But a bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump bump everybody coordinator her lower server. Hello, MIKE a other people, Jerry Fuzzy, Jim Tyler- in early also your name aloud, it's quite a treat, and now we have a thousand people at this time for the simultaneous at the best of the day, grab muggy tell us your vessel You're, a cop, your glass filler, we ve ever beverage, lift it your lips and enjoy the simultaneous. Somebody mentioned the name Feinstein in the comments just now, and

love every time the President Miss pronounces Rename has Feinstein. I always think to myself. What does he do, that intentionally does not care or is it just confuse like most of us are on whether steamers time so let's talk first about all the inconsistency is so there's is general feeling, I'm hearing in the pundits the funds are saying there People are lying about the little stuff. That's it indication that they're lying about the big stuff. So if somebody was definitely lying about the little details that should take away the credibility of what they say about the big point,

Well, I disagree that only in this case anyway, there might be some general sense with its true, but in this particular case you have two people forward and Cavanaugh who were as it advocates that are not really there to tell the truth there. Both eating for their life, their fighting for the fate of the country, there failure fighting for their families that are fighting for their reputations. Neither Cavanaugh nor Ford are there to tell us the truth and on some surface level less, whether there, but their advocates. Their advocates through there to win and in those situations when you have less say the question of

did Christine Ford really remember. She only had one beer, but she couldn't remember these other details. Well, let's sworder ridiculous, did Kevin, really never drink to black out or never drink too much or never have a time when he drank so much. You didn't remember some details. What happened? well, what sort of ridiculous did we have the drinking age wrong did even is characterized by a year when the legal age changed at nineteen. Eighty two! Now it doesn't really matter, because you should expect them both them would lie on all the little stuff. The expectations should be. The both advocates will shade the little stuff as much as possible to the point. Where is just a lie

so when, when they talk about whether they had one beer or whether somebody knew somebody in the sort of thing should expect both them all lying by shading and etc. So don't make any conclusion about whether they were honest about the little stuff because are not there to tell you the truth. There advocates. Let's talk about Jeff Lake, so just like one of the swing boats Has come out and announced that he will vote for governor and his reasoning in his announcement was interesting

So what he said was that he was opened a hearing bowl stories, but when he did, he said it was impossible to know who is telling the truth and therefore you must default to the system, and the system is essentially Elisa. Ethic of the system is innocent until proven guilty. So I think that's the protection that all of the Republicans and the people who might vote for cabinet have now

because of these because of the hearings, the testimonies, I think that everybody has the same cover the Jeff Lake does, which is they can credibly, say, there's no way to know what happened and once you ve said that your Frida, you free to vote for the one you want. So I think I think confirmation is assured at this point simply because the people wanted to vote for him but found a dangerous have really good cover. Now now, Jeff Lake is the perfect one to go first. Why? Why is Jeff Lake the perfect one to go? First of the group of I think for five people, who are the only ones who have made a decision if you ve

listen to me before. That might be less obvious. If you listen to my periscopes, you know that this one's group meets in the fact they met right after the hearings, so the little group of undecided. So I think there were four or five of them And and then another group Jeff Flake when first and he tried out an approach, which is we can't really now see after to fall to the system which says you're innocent until proven guilty? Why did Jeff Flake go first? It's because he has less to lose he's not running for re election, so he is it. Be testing his explanation, so the other people who would like to say were Jeff Lake just said, are gonna, wait to see what the reaction and then they'll know a serve their safe or not The reaction will be safe enough because when you say there's no way to know it's pretty

yes, when you look at the public that the public is split, it's pretty objectively true they're, reasonable people are lucky in all the evidence this available and coming to different conclusions. That's all you need to know, and then you just default to the system and you ve done most credible thing than a leader can do so Jeff. Like going first is important. Here is the he's a canary in the coal mine he's the ABC test, he's the one he's the one who's going first to see if it gets killed, because if he gets killed, it doesn't matter that much is retiring anyway. The others care more. The discussion of was talk about vague memories. Here in a minute, I'm making myself a note. When I'm watching people frame the situation,

they're talking about forward and cabin and their testimonies and how credible they are. You're watching you what I told you what happened back in twenty fifty you watching a civilization that is, that is sending to a higher level of awareness about reality? This really exciting and I have said this about the whole Trump administration from the beginning, from even from the candidacy The EU would change the way we thought about reality. Now We ask you this back in twenty fifty and when I say the facts, don't matter, of course they matter to outcomes, but in terms of our decision making we just ignore them. Have you ever seen a cleaner example? of all the facts. Don't matter. This is a real obvious situation. Where you can see, people have made a decision and then they reason backwards to what the facts must be.

I've decided. I like Heaven, therefore, our reason backwards to the facts of its fate memory. So when I first saw this and twenty fifteen, I think most of you will remember that had just sounded crazy in twenty. Fifty is just a few years ago to say that the facts don't matter towards decisions, just seventy crazy, but are you watching it? It's unambiguously true that the facts don't matter in and the reason of course is We never know the facts, so the facts would matter totally if we actually knew what they were, but we tend to think we know the facts and we're just wrong. We just believe it without having evidence. So the people who were who have already risen to the higher level of let's say understanding reality,

are not saying that one of them live in. One of them is telling the truth. Anybody whose framing this as there's one liar and one telling the truth and that's the end of the story. They have not yet risen to a higher level of awareness, where I think much of the public, not all, but much of the public is starting to understand and their higher level awareness goes like this. Both of them could very easily be telling the truth as they understand it. So if you're looking for a lie, is I think you

can find any because on the little stuff, of course, there's shading there. You know there are manipulating all the little stuff about who had a beer and stuff like that. How do I get home whatever, thus stoppages, total bullshit, but that the EU should expect that, from advocates on the big question of whether the the main allegation was true to me, the most likely the situation and certainly the one they should be in every conversation, whether its the best explanation or not, it should be prominent in every summary that both could be telling the truth as they say it. So that means that both good

have faulty memories. One of them could have faulty memories or we live in a simulation in which the history there isn't really set. The history is variable until you confirm it so watch for people like her. All, though, who has risen to a higher level of awareness he was already there. I think you're was already there and are all those said they're both telling the truth as they say it that

is a higher level of awareness doesn't mean its accurate. It just means that he is aware of that possibility being a prime possibility, not just some obscure little, maybe Weird Boston. Italy is the prime possibility that they're both telling the truth as they remember it, and then you have to default to the process. Khazars, not there's. No other, there's no other credible thing to do, but default to the well known, understood processes of how you handle things. When you don't know the facts, Dr Ford, when asked about whether she could not remember that the main fact you know is it possible, if you wouldn't remember, the main fact talked about her hippocampus and chemical react

in the brain and how you would and how the brain normally remembers the big details, but it's normal to be sketchy on the small details was Doktor Ford, act, then it is normal to remember the big detail. Wall not remembering what people war or the exact wording, or simply that, yes, that is completely accurate, scientifically backed everybody would agree.

That is more likely. You remember the big facts than the little effects. However, the question that was not asked- and I wish it had been- is doctor for. Do you believe there is such a thing as false memories? Being a memory expert, she's, gonna say yes, because she knows that other people have had false memories. Then you follow up doktor afford the people who have false memories. Are they positive that their false memory is true doctor for an expert on this stuff early? She she's an expert in this general field. She would say I think, yes, those people with false memories which are fairly common and do happen in dramatic situations more often than others. They are pause.

And there are also wrong. That's the thing without their question, I feel like you now we just we just gotta good hearing now. I do understand why the lawyer that the GNP higher did not go hard at her because it would have been an unnecessary abuse. Whatever is going on with Doktor Ford. It's not pleasant, she's, not having a good time, she's a victim of something whether its advance. This event, other events here just a baseline anxiety that she talked about- she's a victim or something- and there is a limit to how hard you go as someone who is clearly a victim of something. So I think the GEO peep probably chose right to an I'm guessing that thee.

The lawyer that they hired probably had some instructions to go easy, or at least not to go as hard as you would go into trial. So I think they played a right but will never. Now. I still would have liked to hear some more some more probing questions, but we didn't so here's the question: can people have a false memory of some of that they now so the fact that she says she knew Breck Cabinet, which is also in dispute by the way does he doesn't know her? Word least an angry

in the same circles. Is it possible to have a false memory with a whole different person and well I've told you my story of being robbed as a bank teller and how I gave a completely hundred percent wrong are. The only thing I got right was the gender. When I gave my description of the robber- and I know that because later I saw bank video, video surveillance, me being robbed and was a totally different person from my memory, so I hold in my memory. A perfect memory of the person who robbed me While also holding a perfect memory of looking at the video of me actually being robbed by a completely different person so there's one example in which I have a different person in my memory and its confirmed, but the question is ok. This was a stranger. I didn't

no other person robbing me if we actually know the person, can you have a false memory of somebody had no ghost That would be weird to get the wrong right. Well, I have to one of them involved my brother, a camera, the details now, but I remember where was telling a story in which I was the centre and the story, and I did x and my brother sudden room and said you didn't do acts. That was me. I had I have a memory of doing something that was actually my brother doing forgetting some of the details, but it was, A real was like a mine blowing situation, because, even if you assume that My brother was the one was a false memory. One of us has a false memory. If now, both. It's still a situation of having a memory of having a memory about your own

brother, that you substitute yourself for or vice versa, this is that is as deep a memory as you could possibly have. I also have a false memory involving my mother, a very detailed story of something that happened in which, when I check it with my with my mother, so when she was alive, I recounted the story that was about her very detailed story of involved, a gun and the dog. It literally involved shooting the dog. Now that's a sort of story that if he reaches preach, dramatic right somebody actually shooting a dog and in the story was my mother, shooting, doth or actually threatening to shoot neighbours. Dog is a neighbour, stalk attacked our dog, so the story was a little,

the dramatic. Does our dog got even got pretty chewed up by the neighbors dog, In my recounting of it, my mother took her gun, which we kept loaded and leading the corner behind the front door to story. We had a loaded, a loaded gun leaned in the corner of my kitchen, just all the time case we needed it when you grow up in the country, that's actually more normal than anything. It was actually there because they were animals would get in the garden, and my mother would go out and shoot the rabbit or whatever was that? Wasn't the garden. So my mother was one she use the gun with and my memory is that she went to the neighbours with her gun loaded, knocked at the door and said your dog just attacked our dog. You ve got two choices. You can either shoot you or you can watch me shoe your dog and

the neighbour when the back and shot his dog. Now I recounted that story to my mother and I and she said, never happened, and I said well, maybe you got some of the details wrong the basic idea that you went to his house and told them to kill, dog or you would- and you had your gun, you at the time that parts true right and you and she said nope nope nothin, like that, a rapid look out, detailed. The stories and my mother either. My mother or I have a complete false memory, because how would you forget that right. So far, more likely there. My memory was the false one, because she has the negative memory of it, and you would remember something like that right. That's that's really not. The kind of thing you forget, if you were the principal,

Then let me give you another one. So last night and this literally happened it sort of mine blowing LA. While I was lucky and social media and talking about this false memory stuff, I got into a conversation with Christina my girlfriend and which I recounted a story that she and I a conversation we had. I remember the place we were. I remember talking about it. I remember how it made me feel. I remember how it made me feel after the fact, and ever since that moment it had a sort of a lasting impact on me but it didn't happen, and so I told the story of a very detailed event that involved Chris Tina and a conversation with her, but she presented evidence that I think is completely confirms that that conversation never happened, you don't need to know the details,

but I have a complete false memory that I know now is a false memory and it doesn't change the memory. I still have a complete memory of something that didn't happen, and I know it didn't happen because her her counter argument was perfect. So can drugs effect memory, yeah lots of things can affect memories, so can time and so can therapy. Those two things we know will affect memory. Let's go on So can you have a false memory that involves someone? You know the answer is yes, I've had them, I've had them incomplete form with details, and

as in so anytime. I see this conversation announced reading about this this morning, so I tweeted, around a number of stories talking about the unreliability of eye witnesses now, if it true that I witnesses are deeply unreliable and the science is very clear, How different would there be if you were the subject of the event now the thing it makes eyewitness accounts unreliable were the thing that makes them more unreliable, relatively is when there's any kind of shock or trauma. Or your your fighter, your fighter flight instincts get elevated so whenever, It's happening. Your memory suffers so Thy witnesses, if they, if they watch an event, the sort of routine, they might remember it better than if somebody came,

and then committed a crime and somebody at her and then suddenly ran away under the latter situation, there are less likely to have the same memory, because because era emotions are jacked up at them. One of the event now, if you're, the one who is being attacked. Your memory should be jacked up far more early. Sheer emotions would be jacked up even more than witnesses, so somebody standing right next to you getting attacked would have in theory and unreliable memory, because eye witnesses are unreliable, but the person being attacked would have even more of that effect. In other words, they have more trauma. They would have more. Personal involvement. So I don't know if that specifically has been studied, but if you're using your kind of sense of reason, that is

That is the thing that makes your memory unreliable, the amount of emotion that goes into it. Then the person having the most emotion probably has the least reliable memory now. What does things I've taught you way before any this cavern or stuff came up. Is that if two people have different memory or a different surveys, one of them is seeing an elephant in the room and the other person's right next you- and they don't see the elephant which warm is telling the truth. Well, it's usually the person who doesn't see the thing who doesn't see the memory. That's a person is usually telling the truth, not every time right, but My experience, I can't think of any exceptions, is the person whose invented the elephant whose, having the hallucination. And so with these memories, if you have somebody who says I was there and somebody said, now. I would remember that usual,

I will rely on the person who, whose memory says they weren't there, but of courses are shared by the fact that their advocates, so you you should expect you should expect neither neither Cavenaugh nor forward to be reliable witnesses because are advocates they're, not they're, not uninterested observers. You should expect them to be unreliable, both of them and therefore he after default system, because you can't decay the term issues the truth. Now what about the one about the simulation in other smartly Like you learn mosque in people like me say that were probable. Reality is probably a simulation, and if it is the creators of simulation would want to reserve or conserve resources unless they knew them. So they

would not create a reality that had every possibility and every history this complete and fits it would just be too hard to programme will be harder than it needs to be. You would instead have the past determined by the present whenever it needed, so the past would be developed on demand, and that allows for the fact that there could be to legitimate pass that people believe in at the same time that neither of them is they're both simulations so you're not ready to accept this. This better than this explanation of reality, and I understand, but you will you get

where it so in my world, it is more likely that both of them are telling the truth and that they both have a valid history. The supports their truth, but that's because we live in a simulation and since there is no way to decide which one is true, they can both be true forever because there's nothing that makes that requires them to be solved. Now, let's talk about the talk about the people who are talking about this, the people were talking about the Ford verse. Cabin was situate

if they don't mention in every major conversation, that eye witness reports and memories and memories are unreliable. There, either anti science or other they're just advocates, and you can ignore them. You can ignore anybody was just an advocate. And so look for the people who are willing to say: ok, listen, less understand the it's it's are very unreliable and this is true of cabinet, and it's it's true afford it's true view is treated me. Memories are very unreliable and if that's not part of every conversation, then somebody's being illegitimate and even talking about it so the so. In summary, you should expect the both Cavenaugh and Ford are

intentionally lying about the little stuff because their advocates they're not there to tell the truth or through there to get a result. So they're, probably lying about what how much beer they had and how certain they are about their memories and stuff, like that now you want to see another false memory that happened today. Here's one already. This is on twitter This is some are having a false memory written from here to see our common. It is here's a tweet. This is a tweet from somebody named Gregg, just random person on the internet on twitter, and he says

how about words most credible, witness her lifelong female friend? She emphatically says it didn't happen, as do all the remember witnesses. That's why it's obvious Christine's having false memories. This tweet is based entirely, on a false memory, the friend said she didn't remember it. The friend did not say it didn't happen, so this very tweet about the situation is bad entirely on false memory. There was no memory of Christine Ford's friend saying this didn't happen, no memory that but this person believes they have a full memory of reading a news reporters in news report, in which the friend said it didn't happen.

The only thing the friend said that she has no memory of it as completely different than I have a memory of it not happening very different, so false memories are the norm. Our memories are terrible we are learning so much during the trumpet administration about how reality is constructed were learning the facts. Don't matter, were learning that our system is not what you thought it was in this Supreme Court decision. One is what is the process for picking a Supreme court person? What is the process reconfirmation mistaken formation specifically if you live in the second dimension, you say to yourself: oh well,

the present nominated somebody, the Senate does advice and concerned. They have to get majority by love. So that's what your impression is of how the world works, or it was What do you think now? You saw the mostly everybody made their decision without regard to the facts. They just joined their team and then they reason backwards to why they must be right. You also this right. You also that the facts of the matter to the vast majority of people now there's a small group, the four or five people who had not decided yet in lake is now left that group, as he's decided, but the entire decision of of who gets on the Supreme Court came down to four or five people I'm not wrong Emma they do

about who got on the Supreme Court was not the Senate. It didn't matter what the rest of the Senate did. It only mattered. What does four or five people did because they, the only ones who matter only once a matter. So that's our system. We have a system where four or five people get to decide who is on the Supreme Court. That's what we're watching right now for five people deciding and I'm not even sure those four or five or deciding do you know. I told you before that there it's more like the four or five or hiding than this then deciding because they needed to

I'd until everything that could be known was out, and then they could find something to be their fake, because you saw a Jeff just lake, his fake because was ok. Now we ve heard everybody and is unreliable size, and now it's safe for me to say, since we can't tell we have to go with young innocent until proven guilty, and we have to conserve research conserve the system so to speak, preserve the system. Yeah. So here's what I asked myself, given that only four or five people are running the show. Why would you ever vote with a majority. Look, if you imagine the scenario, imagine that Senators Scott Adams gets elected

so one day, one I get elected and it doesnt matter which party him in, but let's say well done. Matter in this case. Let's say: maybe it doesn't matter Let's say I am yeah, doesn't matter which party on them, so get elected, it doesn't matter if I get elected democratic Republican. What's the first thing I do take power to essentially overthrow the government. All I do is not vote with my party every time you get that. If I became senator, I could run the country. As one senator just by not reliably voting for my party every time, I would be the only one who is making the decision because it is, these votes are coming down to one vote. And I would be the vote now if I would, if I got elected by either Party democratic group looking and then I just always voted with my party.

Power would I have none. I would have no power I would not be part of the decision making process, not any important way, but by sometimes going against my group and always waiting for the last minute, like this little group of four or five swing voters they have effectively taken over the country. You, It is right that there are only four or five senators who run everything now they're deciding whose and spin course they're going to decide upon the care. Yo healthcare, they're, gonna they're, going to decide on probably prison reform. There, probably going to be the important swing, votes on taxes, and only four or five people. That's it there. The country and if you get elected to the senate- and you immediately join a team and just vote for the team, why you're afraid Eddie it you're in it,

it ll unreported another way, therefore, five smart people in the Senate and then or a bunch of idiots because of the four or five and make it all the disease science and and the others are just sort of. Are I'm a republican? I'm a democrat Republican RARE on the Democratic ran for five people go and say: well, let's make this decision when you think Jeff, when you want to dinner. Yes Mccain for all of Mccain's. You alleged in real faults. Mccain was simply smarter than most of the people, because he was willing to cross eyes willing to talk to the other side that gave him real power I'll drink to that.

I believe I have talked about everything I want one talk about so often, Double down on my prediction that the Republicans have enough cover to vote for this, to date and that cabin or will be confirmed yes and the same thing with the Supreme Court. Now when people say you were putting these justices on the Supreme Court,

and the Supreme Court will decide. You know if it's. If it's a conservative majority, they're gonna do bunch a conservative stuff. Therefore we have to be really careful. We put on the Supreme Court and I would say back up a little bit: you're missing it you're missing it back up the four or five people who decided if he gets confirmed, they're the ones who are deciding all the future decisions. The supreme Court is a given. You know that the Supreme Court is gonna line up by Jordi. Most of the time they just go liner by majority, so the Supreme Court doesn't really make decisions anymore. I think There might have been time. Maybe I could be corrected in this. There might have been a time when the Supreme Court actually made decisions Bob. We're not in those times all you need is a majority of either the liberal side with image or the conservative, Neil you already know the decision is before us even is even picked up by the Supreme Court sentences.

Genes will now be made by the four or five senators who can go either way. That's it somebody's asking about Dershowitz. I've said many times that I like the wait until Dershowitz speaks to have an opinion because his legal opinion, this is just better than everybody else's and he's one of the few people who again an opinion on both sides of the Isle. So Dershowitz is sort of like those four or five senators. He has wisely used wisely staked Anna position where he can go laughed and he can go right and therefore he can be credible in a way that people can be so it sort of a superpower. And he's smart enough to know it. He has suggested that the the confirmation should wait until the situation is investigated. I think you suggesting the FBI, but he's talking about doing an investigation and those of you ve been watching Dershowitz.

The seemingly support the president in various opinions, but really has just supporting the law, and the law supports the president and the number of cases is confused because it feels like wait a minute. Why is Dershowitz trying to hold up this nomination? Is he a secret democrat and the answer is now he's not a secret democrat? He is he's a public democrat. He says explicitly. He would not prefer this. This candidates opinions on the Supreme Court, but he would like to see investigation now. Lemme give you my opinion on that. It's the same thing. I said I also said I don't see any reason to not have investigation, because there's nothing you can do it can't change the result. So it is, if you, if you don't have one, you can see

We argue that it wouldn't have changed the result. People may or may not believe that if you do have one We should say, oh well, we had one and it turns out. It was a big nothing, because the only thing the f b I can do is talk to other witnesses, and it wouldn't matter with the other witnesses said it wouldn't matter it wouldn't matter. If, if some the wit, some extra witnesses confirmed one side or the other, they wouldn't matter

still just hearsay. It's bad memory, its ancient all the decisions are made. So the best argument against Ellen Dershowitz is that we know the decision will be changed, but I think he knows that as well. I think Dershowitz knows that investigation won't change in that decision, but it is fair and credible of him to say in this case an investigation would make everybody feel better about the system and credibility. The way you feel about the system, the credibility does Matter- is part of the credibility of the glue that holds the whole thing together. So if you lose your blue offals apart, so nurse you, it is correct that a investigation even at this

a date, would make the country more comfortable, but there is also a little extra risk. Pigeon ever never know you never know. If your investigation is gonna, kick up, something that's a whore. Unrelated matter that the F B, I can't ignore right, so others extra risk. If I were the president or the republican senators, I would push through with the vote, and I would get this behind us as quickly as possible. If I were Ellen Dershowitz, I think his brand is who is well served by exactly his position, because his brand is trying to be credible, no matter which way that falls and his position of young wine up. Let's listen a little extra credibility. Will extra certainty theirs?

Not really a chance is gonna change the result, but it might make us feel different about the result. That's that's a pretty credible, credible strategy, credible opinion, even if you disagree with it, is completely well grounded, well, reasoned and credible, as is based Lee everything Dershowitz is by the way I look at Ellen Dershowitz at age, eighty and then look at the senators who work war questioning the ear. The folks yesterday by eighty is not the same thing for different people as it Dershowitz at age. Eighty looks and acts like aged sixty I'll, even seem losing anything a unit. You can see a trace of anything different at AV. I mean that's pretty impressive, but you look at some of the centre.

Hers, Senator Feinstein Lane or an hatch those guys they do clearly SAM the impression that they have lost the step so areas and eighty anymore Dershowitz is impressive and trumpet. Seventy two is certainly a whole different character than a lotta people. Seventy two: I do the term which answers offensive to witches yeah. I mentioned yesterday that watching this watching Cavenaugh respond to the senators fell like elder abuse, because the senators just war on his level, intellectually, they

they just clearly have lost a step and no matter what you think about the situation it has. I think it pulled the lid back on who it is who is in charge, and it's scary, to see that the senior citizens who have quite obviously lost a step are making important decisions. That's a big deal. I think we we're to fix it, but beyond that, we, wherever we have a more complicated environment. We have new technology, new new issues, new questions, and I think you need more diversification in sent so We should diversify the Senate in every way that that make sense. So we should diversify more women. We should have more ethnic representation gazettes. What looks like the country, but we should also have some some science people some engineer

in the Senate, Benin. Having all aging lawyers or a seemingly all aging lawyers is not diversification. Forget about the fact that most of them are old white guys. I mean that's, that's a risk profile by itself, just because you don't have enough perspectives, but the fact that they don't understand technology and they never will, and their aid and technology will be all the important decisions in the future. This is not a good look. You need some younger people on there, some more diversity. I think we ve covered it. I think we ve said everything we need to say, and now it's time to get back to work

hey people back to work deserve any convey decision on when the vote will happen. I haven't heard there in the coming days. I'm gonna be talking about my companies at the interface by when her back there's some exciting things happening that I think, have implications for the bigger world and implication for you all. You watching this. So if you don't mind, I want to warn you in advance to be talking about the app not today but soon and pretty exciting stuff happening. So we'll talk about that later and I will see you soon.