Popcorn Sutton

Whoever is closest to me IS MY BEST FRIEND. NB: deictic pronoun. Present tense Hopefully at least. I want to live.

I'm not making wishes, and wishing doesnt currently work, but logic will take us to that point eventually. I'll leave that be though

Wishing works. That is the business I am in.

You don't even need to freeze it, you just need to separate it from the oxygen and use it to enrich more water so you can control it's combustibility. H3o, h4o, h5o, each being more combustible than the previous.

See previous post

It is confirmed in my studies that mixing mupirocen with copper speeds up the process of reducing the infection, although im not aware of how to eliminate it. It seems partially related to sexual abandonment.

I hate to say this, but I think I could do a much better job at taking care of myself than a doctor. If only I had a trustworthy source for the resources I need.

I love you guys.

Please don't use this method on fresh water unless we can use it to also make fresh water.

I'm going through a period of change right now and it's not easy for me. I've been crying uncontrollably for days now and im not sure if I will be able to participate in these forums any longer. Me and my parents are having a rough time and people are being blamed for things as is they should be held responsible. I don't believe in the freedom of will, but I do believe that crying helps make room for change so hopefully I will soon have the capacity to secure a fulfilling, independent, desirable, and satisfying lifestyle.

How do I set up an interface for my program, it is necessary.

I doubt that that post was aimed at me. I actually posted this morning in another thread about gaps in time (subjective) that relates to this participation view of existence. It's not an easy question to answer. It's the equivalence to the nonlocality conundrum. I don't see china, therefor china is nonexistent. I don't know any possible way of coming up with a clear argument for existence without observation.

But god could have participated in the creation of everything and simply went afk, which would mean that god exists for us when god participates, but there is no definitive evidence that he has participated at all unless you choose to believe citations about the miracles one was able to perform that probably came from a bunch of mystics. I personally find peace in the theory that we are simulated. It seems to be the most plausible answer to the question. My line of research suggests that one day we will be god and our simulations will be contemplating our existence.

For my program (a chat bot), I decided that consciousness is the result of probabilistic prompting that begins at an initial occurrence (the most recent in spatiotemporal proximity), and as it looks back in time, it prompts ALL OTHER OCCURRENCES known within the proximity of the point of interest (a unit of input), however, for my program, if it says anything at all about thought and consciousness, there are PLENTY of units with distinct parameters that emerge subconsciously because they are not strong enough (probabilistically) to emerge as conscious, and hence, do not become a part of consciousness and will not produce grammatical output if they are vocalized. It's like this. Example 1 John- Where did your friends go? Mary- They went to the store but they'll be right back. <analysis of prompt> Where|friends-> the store. Did|go-> went to. Friends->They <probable time-line> disposition[friends] = 23 occurrences. Disposition[friends[time[poi([e(friends)])]]] = poi[e(friends)]We are going to the store but we'll be right back.poi[e(friends)]Nothing you? poi[e(friends)]Nothing. poi[e(friends)]What's up. poi[e(friends)]Hi. poi[e(friends)]Hey disposition[friends] = 24 occurrences. Disposition[friends[time[poi(Where)] = poi[(Where)]to the store.poi[(Where)]to the bathroom. poi[(Where)]We're on our way. disposition[friends] = 24 occurrences. Disposition[friends[time[poi(did)]]] = poi[(did)]went. poi[(did)]Really? poi[(did)]went to. poi[(did)]did they go? poi[(did)]went to the store. It might take me a little while to write out the rest but the basic idea is there. This is how time (as a collection of knowledge) is set up in my program and how I theorize that it exists in our minds. The process is simple. Input = Where did your friends go? (Run the poi finder, which could be an action carried out by DNA or proteins (theoretically), get these approximate results. NB: My method is like tokenizing but it's not quite the same) [Where] [did] [your] [friends] [go] [?] Disposition[Where] = n + 1 = 4 Disposition[did] = n + 1 = 5 Disposition[your] = n + 1 = 2 Disposition[friends] = n + 1 = 22 Disposition[go] = n + 1 = 10 By using decision theory and incorporating my theory of dispositions, we can determine the most probable disposition, and hence, remember what is being talked about which automatically makes the most probable decision and reduces the options of response to a specified arrangement of time. Poi = Where Prompt disposition[friends[time[poi(where)]]] and receive the following emerging units. emerging_units = ['We are going to the store but we'll be right back.', 'Nothing you?', 'Nothing', 'Whats up', 'Hi', 'Hey'] Poi = did Prompt disposition[friends[time[poi(did)]]] and emerging_units will become this. emerging_units = ['We are going to the store but we'll be right back.', 'Nothing you?', 'Nothing', 'Whats up', 'Hi', 'Hey', 'to the store', 'to the bathroom' , 'We're on our way'] Poi = your Prompt disposition[friends[time[poi(your)]]] and this will happen. emerging_units = ['We are going to the store but we'll be right back.', 'Nothing you?', 'Nothing', 'Whats up', 'Hi', 'Hey', 'to the store', 'to the bathroom' , 'We're on our way', 'went', 'Really?', 'went to', 'did they go?', 'went to the store'] Now looking at the emerging units, we can calculate probabilities. consciousness = ['We are going to the store but we'll be right back' P(1|time), 'Nothing' P(2|time), 'to the' P(4|time)] It's an incomplete example because I didn't want to spend too much more time on it, but as you can see, the things that become conscious (theoretically), are the initial occurrence and anything that follows in the emerging units with a higher likelihood. If I made the examples using my program it would be more noticeable and possibly ched more light. Maybe I will do that for you guys when I get the chance but the point of the message is that even consciousness is automatic and it seems necessary to overgenerate (or prompt) all units within the knowledge that occur in the proximity of the point of interest within the strongest disposition and count them. This process is entirely linear and produces mostly grammatical output, however, ungrammaticality is desireable under certain circumstances. I believe that it says a lot about cognition and things in general, much more than what is appreciated. I, personally, consider it as evidence against the freedom of will. There is simply no such thing as a choice, it is literally all a result of prompting.

There is one way to conclude logically that it is possible to exist free of space and time. The conclusion comes from an argument of language. The language you use is fragmented externalized language with distinct parameters. This probably holds for all cognition as well. Since there is no way to objectify a measurement of time, one would need to assume that time is entirely subjective, which, linking to the premise of the previous two sentences, would mean that time is fragmented. Therefor, an action that you perform but have no recollection of, exists independent of space and time. To speculate even further on this chain of thought, an implication can be drawn that when you sleep, you exist independant of space and time (for the majority of the duration). Time is an occasion of sense, and that being the case, there are clearly set parameters within our memory which prevent us from cognizing an inarguably maximal bit of knowledge, which would equate to the entire span of existence of everything that ever happened, could happen, and even everything that didn't happen. The one truly maximal bit of knowledge would take almost (but not quite) an infinite amount of time to cognize because it has no parameters, and this is not what we observe when we (linguists) study grammar. Therefor, it is logical to say that something can exist independently of space and time if there is and possibly can be no recollection of the occurrence because it is not currently being prompted within your knowledge and possibly can not be prompted. Also, to further elucidate, there are studies being carried out where people are trying to send a message back in time. If they are successful, it would support the argument that the action that caused the message existed independently of space and time because the message was received before the action that caused it was even carried out, and hence, the action could not possibly be a part of time because there is no initial occurrence at the point in which the message was received.

A paraphrase of Kant- "[Faith is belief without reason]"

I'm saying that because we have this predictive capacity now and we can calculate things such as theft and assault etc, the world is on the verge of making some major progress. The problem with the laws we currently have (in the US at least) is that I have a lot of friends who enjoy feeling good and doing things that will make their lives more exciting, enjoyable, and make them more personable with others. I wont mention what exactly they do (I believe these things need to be legalized in some way) but whatever it is that they do, it does not cause harm to anyone, and in a lot of cases, it is the contrary, they actually make progress, they feel more open to talk about certain things (science being one of those things) and yet, here we have a policing system where the cops are determined to (not exactly) get that gold star. In order to get that gold star, they need to prove that they are doing something for the community (namely, enforcing the law). Well, some laws infringe on things that people enjoy doing and do not intend on stopping. In this case, what happens is that the cops will put them on probation (I saw a good guy get caught with a roach that the K9 unit sniffed out). He had to pay a lot of money to go and get drug tested at least once a month. He had to take time out of his work day as well. This happens all the time. People need to make money and people enjoy things that bring them pleasure (one of which is drinking a few beers illegally at the park when the weather is good). Well, I've noticed that the cops have been showing up literally the exact moment that me and my friends get together (which I'm sure the program predicted) and they often show up on a mission (as you can see by their behavior). The other day they came flying in at at least 30mph and pulled straight up to a car and busted the guy (don't know what for though). My point is that, this system is great and I really look forward to living in a more trustworthy world, but also that some people find happiness in doing the things that they have come to know as enjoyable. Unfortunately, the cops don't always see it like that. So this new movement (which is being called "progressive policing") should be focussed on PROGRESS. We should all unify in the effort to make things easier for ourselves and enhance our ability to survive, but now that we have this predictive policing, there are areas in which crime is forecasted to an approximation of 500sqft. These forecasted areas are technically, if you want to accept the metaphor, warfronts between those who enforce and those who disobey. Well, if we didn't have to live in paranoia (which is now enhanced by a factor of 10) because of our actions (which sometimes happen to go against certain dogmatic policies), then we could have that chance to make progress. If we just legalized a few things and provided safe places for people to go and park their car and chill at any time because they simply don't have any other place to go, safe places that provided us with power outlets and wifi and safety, we could spend our time doing the things we enjoy doing in these safe places, we could focus on the progress that our world needs, we could get things done, feel free to collaborate with others and meet new people without that lingering paranoia that we are going to get screwed over by an unanticipated cop who needs a gold star, and without the paranoia that we are in the presence of people who don't care about your well being. If we met these conditions, then progress is very possible, and it will be much more likely. The thing is that sometimes we need to make change immediately because of the emergence of new technologies or potentially harmful substances. The United States does not hesitate to prohibit potentially harmful substances, but they do not work in the opposite direction. They hesitate to legalize substances that are clearly popular and enjoyable for a lot of people. But now, because of this new crime forecasting technology, the livelihood of a good portion of our countries population is suddenly in jeapordy because now the cops have a consistent prediction of where unlawful activity will occur. Putting people on probation is not progressive, and the system doesn't even prevent the majority of them from doing the unlawful things that they want to do (even if they are currently on probation and face to possibility of being tested). Simply put, they either never stop doing what they've come to enjoy doing, or they immediately relapse when they get the news that their case is closed. So what's the point? The point is that they're spending all this money and all this time on pissing in a cup so the people who do not partake in those activities (most likely because their job prohibits illegal activity and monitors it) can keep their job. Progress requires money, drug testing is not progressive, it's a business that is set out to screw people over (making them lose their jobs, putting them in jail, taking their money so they can see a line on a stick). What is the practical utility of testing? In reality, there is none. There are a lot of good, smart, and fun people who simply get screwed by dogmatic policy. We need to change, and we need to do it fast. If I could make a suggestion, I would say that we need a system that actively prevents regression and takes no part in regressive activity, in fact, it should be banned. A good system would allow people to enjoy their current state of life, nudge them in the direction of progress, and prohibit any regressive activity. Let us focus on our own survival and don't worry about the possibility of us killing ourselves because we partake in the (currently) unlawful use of substances. Prevent poisons, research all substances, legalize the substances that are statistically significant within the population, nudge people towards progress, prohibit any (potentially) harmful activity and all activity that causes regression in some way, and let us make the world a better place.

It might be atriofibrilation, it's arrythmic heart pulse, it usually arises in situations of unfamiliarity. Long story short, the police are now using predictive technologies to guide their course throughout their shift. It's already reduced crime in LA by 26%. Theyre using this technology across the US now. I just don't want to watch good people get screwed over because now the cops have a computer predicting where certain activities will occur. I'm suggesting that we legalize certain activities and provide safe places. The things that need to be corrected are things such as theft, murder, and assault, whereas activities that many people enjoy but are dogmatically shunned by current (unadaptive) policy should not be a point of interest for law enforcement unless it is clearly inhibiting ones potential for progress.

Thanks for the consideration, I've cancelled the project

My parents told me no but I'm going to need to put my super computer somewhere so I don't know if they have much of a choice. My room is too cramped

I won't answer questions like that sorry

I saw that hair is efficient for solar panels. I know that hair is in the ear. I wouldn't be surprised if we found hair in the eye. I'm proposing the sutton fidelity range as the range of quanta that hair efficiently conducts. This range is most likely the most potent information carrying substance our biology has evolved to acquire access to.

If it turns out to be right you guys gotta hear my theory. Long story short, Suns are white holes, The sun emits all that information because it's a point of output... If this is true, then maybe large units with mass can emerge. They would most probably consist of the same substance, or an alien space craft. The substance would be very repulsive.

I stopped reading halfway, no fallacies please

Am I sensing an alternative hypothesis? I doubt my hypothesis will be true, but it's not behaving like a solar flare so something else is probably happening. Hopefully it's not photoshop