Comments for DATACHURCH

Comment on Remote Viewing Climate Change Across Multiple Realities by Ric

Ric — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:37:43 +0000

This report did not make it clear if the scientific community has opened discussion on RV / UFOs.
Have they?
I suggest a better timeline distinction would be something that affects the public mindset more. Eg: Criminal conviction in Election fraudsters or financial bankers. Items that any researcher can prove, but the media isn’t yet reporting.

Comment on RAP NEWS – The Economy w. Ron Paul & Zeitgeist (Peter Joseph) by co-reading

co-reading — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 04:48:03 +0000

Comment on Activate Sigil Triggers by Marisa

Marisa — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 20:54:14 +0000

Ha! Beautiful, and a nice ending.

Comment on This Is How We Occupy by JAM mOatZart

JAM mOatZart — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 00:41:48 +0000

^^^<3^^^

Comment on 60 Second Adventures in Thought by Bill

Bill — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:58:54 +0000

I love the chinese room argument simply because it is so fricken daft. It fails to realize that the instruction book certainly does in fact understand chinese. Poor searle is just acting as a translator of sorts, doing just the mechanistic interactions with the thing that actually understands chinese. Just because the book isn’t made out of flesh and neurons, doesn’t mean it doesn’t “know” chinese.

Comment on Quantum Levitation by Peter

Peter — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:32:07 +0000

The only problem I see is that you have to a maintain the cold temperature of the superconductor. Otherwise assuming that the footage is real, this is promising. Allowing for multiple at the same time was pretty cool. One thing I noticed was that when two were there they began oscillating at increasing speeds. I would be curious to see what would happen if that was allowed to continue for a long time. What speed would the super conducting disks eventually stop at?

Comment on The Movement Of A Revolution! by Peter

Peter — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:18:03 +0000

From the academic side of things we run government and money the best way we know how. The unfortunate side is that people who have earned wealth and are part of the higher rungs of the ladder make ethical mistakes. In a way their mistakes have larger consequences than the people at the bottom. Usurping is meaningless unless we have an idea what would be better. If we move away from Dollars and traditional currency what do we use instead? If we pay people at the bottom more, the cost of goods and services will go up and again they won’t be able to afford their necessities. The major question is what is it that is making us so unhappy? What if it was a right for you to have a job, lets say we amend that to the constitution? Now an alternative could be you go more for a gift economy where we don’t pay people, instead everyone contributes to society of their own free will and free of cost, the problem with this is all it takes is some people who don’t want to work and want to benefit from the gifts of others. This human-government-economy problem I believe is intractable so long as humans are born unethical and irrational.

Comment on Dangerous Knowledge by indigo

indigo — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:07:59 +0000

This is a fantastic doc about some great minds. Thanks for sharing. Ummmm, Alan Turing killed himself after being *PUBLICLY HUMILIATED, STRIPPED OF HIS TITLE, and FORCED INTO CHEMICAL CASTRATION FOR BEING A HOMOSEXUAL,* not because he was a crazy science guy.

Comment on Scientists attempt to prove that “Free Will” is an illusion by Peter

Peter — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:07:12 +0000

Even if you take a materialist perspective we still have consciousness. On the average sure you can make a statement that generally the average of people behaves like heard. We can make a general statement about the population that people get in car accidents, will keep getting into car accidents and there is nothing we can do about it. But I would be inclined to think that given a circumstance I would respond uniquely and unexpectedly. Sure if you take steps back and generalize my actions to a less specific and less specific you could say that all humans are born and eventually die from that standpoint we know how all humans will live. But the true test of such an idea is does it work at a low level? Take a conversation for example. Assuming this theory was true, that would mean that you could predict everything I was going to say before it was said. So much of what we do depends on the information which we receive. So does this mean that if the information to us was controlled then we would also be controlled?

Comment on We’re Back! by Marisa

Marisa — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:03:39 +0000

Welcome back, DC. We missed you!