MM

So, I'm curious. Can you share how the paper defined "conscious" and they defined "unconscious?" I'd like to read more.

They use conscious and unconscious as way to describe awareness. As the experiment shows you are not aware that you made a decision to act the time its initiated.

But so you understand my system. The key to understanding is that you can have a causal event that depends on a possible future not as every one else thinks that there have to be in a chronological order.

The brain has a series of feedback loops and inhibitions. This is why you can grasp a hot cup of coffee and continue to hold it, or to run into a burning building despite every instinct telling you not to, or continue moving to go find help when you have a broken leg. While certain predispositions and reflexes are inherent in the system, it's very design also allows for an override. Your post above does not seem to take these into account, but perhaps I am missing something subtle.

The brain is complex, meaning that there are many systems in place to make it work. You are writing about a system for continuation of acts but Libet's experiment indicates what system you have for _initiation_ of acts and how its connected to your concious will. That is without a system that don't connect your acts by your conscious will you will not even be able to pick up that cup of coffee to begin with.

I'm sure a lot of you have read in popular science magazines about Libet's experiment ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet ) and the supposed implication regarding conscious will of acts.

From the wiki.

" Libet's experiments suggest unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, therefore, little room remains for the operations of free will. If the brain has already taken steps to initiate an action before we are aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated. "

A simple solution to this problem of a acts being initiated in advance is that the brain does a prediction of where the concious will ( resulting will ) is going to land on the time the act is ready to execute. One way of predicting the resulting will is if it is derived from a lot of competing wills in the brain and there is a voting system. Then as in almost any election the winner can be predicted long before all the votes has been counted. With the predictor you don't only resolve the problem of initiation of acts you also have a concious control. If there is no prediction of the concious will the system would be very inefficient because of the veto anyway.

Thoughts.

Does anyone know if there's a book or something that explains why some people are rude or arrogant or insulting or condescending or anything like that? It's not that I actually know anyone like that right now, I just thought it would be good to know why some people are mean when I meet them. I assume it has something to do with how they were treated as children; not that that excuses their behavior. Anyone know of anything like that? Thanks in advance.

Most likely fear of something, a survival mechanism.

Physics doesn't dabble all that much in the hows, whys and wherefores. It explains how things behave, but not how the underlying effect actually works.

 

Newtonian gravity was an observation that masses attract in an inverse-square relationship with the distance, and it's a useful thing to know that nature behaves that way.

 

Einstein took it to the next level; there are some phenomena that Newtonian gravity doesn't adequately explain. Mass and energy actually yield space that is not "flat," i.e. not Cartesian. Motion in curved space explains the effect we call gravity.

Hope you can clarify this for me for when you write that mass yield space I imagine that it requires information (stored in space?). So when I add all information in space from a mass of a gravitational field I want a finite value.

Interesting concept.

 

I would like to know why you think Israel doesn't value Palenstinian children today (not trying to pick a fight here' date=' just truely interrested to know where you reached that conclusion).

 

Israel also tried to build trade centers with Palestinian State (Israel had a project to build a big marina and port in Gaza, to improve the Palestinian economy and perhaps get tourism). It started out, actually, but the situation (suicide bombers, Israeli workers being targetted inside Gaza and Palestinian government renouncing its support on the project) caused it to be put aside.

 

The project, btw, was supposed to be completely paid for by Israel, having the Palestinian Authority "pay back" with time as a commerce treaty may be formed.

 

It.. failed..

 

I would actually think that Palestinian Authority cares less about their own children. You see three year olds dressed as Martyrs in the streets in their mother's arms, while their mothers yell "my son will be a shahid".. there is no doubt that the problem of brain washing in the palestinian territory is incredible, but I am not sure what Israel can do about this.

 

Here's a good article about it (I have more, if you guys want, but you can also find many online. It's a widespread phenomena, unfortunately):

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11685

 

Here's another unfortunate representation of the brainwashing that goes on in the Palestinian Authority:

http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2003/283/pmw-shahada.html

 

It is believed that Israel needs to aid in resources, but that tends to be quite difficult when the money and resources we send are being eaten by the government officials, or when Israeli workers (Phone companies, for instance, to fix phone lines) are being shot to death by Palestinian snipers out of national 'reasons'.

 

I wish there was a way to affect the Palestinian Schools. Those are constantly teaching hate and martyrdom, and when a person is being raised on those ideals, it is very difficult to speak to them, or expect much of a peace talk to commence in the future.

 

 

~moo[/quote']

 

Actually I wrote that in protest to a quote attributed to Golda Meir "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.". I sense that you also think like this by the way you are reasoning regarding Palestinian children dressed up as fighters. I wrote it hoping that both sides would come to realize that both concepts are flawed, they just put the whole blame on the other. The point is that both sides need to be a little more self-reflecting, what can they do themselves to promote peace.

 

You have not convinced me the premise is wrong just by claiming failure for something that wasn't even fully tested. Do you also feel this way about the premise for the Israel-Lebanon conflict ?

 

Which of these schools http://www.palestine-net.com/education/ teach hate and martyrdom?

I did understand. I was referring to your first question in your earlier posts that you never answered. The war could not have been avoided because rockets were being fired into Israel from Lebanon. With Hamas on one side and then Hezbollah coming into play on the other was too dangerous to leave unchecked. Complaining to the U.N. and waiting for an answer would have taken months from my short experience. Israel stands alone in this world and they rightfully fear for their existance. Doing what they did was the only thing that gets the U.N. to wake up.

 

Your second question on what Israel should do now is easy. Pack up' date=' leave, and let the U.N. handle Lebanon per the agreements. You have to at least do that but I don't believe the next war can be avoided. Fanatical Islam has no rules but the sword. Thats all they know.

 

Bee[/quote']

 

It's pretty clear what question I've answered. Namely what should Israel do in the Israel-Lebanon conflict to protect its people. As you wrote about various terror tactics it still applies to the Palestinian conflict since harmonization between people trough trade/(services) will lessen the support for terrorists and subsequently the recruitment.

 

So in short peace will come when Israel values Arab children as much as their own.

Except for very minimal trade between Egypt and Jordan who have peace treaties with Israel' date=' I know of no other Arab states trading with Israel. No matter what measures Israel takes they will still be hated just because they live there.

 

By Israel playing that military card, it got what it wanted... a U.N. army of peacekeepers to patrol the Lebanon/Israel border. This will make it harder for Hezbollah to launch rocket attacks against Israel without bringing condemnation from the U.N. security council.

 

I know I kept asking you "what should Israel do now" and you failed to give me an answer but its only because I have no good answer myself....

 

I hope you let those fish go after you caught them.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

What is it you don't understand, I did give you an answer what they should do now. The results may certainly not be seen until long from now but that I thought were understood.

 

Do I think the war could have been avoided, yes but that is another question although related cause what I'm looking for is active measurements for avoiding the next war. This is what I mean by Israel having played out the military card. A big military is not enough of a deterrent for these types of conflicts.

I only have faith in civilized people' date=' not terrorists. Check the link below.

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22424.pdf

 

Ok, Now were back to square one. What should Israel do to protect its people?

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Sorry for the delay, been away fishing

 

It's true that Lebanon and Syria stringently adhere to the boycott but they are the only ones in the Arab League and I also wrote that Israel would include trade in the peace agreements (with all parties in the now ongoing conflict) not just for economic purposes but for the future protection of it's people. I think Israel has played out it's military card, now it's time they also use their wits with a full spectrum of measures.

Iran has publicly called for the destruction of Israel and I can supply you with links quoting its president if you wish. Most of the surrounding countries feel the same and none want to trade.

 

So' date=' your next suggestion is?

 

Edit.... I'm not trying to be mean, I just want an answer.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

How can you be so certain that non want to trade I mean that's a pretty fore gone statement. Sonar or later Israel has to negotiate, if they are smart they will include trade of some sort.

 

and for god sake have some faith in people.

Your right..... But.

 

How does a civilized country trade with its neighbors that have always wanted to destroy it from day one. Some' date=' have it in their countries constitution that Israel should not exist. Now, how does it protect itself.

 

I'm just trying to understand what your solution really is. The mutual trade is out for the above reasons.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

I don't seem to follow your conclusion. It's one thing if the neighboring countries don't want to trade with you, but I don't see why they wouldn't want to increase their living standards. Also I don't see how trading negatively effects your security on the contrary it will make your enemies appreciate your existence, then of cause they wouldn't be an enemy for long. As for civilized countries trading with enemies Fiat goes one step further and announces that they are going to manufacture cars in Iran, now this is a strategy that I agree with. Maybe Israel could do something of the sort when feelings calm down a bit.

What do you think Israel should do to protect its innocent women and children from being blown up in a shopping mall or bus by terrorists who hide across the border among their civilian population. Could you answer me that? Does anyone here have a better plan than all the ones which previously have not worked?

 

I really would like an answer from the constant Israeli bashers here.

 

Bettina

This what I here from your side all the time. What else could we do. For starters one have to understand that civilizations came about cause of trade and with trade comes mutual interests. It then doesn't matter whose fault it is and who started what. This overall strategy has to come before various tactics like destroying infrastructure or other collective punishments.

This is a moral equivalency argument' date=' similar to others that have been attempted in this thread. The counterpoint is the same, that there is a difference between deliberate targetting of civilians and the incidental death to civilians who are being deliberately placed in harms way.

 

Nobody seems to have an effective counter-argument to this point beyond the level of "well that's my opinion so there". (shrug)

[/quote']

 

Are you claiming Israeli intelligence is so low that they cannot foresee civilian casualties, the consequences of their actions? Don't you agree that the perpetrator's guild is irrelevant to the value set upon the victim and that all human's have an equal value.

I don't have the time to respond properly and fully' date=' Jim, but I would like to say that mention of WWIII in politics runs contrary to Godwin's Law. WWIII immediately makes a person run through all the Nazi comparisons, and instead of losing the debate when the Nazis are mentioned, calling, "WWIII" increases the fear levels beyond anything the "War on Terrorism" could ever do and makes ignorant citizens call out for protection at any cost.

 

I absolutely believe this is campaign strategy. And since I see little difference between the major parties when it comes to using our fears to help them campaign.[/quote']

 

I agree that fear plays a large part of todays politics where by I would like to postulate that 'fear is the root of all evil'.

The Lebanese thought good of Hezbollah when Israel left southern Lebanon many years ago. More recently, and especially since Hezbollah started the current situation, some Lebanese do not show the same support they showed many years ago when Israel occupied Lebanon.

Meaning what exactly. If you compare the overwhelmingly support with that they have today, it still would amount to a solid base. The important thing is the recruiting and the counter productive actions taken by Israel. Ponder if Hezbollah ceased to exist or was nearly wiped out. The mind set and the situation of the Lebanese people are connected therefore the void that Israel would have created would be filled again. History tells us that this would create an even more radical group. To defeat the resistance you have to bargain, there is simply no other alternative.

I don't know what you are talking about where you mentioned "collective punishment..." nor do I understand what you think I think is justified, please explain those last 2 sentences in the above quote. I'll just emphasize the previous point. Hezbollah brought this upon the Lebanese people. Some want Hezbollah to fight against Israel, but many blame Hezbollah for this (we're talking about the Lebanese here).

I didn't think you were serious when you implied that the civilians that died as the result of Israeli bombings of heavily populated city blocks were in fact terrorists or the chance that they were. I mean it's hard to disguise on self as a child or elderly. Therefore I would assume that you meant civilians that support Hezbollah are terrorists themselves. To this I strongly disagree.

 

MM:

 

Lebanon's PM has no control nor say in the matter. In fact Israel wants the Lebanese army to take over from the Israelis. Israel wants Lebanon to control it's own country' date=' like it was meant to according to a UN resolution. However Lebanon is not militarily strong enough to overcome Hezbollah and so far they have been disregarding the UN resolution which says that the Lebanese army must control its south border with Israel and stop is from being inhabbited by terrorists.[/quote']

 

What do you mean "not militarily strong enough". Maybe the Lebanese don't want a civil war.

 

New talks have now started between Israel and Lebanon. Now Hezbollah is become slightly weaker there are hopes that the Lebanese army can take control (whereas before Hezbollah was in control). This is one of Israel's main aim. To give the Lebanese army and not Hezbollah control of the country.

 

I belive it's wishful thinking that Hezbollah has been weakened. Common sense would suggest that a unjust aggression be met with anger/radical thinking and thus more support for the Hezbollah.

 

 

More generally:

 

I got a lift with someone today who raised an interesting point. I can't remember the statistics but Hezbollah has a few thousand militias as well as many thousands of reserved people who support them.

 

Except for a few more senior members of Hezbollah' date=' all the militias and supporters (and by supporters I mean people who will fight for Hezbollah) are all "civilians". They are people with everyday jobs who live in civilian areas. However just like people support their Prime Minister or President, so these people support Hezbollah. And just like there are rallies and protests which Westerners go on, so there are wars and fights which these people participate in. They're everyday civilians, but they also fall into the category of "terrorist". So when you hear about a "civilian" death (it could of course be a poor civilian) however it could also be someone who would readily fight for Hezbollah, and whilst is a civilian they should also be classified as a terrorist.[/quote']

 

No wonder some Lebanese people support the Hezbollah, in their mind they are freedom fighters. Considering the long occupation of south Lebanon by the Israelis. Terrorists are those one's guilty of terrorism. The kind of collective punishment you think is justified is itself a crime against international humanitarian rights.

How can you initiate peace talks when both sides want the other eliminated? What could you say' date=' the only offer you could make they'd accept would include destruction of the other party.

 

Having said that political pressure will play a big role in this and eventually maybe the kidnapped soldiers will be returned, Israel will leave Lebanon alone and Hezbollah stop shooting rockets into Israel. But the problem will not have been solved. Only temporarily put on hold.[/quote']

 

I disagree Lebanon's Prime Minister did offer a cease fire from the beginning.

As these soldiers are valuable to the Hezbollah guerrillas they would be perfectly safe for time being leaving time for negotiations under cease fire. Bottom line is that you don't fight terrorism with terrorism.

And you suggest what? The Israelis let these people kidnapp soldiers and build up support and weapons?

 

Remember many of these groups are founded purely on various anti-Israel beliefs. If Israel let them build up' date=' become stronger and bigger then in the end they will pose a threat. Their existance (a group like Hezbollah) is purely for destructive purposes. It is the Israelis who they want to destroy. The Israelis will not sit down and let them build a force so they can destroy Israel. Do you see the reasoning there?

 

 

 

They want to destroy Israel. If Israel leaves them then they build up an army/weapons to destroy Israel then it's not good for Israel. Israel doesn't want this. Note this is the Israeli view point. But then that is what I am trying to portray right here right now.[/quote']

 

Yes I see the reasoning and frankly it scares me to see people this evil to suggest the preemptive murder of women and children. Which is the decision it comes down to.

 

Sane people would initiate peace talks regardless and if they had this much hatred inside them they would find it in their hearts to resign.

 

She didn't say that. And it is off topic. Maybe she feels that way' date=' maybe she doesn't... but it is not the purpose of this thread and it is not being discussed here. She was talking about a specific religion in specific circumstances. They are circumstances which are being discussed in this thread. What you said is not. Don't change the subject.

 

And you put a full stop at the end of the sentence, as if it is a statement. Maybe you feel that way. Or maybe your grammar is bad.[/quote']

 

Then I suggest refraining from posting islamaphobic posts.

I understand what your saying but terrorists have an agenda that is offensive.... not defensive. Like Gutz said' date=' they want Israel out of the middle east or destroyed altogether and no amount of cease fire will cure that. Then when Israel is gone, they will seek other infidels.

 

 

 

Libya for one.

 

 

 

What you must do is stop the literal teachings of Islam to young people but I don't know how that can be done without invading the country and changing the government. Like you said, the UN is a pointless organization that has no real power, so to me, its the responsibility of the civilized nations..... all of them.... to fight it. What bothers me are the countries (and people) who bury their head in the sand and wait for it to go away. It won't.

 

Bee[/quote']

 

Why stop there, ban religions all together. It's the root of all evil isn't it.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739900.html

 

^ Things are getting crazy.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5180202.stm

 

^ The BBC lays out the situation quite neatly.

Yet after reading that you don't realize that Israels actions are counter productive ?

You extrapolated from one scientist to a group ("people with different agendas"). That's a hasty generalization. Your comment on Dawkins contains nothing but dismissive personal attacks (complete fool, childish). That's ad hominem.

I'm not sure if your trying to explain yourself or if you are defending the documentary. With the same logic, your are making a fallacy not debating the "facts". Those who decide the funding are still people. His explanation was childish because he thought the causes for religious behavior were solely based on the persons childhood. It was foolish because he has no studies (facts) that tests his guess.

As there are people who see Jesus as someone to belive in. I predict that the same kind of behavior for non religious people who aren't too narcissistic. Thereby Dawkins is misusing his influence when he so bluntly and disrespectly talks about religion as if it was a disease.

That's basically ad hominem' date=' though, along with a hasty generalization. You are dismissing science based on an assumed agenda of some individuals, and not on any factual basis.

 

The fact is that science works, despite the fact that it is carried out by humans, who are fallible. But the procedure is self-correcting, so agendas eventually tend to get neutralized.[/quote']

 

You are wrong. What I stated was an observation. It's you who made a hasty generalization claiming that I dismissed science though I did dismiss a scientist on a relevant issue.

 

Maybe your a hopeless romantic but what I perceive is the greater importance of funding from the industries/politicians where which science will follow certain paths.

if you feel that science threatens your beliefs, then either you don't understand the science(often the case) or your beliefs are wrong.

Dawkins seem to want to speak for the whole scientific community regarding religion. With his documentary "The Root of All Evil?", well there he makes a complete fool of himself with his childish explanations of a such complicated system as the human mind.

We like to see science as unbiased but for what I can see its just people with different agendas.

" Starting with a population of caged wild animals, he selected from each generation the puppies who were friendliest (or, initially, least hostile) to humans, breeding only from them."

If he's going make the correlation between small brain size from domestication why breed only the friendliest, where is the control group.

The control can't be the wild foxes since the one driving force for a brain is finding food.

It never will - the main reason being science contains stuff that can be potentially proven. It seems designed that the whole religion thing can't be dissproven or proven so it will never be accepted. Just remember this debate is about the acceptance of evolution and nothing about the scienctific acceptance of religion which will never happen.

 

Apparently the advantage of a god(s) is far outweighed by the negative effects.

 

Cheers' date='

Ryan Jones[/quote']

 

I think its quite relevant since you have to understand the people involved. Though I brought in the evolutionary aspect perhaps the topic belongs more so in the psychology section.If you don't understand the logic behind some irrational thoughts and how they are dealt with this might be an indication to move this thread.