Ten oz

When we are able to externally decode thought the answers to many of the questions raised in this thread may be found.

This reads almost like a God justification. That without the guiding hand of a omnipotent leader humans would be savages. Using this forum as an example is something of a false equivalency. We all willfully choose to use this site and can stop doing so anytime. People are not born into a government by their own choice and can not choose to leave whenever they want. The idea of human savagery without rule is an old one which has been used to justify some of the most deplorable treatment of people throughout history. Africans, American Natives, aborigines, Indians, and etc all suffered holocausts driven partly by the attitude that they were savages that lacked proper governance. Regional tribal warfare did not lead us to wars where hundreds of millions have been killed, tortured, raped, and enslaved. Governments and Kingdoms have done that. In order to control the savage nature of man governments have laid waste to interior cultures of people. The irony is clear.

I absolutely believe in self fulfilling prophecies.

I agree that racism in spawned from genetic tendencies that were once useful but I believe it's hurt human civilization's growth over the last 10,000 years. This conversation reminds me of an ongoing joke between myself and a co-worker, "pacifists always lose". Someone who is willing to kill to get their way will always get it vs someone who isn't. Doesn't matter which way is actually better. Before agriculture various humans across the global dealt with scarcity. They had to compete for resources. Like wolf packs that had a territory to protect and competitors to battle. Humans once benefited from individuals who where quick to fight, kill, and push out anyone and anything different from themselves. Once the necessity to kill and view everyone as a threat had gone those who were prone to violence still dominated for a simple reason, pacifists always lose. Those who were willing to impale people on spikes, mutilate genitals, rape, and so on controlled society. As a results humans went through periods that lacked progression. People were denied resources even when plentiful, kept from being educated, research prohibited, and discoveries were concealed. So while racism served a purpose once upon a time it has long lost it usefulness. It has been the cause of a lot of pain and stunted human civilization's growth. My food chain comment merely referenced our shift from living in small tribes that struggled with scarcity and predatory attack to more modern civilizations. Clearly a polar bear, shark, crocodile, and so on would still eat a human. We also have bugs and bacteria eating us all the time. : ) I think we agree on the rest of the post?

Nmachi Ihegboro was born white to two African parents. There are also countless cases of twins being born one black and one white to bi-racial parents. I think something that is missing from this discussion is chioce breeding. Humans left the food chain a long time ago. Survival became easier once we developed agriculture and large tribes. Reproduction stopped being purely about whom was the most successful or who was still alive and capable. A child born with a mutation giving them blue eyes or fair skin may have been seen as sign of luck or gift from the gods. That child as a result had more children and those children sharing it's unique traits also had more children. We, Humans, intentially cultivated certian traits based purely on vanity and superstition. As a result many variations have no true benifit. We continue to see it today. Studies show that taller men are seen as more attractive and have a better likelihood of reproducing. Is being tall a uniquely beneficial trait? Meanwhile things like poor eye sight, family history of cancer, and etc are ignored. No man ever says "too bad that gorgeous model had lasik eye repair...otherwise I would've mated with her". Humans favor looks over other genetic factors that would have been important earlier in our evolution. Lots of people choose mates because of fashionable hairstyles while things like great eyesight, hearing, sense of smell, etc are completely ignored on the modern dating scene. Evolution is not a straight line always moving toward perfection. The prevalence of a trait isn't equal to the value of a trait. If you were to sit down and think hard about the best way to ensure your genes continued, if you could remove lust from the process and focus the health of your child alone, would eye color or hair type of your mate matter at all???

Rhetoric cleaned up? We have a two party system in this country. A right and a left. Democrats and Republicans. Some individuals are a bit more right or a bit less left but most politicians tow the party line. Each party has stated policy goals. Their own perspective on what is best for the country and it citizens. Success by both parties is generally defined by a strong middle class, low unemployment, opportunity for economic mobility, safety, education, etc, etc. Republicans don't claim to have a different messurement for success than Democrats so why must I create one? If Republicans say lowering corperate taxation and less government regulation will create growth in private markets, lead to more high paying jobs, and strengthen the middleclass than that is the measurement for success I expect them to be graded against by those they govern. The policies they advocate either work to do the things they claim or not. I am holding them to the standard they have given themselves. I use Political Right, Republican, GOP, and Conservative interchangeably because for purposes of voting they are the same. Some members of the GOP may try to distance themselves from various hot button issues the extreme right loudly advocate but they all ultimately pull the level for the same politicians. When groups like the Tea Party and Libertarians stop competing in Republican primaries and start winning elections as legitimate 3rd parties I will change the way I reference them.

It seems as though you are under the impression I don't agree with your general view of the political right in the united states. I do. However this won't be much of a dicission if we all just agree from the start that the political right is worthless to the public good. As a party Republicans claim to care about the public good. They advocate for liberty, safety, and a bunch of contradictory religious rights. I am hoping someone comes into this discussion with an example or two where those policies have helped common people.

So conservative rhetoric is merely propaganda. Their religious like admiration of wealth attainment serves zero public benefit? That they are imperialists who would gravitate toward fascism if their military industrial complex didn't benifit so greatly from patriotism and nation building?

I went back and read through this thread. After thinking about it a bit I think my initial thoughts on this subject were incorrect. If my concious mind were in control how could I think of anything that I wasn't already thinking of. Where would that thought come from?Thoughts driven by things I see or hear in my environment can be accounted for by my concious mind but where does the rest come from. How do I remember something out of the blue or I think of something new? To the question of free will did I choose to like women? Did I choose to like Broccoli, prefer craft beer over wine, or LOVE coffee? Considering that hunger and fatigue affect mood and analytical ability do I ever choose to be tired or hungry? I seems that the concious mind may merely be a manifestation of the the unconscious. While the unconscious mind may be largely driven by biology and genetics. I am not sure what purpose the duality would serve though.

@ lota, I believe it is more than fear. Religion becomes so important to some people that they happily live down they lives for it. In a way faith provides those people with courage. I think religion is born out of narcissistic delusion. People want to believe that they are more important than they are. That the universe exists merely for man and those who disagree are not just wrong but will be violently punished for doubting it. That is why so many religions have an alpha male for a god. An all powerful god that wastes his time and powers telling humans the way he wants it on every small personal issue we humans can imagine. A non human, non earth bound, all powerful and immortal lifeform that is petty enough to care about my opinion of him. God is just the Batman to our Bruce Wayne. A manifestation of our desire to control the world and be better than others.

The concious mind is the window which or unconscious mind views the world. At any moment a person can not consciously choose to be happy, sad, angry, etc but over time with effort a person can conciously make themselves generally more happy, sad, angry etc. The unconscious mind controls a lot and has overwhelming influence but it only knows what the concious mind shows it. Focused concious thought over time can train the unconscious.

^^^ In my opinion, with current technology, yes. Tidal, wind, and solar are better opinions. If someone could work out an efficient way to do it my mind could be changed. More pressing than that is conservation. We (humans) waste incredible amounts of energy. We could probably cut usage by half implementing some smarter building codes and policies for both commercial and industrial industries to follow. Problem is that there is no money to be made in producing less and selling less energy. The money is in producing more and selling more energy.

A virus is able to exploit its host by using genetic material to convert the host's cell. Does a religion exploit humans in a similar way. Is there something ingrained in humans that allows for the blind faith which seems to be are the heart of most religions?

@ overtone, I agree with your post but am trying to be less cynical. I am not a Republican/conservative. In an attempt to honestly consider their policies I am analyzing those policies as stated. The GOP would claim they are not imperialists. They insist less regulation and taxation increases liberty. I don't believe it but examples exist I would be interested in researching them. It doesn't seem any exist though.

I have made posts I regret. Commented before properly thinking things out. It is a reminder to be better in the future. Edits should not be made to correct poorly thought out posts or adjust a position when in a debate or following a challenge. I think more times than not attempts to change context and content fails anyway. It is better to let it go. Mistakes happen. I could live without the edit feature at all but I think many of the members in here might get tired of all my typos.

I only use edit to fix grammatical errors that make a response difficult to read. Once a post has been responded to I won't edit it at all.

Simple answers are often a matter of perspective. Thought is chemical interactions. Those chemicals have a potential response. The potential for a thought can exist without time but a thought itself can not. Besides all the atoms in all the matter in your brain are moving. Time exists for your thoughts. You can not think of anything without time.

I compared time to electricity in my first response. No electron flow no electricity. However you can have the potential between two points for electricity without having any electron flow. The two points on a battery have a potential but electricity doesn't flow until those points are connected by a conductor. I view time this way. There can be a potential for time but until matter moves the clock doesn't start. As for what creates motion or exploits the time potential; time messures movement of matter from a fraction above zero (no movement) to 99.9% of the speed of light. So photon particles or any yet undiscovered faster than the speed of light traveler would be capable of creating motion without time. They would be the conductor joining positive to negative on the battery.

While driving I can observe an obstacle in the road and calculate for it by changing lanes without ever knowing what it was.

Electricity is used a greater or lesser amounts throughout the day. If electricity is being gathered from an inconsistent source it would need to be stored up until it could be delivered at a steady output capable of meeting demand. The way we store electricity is batteries. Nature stores it in oil, coal, etc. For us, with current technology, it would be batteries. We don't have storage facilities (battery banks) large enough to service modern cities. Turbines whether windmill, hydro, or steam all convert motion into rotation within generators. Electricity is created in the form we use it and sent out to the grid for consumption. They supplements fossil fuels. Static electricity would need to be collected then inverted before it could be used. I alluded to this in an earlier response. We would have to find a means of exploiting the difference in potential between earth (ground) and clouds. Collecting lightning itself can not be done efficiently.

Interesting question. The ball may roll after you are done pushing. How long you push is not time in your metaphor. Time for the ball would be total distance traveled by speed. The ball may travel a longer distance in less time if moving quickly or a shorter distance in more time if moving slowly.

Corporations are multinational. They have interests in nurmerous countries and anyone including criminals, foriegn governments, enemies of the state, and etc may be shareholders. Corporation personhood is not just bad but it's dangerous. The federalist society is the most partisan and destructive political action group in this country (USA) and sadly most are not aware they exist.

Every country in the world that we (USA) would generally consider first world are socialist in key markets if not outright. As I look around the world I struggle to identify any countries that succeed or have succeeded in the past using the limited government capitalism first models Conservatives here in the states advocate for. No country with a standard of living equal to or superior than the United States have lower taxation, less industrial regulation, or free market only solutions for healthcare, education, retirement, unemployment, housing, and etc. What are the legitimate examples of the successful use of Conservative policies?

I don't view time as a force. I view time as a messurement of movement. If nothing moves on the atomic level then there is no time. The scale of time messurement starts just above zero and ends at the speed of light. Anything above or below is beyond the messureable scale. With electricity electrons moving from atom to atom is voltage and current. No electron movement from atom to atom no electricity. I see time similiar to that. Movement of and within atoms relative to other atoms is time.

Our conciousness, our awareness, is what captures all the information that ends up in our head. Once there information is processed on unconscious levels. For a variety of evolutionary reasons it has been more effective for our unconscious minds to trigger behaviors rather than wait for our conscious mind to make a decision. Fight or flight is a triggered chemical response and not a choice for example. However because it is our concious mind that puts information into the unconscious our conscious mind can ultimately shape our unconscious mind. A soldier can train themselves not to have a fight or flight response and make conscious calculated decisions under fire for example. So in my opinion we, our conscious mind, are in control so long as we are diligent. Thought is akin to a diet if we put healthy stuff in our minds will be healthy and we can do great things with it. If we put unhealthy stuff in our minds become unhealthy and we can't do much with it.