. So that's how I love to get to it.
Speaker 2: So I have those ten so I can get ten
Speaker 2: items together not any problems at all.
Speaker 3: That's great.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, it's interesting you talk about the importance
Speaker 1: of a visualization. It's one of the things that I
Speaker 1: do in terms of preparing for the show. I have
Speaker 1: a lot of articles that I go through and it's
Speaker 1: really when I highlight things or when I write them down,
Speaker 1: that's when I can remember them. If I don't do that,
Speaker 1: if I were just to read these things, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: remember them. But if I interact with it and write
Speaker 1: it down, that helps me to remember it. So that
Speaker 1: is a kind of visualization there, I guess as well.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 1: It truly is interesting what you said earlier about memory
Speaker 1: not being something that is stored in a place. As
Speaker 1: somebody coming from a computer science background, that was a
Speaker 1: very different thing. When you construct your your memory, you know,
Speaker 1: how do you reconstruct that? I mean that that as
Speaker 1: opens up a whole new area of questions as well.
Speaker 1: In other words, if every time somebody brings up a subject,
Speaker 1: I mean, there is isn't something that's stored initially to
Speaker 1: reference that and then rebuild from that.
Speaker 2: There's that because there's the inner there's the interconnections. Like
Speaker 2: you know, somebody listening to us might say, well, gee,
Speaker 2: this is called the twenty first century brain, but I
Speaker 2: haven't heard that much about the brain. Well let me
Speaker 2: just link that up so that these things make sense.
Speaker 2: We have a new version, or I should say, a
Speaker 2: new understanding of the brain called the connectomic brain, in
Speaker 2: which there's all kinds of interactions in the brain of
Speaker 2: parts of the brain. But you don't we're just learning
Speaker 2: about I have the I use the metaphor of a
Speaker 2: bull of spaghetti. You pull out one of the strains
Speaker 2: of spaghetti, and you're never have any idea what it's
Speaker 2: connected to. How many other strains is spaghetti this is
Speaker 2: connected to? So that if you think of the brain
Speaker 2: as being kind of set to make connections, that's its
Speaker 2: natural process. So it gets back to these things that
Speaker 2: we were talking about earlier, you know, global warming and
Speaker 2: memory and surveillance and all that. How are we going
Speaker 2: to solve all those Well, somehow or other those things
Speaker 2: are connected with each other. That's the take home message
Speaker 2: of this book. And the basic goal is to try
Speaker 2: to figure out what it is that connects these things,
Speaker 2: what it is that would allow us to buy solving
Speaker 2: one of them solve the other. And I mentioned at
Speaker 2: the end of the book, experts so far haven't done it.
Speaker 2: So it's useful, as Hiak said, to get ordinary people
Speaker 2: to give When I say ordinary, I mean, non specialized
Speaker 2: people to give their ideas. Do you I wonder what
Speaker 2: such and such would happen, what would happen about global
Speaker 2: warming for a while those In fact, there's still experiments
Speaker 2: going on on the effect of sulfur that would help
Speaker 2: the the CO two problem and you know, shooting sulfur
Speaker 2: up into the into the atmosphere. Of course, the reason
Speaker 2: for that was the volcano in nineteen eighty something in
Speaker 2: which after that volcano in Hawaii it was noted that
Speaker 2: the air was clearer and there was less pollution. So
Speaker 2: that's something to think about, is there's some way of
Speaker 2: using that particular sulfur experiment to decrease global warming. War,
Speaker 2: for instance, we don't think of war as a cause
Speaker 2: of global warming, but it is.
Speaker 3: Or CO two warning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but what up since the Ukraine War and the
Speaker 2: gauze of war. Then you know, a tremendous amount that's
Speaker 2: going to overcome and exceed the benefit of any of
Speaker 2: these things, like you know, non gasoline engines, but using
Speaker 2: things like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's kind of like you know, shooting up rockets
Speaker 1: in order to put satellites up. You know, how many,
Speaker 1: how many cars and lifetime use of cars from people
Speaker 1: would that be equivalent to and you start talking about
Speaker 1: all the missiles that are being shot and then you
Speaker 1: get to the explosives as well. Uh, it is really
Speaker 1: interesting how they focus us on their objectives for their
Speaker 1: ways to control the manipulation has been going on for
Speaker 1: quite some time. And so yeah, that is it is
Speaker 1: pretty amazing. And I guess that's my you know, my my.
Speaker 1: When we look at this stuff, it really does look
Speaker 1: like science fiction. And I'm almost inclined to write it
Speaker 1: off on our first see it when DARPA is saying, well,
Speaker 1: we need to find some way that we can, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, erase memories and people and insert new memories
Speaker 1: into them. And we were going back to total recall, right,
Speaker 1: so it sounds like something from Philip K. Dick novel,
Speaker 1: but they're really working on that. And I guess one
Speaker 1: of the most striking things that we saw we reported
Speaker 1: on a couple of weeks ago, and it was a
Speaker 1: company that was bragging about how they could read your
Speaker 1: mind more accurately and quickly than their competitors. Because there's
Speaker 1: a lot of different companies that are doing this and
Speaker 1: how they could it's called brain. It was the name
Speaker 1: of the company, and so they had a way that
Speaker 1: they would do MRI and they could essentially train it
Speaker 1: on your brain in a much shorter period of time
Speaker 1: to the other people, and they could get much better results.
Speaker 1: And our producers just pull this up. So what they
Speaker 1: do is they show you an image and you're looking
Speaker 1: at that image, and then it's reading your mind and
Speaker 1: reconstructing what you're looking at, which I thought was absolutely
Speaker 1: amazing and terrifying at the same time. How is this
Speaker 1: going to be used? I guess that's the real issue
Speaker 1: when we start talking about all these different things. I
Speaker 1: think that is the real case that it's difficult for
Speaker 1: people to understand just how far and how quickly the
Speaker 1: technology has progressed, and then to say, and how do
Speaker 1: we control this from being used for bad purposes?
Speaker 2: Well, that's a specifically twenty first century problem, because all
Speaker 2: of these things have either originated in the twenty first
Speaker 2: century or they have in fact further developed and become
Speaker 2: increasingly threatening. And bear in mind, we have to have
Speaker 2: to solve these problems because they're not something that's going
Speaker 2: to go away. And then the most important thing to remember, David,
Speaker 2: is that all of these things harm the brain, and
Speaker 2: the brain is the thinking processor. It's going to save us.
Speaker 2: It's going to figure out what the problems, what the
Speaker 2: solutions to the problems are. So we know now that
Speaker 2: wildfire smoke, for instance, it creates dementia, It enhances the
Speaker 2: likelihood of something that's coming to menash So as the
Speaker 2: brain is affected negatively increasingly over longer and longer periods
Speaker 2: of time, our ability to solve these problems and to decrease.
Speaker 2: So we've got to do it now. We've got to
Speaker 2: get serious about it. And this business of people getting
Speaker 2: up saying the global warming is fiction and all that
Speaker 2: is really very very disturbing.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, you know the example that you gave earlier of
Speaker 1: the fact that the Indian government was manipulating the temperature
Speaker 1: at some of the stations there.
Speaker 3: That kind of works both ways.
Speaker 1: They have put some of these temperature stations on the
Speaker 1: airport tarmacs, and in the UK they have a lot
Speaker 1: of the temperature stations that they've got there. They're just
Speaker 1: extrapolating the data. They don't have real temperature measurement stations there.
Speaker 1: So it all really gets back, I think, to the
Speaker 1: scientific method, and that's really where we have to hold
Speaker 1: people's feet to the fire. We're talking about something like that.
Speaker 1: We can have an absolute standard of what truth is,
Speaker 1: and that truth is going to be being able to
Speaker 1: measure something accurately and being able to reproduce that. And
Speaker 1: then I think a good yardstick for that is when
Speaker 1: somebody is trying to high their data. That's that's the
Speaker 1: clue right there that they're not doing science. Because if
Speaker 1: they're doing science and they've come to the right conclusion,
Speaker 1: they don't have a problem with somebody looking at their data.
Speaker 1: And so I've got a question here for you from
Speaker 1: a person in the audience asking you know about doctors
Speaker 1: James Giordano and Charles Morgan and their work with military.
Speaker 1: I'm not familiar with those names. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you know anything about that or not.
Speaker 2: To your Donna says familiar. What particular thing are they
Speaker 2: asking about them?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: It just says their work with military. I guess i'd
Speaker 1: have to do with something, but you haven't heard of it.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure I could say to your dollar, did
Speaker 2: this or did that? Not sure?
Speaker 3: I understand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's talk a little bit about the things that
Speaker 1: we have been anxious about and of course, as Christians,
Speaker 1: we have one answer to it. But you talk about
Speaker 1: how this is something that has been around pretty much
Speaker 1: all of our life. I mean there was I grew
Speaker 1: up with anxiety about nuclear warfare. Example, that was on
Speaker 1: everybody's television, and that was a fourth front front of
Speaker 1: our mind, especially growing up in Florida when the Cuban
Speaker 1: missile crisis was happening. They got us really afraid of that.
Speaker 1: When I was in elementary school, you know, it's like
Speaker 1: there's not gonna be enough time for you to get home,
Speaker 1: you know, a nuclear bomb started falling in So I
Speaker 1: mean there's all these different ways that you can panic people.
Speaker 1: I guess part of it is how do we identify
Speaker 1: the real problems and how do we deal with those
Speaker 1: problems because there's always things that are competing for our
Speaker 1: attention and our anxiety, many of which are not real,
Speaker 1: you know, And usually the things that you're really the
Speaker 1: most concerned about won't happen. And it may be sometimes
Speaker 1: because you have taken a precaution about it. What would
Speaker 1: you say about that about anxiety?
Speaker 2: It started to break up a little bit. Can you
Speaker 2: hear me? Clearly?
Speaker 3: I hear you yes, yes, sorry about that. You talked about.
Speaker 2: Breaking up a little bit, talking.
Speaker 1: About traumatizing a population. You know, what do you do
Speaker 1: to guard against that type of thing? And of course
Speaker 1: that's going to really escalate with the ability of AI
Speaker 1: to create a narrative.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, let's talk about it. There's an avenue to
Speaker 2: get into that. Let's go back to what you've brought
Speaker 2: about the atomic weapons and the atomic war, the fears
Speaker 2: of the people that there's going to be another atomic war.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, this is not unrealistic. There's even
Speaker 2: been a movie that's just come out that's getting all
Speaker 2: kinds of attention, as you know, and it has to
Speaker 2: do with the threat of a nuclear war things in
Speaker 2: the If you look at what's happening in the Europe
Speaker 2: right now, there's all kinds of suggestions that could lead
Speaker 2: to a nuclear war. I mean, Ukraine now has announced
Speaker 2: that they're under no conditions willing to give up any
Speaker 2: land and Stalin is i mean Putin is thinking what
Speaker 2: he can do to change that, but maybe he'll attack
Speaker 2: another country. I mean, this is scary stuff. So what's
Speaker 2: happening in response to the government is to try to
Speaker 2: show that, oh we shouldn't worry about it. We have
Speaker 2: things under control. But I don't think things are under control.
Speaker 1: And we've talked about the problems, and we talked about
Speaker 1: problems you have. Your final chapter is New Ways of Thinking,
Speaker 1: and i'd like to talk about that. One of the
Speaker 1: things that you say is Occam was wrong. Occam's razor
Speaker 1: that you know people are familiar with. Tell us a
Speaker 1: little bit about that. Why is I come wrong?
Speaker 2: Well, because he says that, you know, the entities are
Speaker 2: not to be multiplied, meaning that we can always explain
Speaker 2: things best by limiting ourselves to the minimum amount of factors.
Speaker 2: Ideally want one cause of every effect. That's not true.
Speaker 2: It's certainly not true in the twenty first century. There's
Speaker 2: all kinds of interactions between factors and cause, so that
Speaker 2: Alkham was wrong in that basis. We have to think
Speaker 2: of an interconnecting pool, just as in the brain, of
Speaker 2: interconnections of neurons, interconnections of these problems. And they're all related.
Speaker 2: They're all really, all eight of them I talk about
Speaker 2: in my book. They're all related. And if you can
Speaker 2: figure a way of influencing one, you influence all the others.
Speaker 2: I mean, who would think there'd be a connection between
Speaker 2: global warming and the amount of artisan and cheese for
Speaker 2: INSS high end cheese, well there is because they don't
Speaker 2: chicken stole lay many eggs, and it would be all
Speaker 2: the various other things to come on in terms of
Speaker 2: making cheese. I've earned that. Learned that the other day.
Speaker 2: That was something that was a surprise to me.
Speaker 1: You know, it's kind of interesting. We talked about Connections
Speaker 1: so much. There was a series that was I think
Speaker 1: it was on PBS. I think the guy's name was Burke.
Speaker 1: I can't remember his first name. I'm not sure about
Speaker 1: the last name.
Speaker 3: But we had a.
Speaker 1: Series called Connections, and I thought was fascinating because what
Speaker 1: he would do is he would take a whole series
Speaker 1: of connections to show how a particular technology had evolved,
Speaker 1: you know, so he might go from you know, the
Speaker 1: quill to the to the jet engine.
Speaker 3: Or something like that.
Speaker 1: And it was a fascinating, fascinating thread of things, very
Speaker 1: much like what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: It really is. And I did I did consult his work,
Speaker 2: Actually did you. I was writing this book because he
Speaker 2: did that Connections. He did a book called The Day
Speaker 2: of the World Changed and all this he also did
Speaker 2: a book called Circles, in which he would start with
Speaker 2: one particular event that he cared in history, and if
Speaker 2: you go around the circle, you come back to the
Speaker 2: beginning where it started, where this particular inventor invented something
Speaker 2: would led up to it. What was the circle leading
Speaker 2: to that? So, yes, we're talking about connections, and we're
Speaker 2: talking about the inability to understand things without reference to
Speaker 2: awarding and accessory factors. We have that going all the time,
Speaker 2: denying things that are going to be happy. Of course,
Speaker 2: I think the fearful thing is that the government is
Speaker 2: aiding in this denial, because if you deny that there's
Speaker 2: a problem, then there's very little impetus to try to
Speaker 2: solve it, you know, Yeah, and there no problem, don't
Speaker 2: try to solve it.
Speaker 1: They're throwing out their own chaos and uncertainty and anxiety
Speaker 1: that's out there all the time always.
Speaker 3: I guess.
Speaker 1: So the question is you're talking about volatility, uncertainty, complexity,
Speaker 1: and ambiguity. I mean it sounds like a government policy.
Speaker 1: I think they've got bureaucracies that specialized on that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, well actually that's true.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's in your section there about new ways of thinking,
Speaker 1: and so how do we incorporate that in the new
Speaker 1: ways of thinking that help us to solve this riddle.
Speaker 2: Well, each of those factors is a factor that helps
Speaker 2: you to understand things and to have more control. It
Speaker 2: doesn't necessarily mean it helps you to link them together.
Speaker 2: That has to be done by original thinking. You have
Speaker 2: to be under those things. Things are evolvable. You don't
Speaker 2: have a basic situation that doesn't change. It changes all
Speaker 2: the time. So that the other thing that I want
Speaker 2: to emphasize the most is that is the role of
Speaker 2: capitalism in all of this. I mean, there's all this
Speaker 2: like the private equity, the business of people having a
Speaker 2: point of view that is going to advance them financially,
Speaker 2: and that blinding them to the problems that are here. Like,
Speaker 2: for instance, we talked about global warming. Well, the rich
Speaker 2: people of very rich people are buying multi million dollar
Speaker 2: departments and condominiums which have special air filters which will
Speaker 2: keep wildfire smoke out and we'll try to keep the
Speaker 2: global warming effect at bay by superpower air conditioners.
Speaker 1: So the building they're building their own bunkers to buildings
Speaker 1: that are creating all kinds of chaos and and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, weapons of war, mass destruction, they're out. They're
Speaker 1: building super bunkers in various places as well, So I
Speaker 1: think they're somewhat pessimistic about what they're doing.
Speaker 2: Well, it's basically the idea is that, you know, we
Speaker 2: don't care about the ordinary person. We're going to survive.
Speaker 2: We're going to see to our own survival, and if
Speaker 2: we in order to do that we have to deny
Speaker 2: certain things that are that are going on, will do so. Now, incidentally,
Speaker 2: all of this is not conscious thinking. They don't necessarily say, well,
Speaker 2: I'm going to deny global warming because it will be
Speaker 2: to my advantage financially because all my investment is in
Speaker 2: the globe the all gas industry. They don't. They don't
Speaker 2: do it that way. They come up with pseudo logic
Speaker 2: things that seem to make sense to them, but if
Speaker 2: they didn't have a financial thrust in the matter, they
Speaker 2: would look out upon it quite differently.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: We can always find a justification for what it was,
Speaker 1: what it is that we really want. Everybody should understand
Speaker 1: that if your parents this time of year, at Christmas time,
Speaker 1: you can always understand that people will come up with
Speaker 1: a justification for what they.
Speaker 3: Want, and that's as.
Speaker 1: True of government as it is of corporations out there,
Speaker 1: and it's really dangerous one of the two of them
Speaker 1: connect with each other. I think that's one of the things.
Speaker 1: You know, you talk about connections and the importance of
Speaker 1: it and how we can try to connect these different factors,
Speaker 1: each of us individually, But I think it's the human
Speaker 1: connection that is out there that is going to be
Speaker 1: essential for all of this. It's going to be our
Speaker 1: collective work on all this. What do you think about that?
Speaker 1: Would you agree with that?
Speaker 2: Well, I'd agree with it, But there's so many things
Speaker 2: that are taking place now that are causing the schisms
Speaker 2: and yes, splitting people into factors and belief systems and
Speaker 2: political points of view, and that's very dangerous because then
Speaker 2: you can't get together any kind of unity, even in
Speaker 2: the face of an emergency.
Speaker 1: Well, I think we've always had I think we've always
Speaker 1: had these factor you know, factions and things like that.
Speaker 1: You know, the founders of the country warned about factions
Speaker 1: and political parties. But I think what makes it unique
Speaker 1: is that when you're interacting with people on a personal basis,
Speaker 1: you interact with them a little bit differently than if
Speaker 1: you've got that separation between you that technology is giving
Speaker 1: us now because now you're interacting with something that's abstracted,
Speaker 1: is not with another person. And there's also the body
Speaker 1: language that you're not picking up on. But it makes
Speaker 1: it easier for you to be harder on people when
Speaker 1: there's that distance there. I think that's why I think,
Speaker 1: you know, the personal connection I think is really vital
Speaker 1: to making these connections and coming up with an understanding
Speaker 1: of what's going on. We talked about the hidden factors
Speaker 1: that are out there, hidden unrelated to topics other people,
Speaker 1: as you pointed out earlier, just talking to ordinary people
Speaker 1: about what is that you see with different things. I
Speaker 1: think that is the genius of the collective free market
Speaker 1: out there, that there's so many observers who are looking
Speaker 1: at things and thinking about them, and it's kind of
Speaker 1: their collective decision that is kind of guiding things along,
Speaker 1: as opposed to having a central planner who's doing that.
Speaker 1: What do you think about that You've got to in
Speaker 1: your final chapter a new way of thinking. You have
Speaker 1: what you call it sensible solution. What does that really involve?
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, I hear what you said.
Speaker 1: You have a sensible solution. What do you think a
Speaker 1: sensible solution to the kind of stress and chaos and
Speaker 1: anxiety that we have, manipulation that we have. What is
Speaker 1: a solution to that?
Speaker 2: Well? I think the Wikipedia is a good example of that.
Speaker 2: They have people from all walks of life, all levels
Speaker 2: of education, free to contribute to whatever topic they may
Speaker 2: want to do that it may be helpful. I mentioned
Speaker 2: earlier about the effect of global warming on the making
Speaker 2: of cheese. It might be somebody who makes cheese that's
Speaker 2: going to come up with some idea. You know, we
Speaker 2: don't know that. We don't know that. That may not
Speaker 2: be where it comes some original idea of want to
Speaker 2: do about global warming? And you put it on what
Speaker 2: I'd like to think, And I hope it will be
Speaker 2: developed a kind of Wikipedia where the ordinary person can
Speaker 2: feel free to put forth their ideas about it. Now
Speaker 2: you say, well, we already have that, we have the Internet. No,
Speaker 2: we don't. The Internet is a commercial situation. It's all
Speaker 2: done for making money and grab attention and all that,
Speaker 2: and there's no criticism of it. There's no pure review,
Speaker 2: if you will, rights in the Wikipedia. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: people get write in and say, well, that particular contribution
Speaker 2: as bonkers and then give an example why it is
Speaker 2: that was a very good idea. And after that you
Speaker 2: begin to get things coming together in unpredictable ways that
Speaker 2: they help us solve these eight problems.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the problem is it seems like whenever you wind
Speaker 1: up having a form or place where things can be,
Speaker 1: and that's true of the Internet, it's also true of Wikipedia,
Speaker 1: then it becomes you have gatekeepers who are there and
Speaker 1: we saw this in spades throughout the COVID stuff that
Speaker 1: if somebody's got a different idea, rather than debate them,
Speaker 1: the impetus is to silence them by the people who
Speaker 1: are an authority. And so that really, I think is
Speaker 1: the key thing, and I think as part of that
Speaker 1: we see a continuing rise in disgust and deprivation of
Speaker 1: free speech. People are not interested in the principle of
Speaker 1: free speech. They don't want to have open debate. And
Speaker 1: I see this regardless of where people coming from on
Speaker 1: the political spectrum. There is a declining interest and debate
Speaker 1: and thinking. You know, the debate is critical to critical thinking,
Speaker 1: and so the people who are in charge, the gatekeepers,
Speaker 1: whether it's Wikipedia or the Internet or any other form
Speaker 1: of information. They are weighing in on that, and they
Speaker 1: don't want things that they disagree with. And it might
Speaker 1: be because they've got an agenda, or it might be
Speaker 1: because they've just got a particular prejudice about something. They
Speaker 1: want to make sure that the contrary views don't get
Speaker 1: out there. That I think is the real keys that's there.
Speaker 1: And again, this is part of this atomization that we
Speaker 1: have of people feeding that tribalism in the way that
Speaker 1: we've never seen it before using technology.
Speaker 2: I would agree with everything you've just said exactly, and
Speaker 2: I think we have to try to get beyond that.
Speaker 2: But we get back again to this business of people
Speaker 2: having their own personal financial point of view and position
Speaker 2: and pushing that basically on the fact that they look
Speaker 2: upon it as so maybe we're talking about a capitalism problem.
Speaker 2: We've got capitalism. It's what this country's all about. But
Speaker 2: I mean it's certain parts of it. Now we've gone
Speaker 2: to the point where people are unable to take another
Speaker 2: point of view if it's going to be financially harmful
Speaker 2: and hurtful to them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that, you know, we start looking at
Speaker 1: the tech companies.
Speaker 3: I don't think that their capitalism would exist.
Speaker 1: I don't think they have billions of dollars if they
Speaker 1: weren't unified with the government. So there's a there's a
Speaker 1: symbiosis there that the two of these entities feed off.
Speaker 3: Of each other.
Speaker 1: And I think that's that in exus, right there is
Speaker 1: the is the difficult thing. And and so I think,
Speaker 1: you know, when I think of capitalism, I don't like
Speaker 1: to refer to capitalism anymore because I think of it
Speaker 1: as a partnership, a public private partnership, some kind of
Speaker 1: an economic fascism where they are working together. But I
Speaker 1: like to think of a free, competitive market where the
Speaker 1: government doesn't have any role except as some kind of
Speaker 1: a referee between two parties that have a conflict or something.
Speaker 1: But yeah, that's the thing that's really driving this. You know,
Speaker 1: many people when they talk about AI, they said, well,
Speaker 1: you know, here's a couple of different outcomes. Maybe this
Speaker 1: stuff really works the way it's supposed to work, it
Speaker 1: takes everybody's jobs and we wind up with a depression,
Speaker 1: or maybe it doesn't work at all, in which case
Speaker 1: the big AI stock bubble that we've got bursts and
Speaker 1: everybody loses their job because of that. Well, there's a
Speaker 1: third alternative, and that is that the government keeps propping
Speaker 1: it up with public funds because it feeds their surveillance
Speaker 1: and manipulation needs their ability to surveil and to control us.
Speaker 1: And I really think that that's where this is all
Speaker 1: going to head. I don't really you know, those other
Speaker 1: two things may happen, and they may be true, but
Speaker 1: I think there is a customer out there for the
Speaker 1: AI stuff that is driving all this stuff that has
Speaker 1: been putting out these proposals for the longest time. That's governments,
Speaker 1: governments around the world. I mean, we look at the
Speaker 1: Brain project that we had a few years ago, that
Speaker 1: was during the Boma administration. But things like the Brain
Speaker 1: Computer Interface that Elon Musk and many other tech companies
Speaker 1: are doing out there. There's neuralink and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of them that are doing that. That's being driven by
Speaker 1: the government wanting to connect into our minds, hack into
Speaker 1: our minds really, and they've been funding that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: So how do we break that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, on the Musk side, it sees doing it for money,
Speaker 2: I mean obviously to make money, that's right, So that
Speaker 2: there's unholy alliance, if you will, between someone who can't
Speaker 2: see anything on the dollar, and in the other side
Speaker 2: of the government can't see anything other than increasing power
Speaker 2: and surveillance over the population.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right, absolutely true. Well, it's a fascinating book.
Speaker 1: It's fascinating take on this and and of course you've
Speaker 1: written many books on the brain, the memory one very interesting,
Speaker 1: and you do have sections about memory in this book
Speaker 1: as well. And people be able to find this on Amazon,
Speaker 1: I guess is the best place that they can find
Speaker 1: it looking for the title of this and it is.
Speaker 1: You know, it is something that I think we all
Speaker 1: need to think about how we're going to operate the
Speaker 1: effects that this technology is having on our brains in
Speaker 1: the twenty first century. And that is the title of
Speaker 1: the book, The twenty first Century Brain by Richard Restak.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, doctor Restak. Thank you, appreciate you
Speaker 1: coming on.
Speaker 2: And Georgia, thank you.
Speaker 3: A very interesting conversation. Thank you. Have a good day.
Speaker 3: Folks are gonna take a quick break and we will
Speaker 3: be right back.
Speaker 1: The common man, they created common Core, dumbed down our children.
Speaker 1: They created common past track and control us. They're Commons
Speaker 1: project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
Speaker 3: And the Communist future.
Speaker 1: They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated ordinary.
Speaker 3: But each of us has.
Speaker 1: Worth and dignity created in the image of God. That
Speaker 1: is what we have in common. That is what they
Speaker 1: want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
Speaker 1: They desire to know everything about us, while they hide
Speaker 1: everything from us. It's time to turn that around and
Speaker 1: expose what they want to hide. Please share the information
Speaker 1: and links you'll find at the davidknightshow dot com. Thank
Speaker 1: you for listening, Thank you for sharing. If you can't
Speaker 1: support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. D
Speaker 1: davidknightshow dot
Speaker 2: Com and Stasist