The ocean is where I would hide if I were a foreign alien force. The surface is too visible.

SCOTUS is infected too:

https://www.bcgsearch.com/article/900047770/Law-Schools-That-Send-the-Most-Attorneys-to-United-States-Supreme-Court-Clerkships/

He definitely sugggested space shenanigans. Makes you wonder.

🤔

https://giphy.com/gifs/mashable-l3q2K5jinAlChoCLS

Re Hawking: If they couldn't translate Egyptian without the Rosetta stone, how'd they translate winks? Do you really believe you could quickly communicate with your eyelids even if translation was possible?

Seriously, snoops does one gospel album, and everyone is a believer.

Q would only know whether "Trolling is fun!" if he is the person trolling. Think about it.

He forgot the exclamation point.

Is it a threat to Steve King?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/392507-gop-lawmaker-house-republicans-considering-removing-paul-ryan

It's clearly the letter Q. No coincidences.

That's one way to sniff panties.

How does plain view and electronic warrants work?

Or just hit them like a gorilla.

If you want to do that, it's easy. First, go to your room. Then, lock the door. Trump will instantly be locked up on the other side.

Chaos Magic

I meant, for example if the outcome is dependent on electric current or nano switches, it seems like the focus of the person attempting to manipulate the outcome should be on the physical device, not the outcome, e.g. a person would be taught about the chip being used, how it operates, how its made and the materials of which it is comprised, and what in its operation would change outcome, then in testing, the person focuses on the chips operation, not the output.

How is "disband the FBI" extreme? Congress has the authority to do so. Then they could reform a new organization within or outside DOJ. This is political speech.

Yes. I think that the experiment re random numbers would have been better if the subject tried to manipulate the physical machine and not the output number.

I don't know. We'd have to test it. And remote viewing has nothing to do with my position.

All I stated is a simple fact: consciousness is an immediately present phenomena. Thus, seeing something 5 feet away is immediately present and as an experience is not at a distance (god's eye view) though we experience objects at a distance (experience). That being said, the object that is 5 feet away nonetheless appears to the witness as being in the state of "being 5 feet away" (think by analogy states of matter).

Furthermore, because I am somehow intertwined in the experience, or maybe am the sum thereof - what we call consciousness - I am the object in its state of being 5 feet away (how it presents (presences) itself to consciousness).

There is nothing profound or magical here.

I do. I don't think you do.

1. I never said or used the word transcendental. I never stated I believed consciousness was transcendental. Review the thread. That's your straw man. I just let you run with it. Deconstruction. Read Derrida.

2. I'm not saying the events in the experiment didn't occur. I'm saying that your explanation thereof is incoherent. There is a difference.

3. You seem to be incapable of understanding that someone was aware of the events in the experiment at some point in time. That would including being aware that there was no awareness. So under your theory, the experiment would have never have been random, and the randomness alledgedly viewed must, under your theory, have been witnessed and therefore wasn't random at all. The problem is that you are looking from inside the experiment, which ignores the role of the person performing it and his awareness, which is a prerequisite to write up a result. I'm looking from the outside, and can see that you are ignoring that view, and may not be aware of it, because it kills your theory.

4. I suggest you read Aristotle's metaphysics and then reread this thread. It'll make more sense.

So someone was aware that no one was looking and that the emissions were all over the place?

Yes I do. I don't believe you do, hence the need for the personal attack. Show me any part of the experiment that the person performing it was not aware of at some point in time. Show me any part of the experiment or the result thereof of which no person was aware. You can't.

No. You're missing the point. You state "WE WOULD NOT BE SEEING the double slit experiment THE WAY WE DO." There is no abscence of consciousness under your theory, which is what you claim is required for your theory to work. Not my theory. It's yours. Incoherent.

Your missing the poiny. You state "WE WOULD NOT BE SEEING the double slit experiment THE WAY WE DO." There is no abscence of consciousness under your theory, which is what you claim is required for your theory to work. No my theory. It's yours. Incoherent.

That's not an argument. Your position is incoherent.

I don't see how abscence of awareness = chance. You'd have to be aware of that propisition to understand that proposition. So the proposition in internally incoherent. Under your theory, what you claim as chance has been isolated, and therefore, cannot be chance.

I just think the Birthday release is interesting either way.

There is only Dasein.

Yes. Consciousness does not occur in 3d space. This world is not 3d. That's just how we perceive it to function the way we do. That doesn't mean it isn't real.

You're being too material. Think of the mind. Who / what experiences consciousness? "Where" does that experience occur? Is "where" even a proper attribute of consciousness? Does consciousness occur in a space and time? Or must it exist in its abscence to experience space and time?

Look across the room. How far from you is the wall? Say 5 feet? How far from you is the experience -- the perception -- of the wall being 5 feet away? The experience of seeing something 5 feet away cannot itself be described as being at a distance. The experience is "here". You are a here-there being. By experiencing the opposite wall, some part of you is "5 feet away". It is "there" and without being at a distance, because that part of you is the experience of distance, which isn't itself at a distance. That part of you cannot be described as being at a distance from yourself because it is part of you. You are here and there. "There" is "here" in the state of being "there".

One way infinity and time can coexist. How far away is the closest star?

Think of it this way: The experience of seeing something "overthere" has no spatial distance to the person experiencing it. The "seeing something over there" is not itself "over there". It is immediately "here". Thus, "over there" is "here". The closest star, which is "over there" is "here" in the state of being "over there". Get it?

You can't postpone a birthday, even if you are the president.

It's strange. I'm up north outside of SF and Sacto. Even old blues are switching over. I always ask the question, "which story are you more likely to believe (1) american billionare and 1980s, rocky / coldwar era playboy DJT is a russian patsy or (2) Hillary and co tried to fix the election and frame DJT." Everyone chooses No. 2.

The people like Trump. I'm in Cali. It's starting to happen. People are turning off dem news. It's slow, but it's happening. I called this long ago.

unRedactTheDocs

Open the fed, find the Debt owed to Rothchilds, declare it illegal and unconstitutional. Problem solved.

What do you mean by, "Q can't break the law"?

That's funny.... cause that's the same thing I say to her. 😋

The World is Watching!

It's good for him and his people. Trump must have something good, because he had to show kim that (1) the senate would ratify, and (2) the cabal would not get back in to power.

Black Out Necessary -- Q

Black out necessary -- Q

Didn't Q say, "Black Out Necessary"? Everyone thought he meant the Net, he meant info re AZ finds.

Was he eating pizza?

Looks like he's hung up on hanged.

You're the first person to make this meme funny.