DrmDoc

Trust begins with yourself and your own judgement. Indeed, as newborns, we acquire our measure of trust in ourselves and others by experiences that inform trustworthiness. For me that experience began with mathematics and how it always provides an unwavering basis for logical thinking. Specifically, for me, a very basic algebraic equation, (If a=b and b=c, then a=c) has been my unwavering basis in whatever I chose to study. Rational, trustworthy thoughts and perspectives should have a basis in logical thinking and real evidence. Trust also involves a capacity to consider the logic and evidence that opposing views offer. Experts may only be knowledgeable to an end supporting a biased perspective of which they might not be aware, which is why opposing views must be part of a rigorous vetting process. Before I trust, even my own perspective, I weigh all arguments and evidence against that trust. Whatever and whomever we chose to trust should have a basis in our own investigation of all the available evidence for and against them--in my opinion.

I recall a recent PBS/NOVA program on this very subject, which traced the evolution of the alphabet. This series traced the root path of the written language we all use today from a combination of stylized pictures to form words and phases (Rebus) to the actual letters many written languages use including Arabic script. I found the program most informative. I hope this helps.

After more than four decades of private study, there remains much I haven't figured out myself about dreams and the nature of dreaming. However, what meager insights I have managed to glean from the science suggest that every aspect of dream content is descriptive of either a mental or social influence. To understand why Doc Gooden often appears as a character in your dream, you'll have to view him as you would a word in a sentence that conveys either a mental or social meaning. For example, a house's depiction in your dream could describe your unconscious perceptions of either a mental or social structure such as the state of one's sanity or marriage. Very often, the people in our dreams interpret the mental effects of certain social influences. In your dreams, Doc Gooden describes as social influence that has had a Doc Gooden-like social affect on either your thoughts or behavior. How you might perceive Doc Gooden's personality in real life defines what social affect his character in your dreams interprets. If I may add, whatever we are capable of experiencing in physical reality, can and does appear in our dreams. The content of our dreams relies on the stores of memories we've amassed through life experience. For example, if we were raised in a world without knowledge of cars, cars would not appear in our dreams. Dreaming in either color or black and white isn't unusual. Like every other aspect of dream content, coloring is an interpretation--how our active unconscious brain interprets some aspect of what it believe it's experiencing amid the sleep process. If I may also add to other references in this discussion regard an inability to recall dream details and content, memory was evolved for experiences that had a real physical/material impact on the survival of ancestral animals. Dreams are mental experiences and do not arise concurrent real life experience. Our dreaming brain is able to detect our dreams' non-association with impactful real life experience and, consequently, do not retain memories of them easily.

I agree, dreaming isn't any more miraculous than how we might perceive a bike ride in the park. While bike riding, our perception of our experiences and surrounding is instantaneous. We immediately know that the trees we see are trees, the flower we smell are flowers, and the birds we hear are birds. While dreaming, the distinction that's not well understood is that the entire scenario of riding a bike, seeing trees, flowers, and hearing birds is an interpretation of an experience or stimuli with meaning beyond mere appearance. Perhaps more simply, the entire scenario describes a mental experience, which is something immaterial understood through material references. Our brain isn't creating data when we dream, it's presenting an interpretation of data. Perhaps the best way to understand dreams is to think of them in figurative terms. For example, a dream about running describes a mental action.

Those spontaneous, frame-by-frame dream depictions are merely a perceptual illusion, which our brain's unconscious interpretive processes create. Although not very well understood by most, our dreams are interpretations of stimuli or influence. As interpretations, dreams are akin to a type of language wherein perceptual references and experiences convey meaning rather than words alone. Ours dreams are not creations from our unconscious mind's recesses, they're references our dreaming brain extrapolates using our memory store of life experiences to interpret or understand what are essentially the mental effects of being unconsciously active and stimulated. Dreams are interpretive responses to stimuli that is quite like our responses to spoken languages. Our dreams seemingly seamless perceptual experiences are like the flow of our perception and understanding as someone speaks to us in our native language.

If I understand you correctly, If I'm not too late to this discussion, you experienced something in a dream you didn't understand that was later explained to you by another, more knowledgeable character in your dream. Because your dreams emerge from what appears to be the recesses of your own mind, you presumed this experience to be precognitive in that a character of your mind's creation revealed an insight before or beyond your initial understanding in the dream. First, this is definitively not an example of dream precognition. A clearer example would involve dream imagery and experiences of future events in your life before they occurred that you could not possibility have known would occur. An example might involve dreaming about a series of lottery numbers and then witnessing those exact numbers being drawn in an actual, subsequent lottery--which is something many, including myself, have often experienced. The mechanism for this kind of unconscious precognition involves the cyclical nature of life experience and our unconscious mind's extraordinary ability to detect and integrate the past and current presentment of those cyclical experience into a forecast of probable future events--it's like standing on a mountain and forecasting the arrival of a storm from the clouds we see in the distance. Dreaming is a byproduct of activations in the brain arising from its metabolic processes amid sleep. At about 5% of body mass, our brain consumes about 20% of our body's overall energy uptake. During sleep, our brain's metabolic need persist and that persistent need causes the arousal that initiates dreaming. Dreaming is our brain's interpretive response to the stimuli it perceives during its arousal process amid sleep as it engages its metabolic needs. Your dream recall interprets something your brain believes it experienced while in your unconscious state of sleep. Your dream appears to interpret your unconscious experience of something ordinary (dirt imagery) from which you would learn something more substantial (sawdust/bullet hole imagery) from a more knowledgeable individual (knowledgeable character imagery). I hope this helps.

Hallucination/dreaming vs. imagination/fantasy; superficially, there appears to be no descriptive differences between these efferent brain activities. Each of these activities can involve various faux sensory experiences that appear perceptually immersive and real. However, hallucination isn't imagination and the dreams that occur amid the sleep process aren't fantasy. The distinction is that hallucinations and dreams immerge from our brain's unconscious interpretive processes while imagination and fantasy are products of our conscious brain function with no interpretive quality. Imagination and fantasy are the immersive experience of our conscious thoughts and desires. These experiences are consciously mediated and have no interpretive value beyond their immersive distraction and nature. Conversely, schizophrenic hallucination and normal dreaming are unconsciously mediated and they interpret what we may unconsciously perceive or experience. For John du Pont, as previously referenced, the hallucination of ants consuming his legs figuratively interpreted or expressed something that was happening to him that he knew but perhaps did not consciously comprehend--thus the figurative nature of his hallucination.

I think any model of how the brain actually works that doesn't conform to how it likely evolved is considerably less that reliable. Everything I understand about brain function and it's various efferent responses (e.g., thought, consciousness, dreaming, etc...) is informed by the remarkably clear path of its evolution contiguously suggested by its functional development from spinal cord to cerebrum. Self-awareness is essentially an interpretive response to sensory stimuli arising from an integration of that stimuli with the stored memories we've amassed through life experience. Mind is the environment of cognitive activity within the brain that arises from brain function. A mind is quantified by a brain capacity to integrate divergent sensory information with memory experiences through a neural process that produces behaviors independent of instinct. This behavioral independence describes an ability to engage proactive over reactive behaviors. Our brain produces two states of cognitive activity with conscious being one and unconscious, as suggested by states of dreaming, being the other. The basis for any extraordinary cognition or abnormality between brain states can be explained by a precise understanding of our brain's functional matrix as its evolution has programmed.

In past discussions, for those who recall or have interest, I described a diminished functional similarity specific to both the schizophrenic brain and the dreaming brain. Generally, both brains experience a decreased state of prefrontal blood flow (hypofrontality), which suggests decreased prefrontal brain activity. This prominent physiological effect that both brains appear to share suggests some shared root cause, which is not my focus in this discussions. My focus is the hallucinatory nature of schizophrenia relative to the nature of dreaming. My speculation is that schizophrenic hallucinations are similar to dreams in that they are interpretive responses to stimuli rather than just symptoms of some delusional state of mind. I recall the case of John du Pont who was convicted of murdering a prominent Olympic wrestler, Dave Schultz. As there was much exposed about John's mental illness, I recall discussion of a particular schizophrenic episode wherein he complained of ants consuming his legs. From a perspective of understanding the interpretive nature of dream content, I understood this hallucination of ants consuming one's legs as revealing how John's brain was unconsciously interpreting the deteriorating nature (consuming imagery) of his mental stability (leg imagery). I perceived John hallucination as an unconscious perception that had leached into his conscious experience as something physically real. If the similarities between the schizophrenic and dreaming brain confer commonality, then we all suffer mental illness when we dreaming...but that is not my opinion. The interpretive processes of the brain doesn't confer mental illness; however, in John du Pont's case, the wall between his conscious and unconscious interpretive processes had deteriorated to such an extent that his unconscious interpretations were leaching into and distorting his conscious perceptions and purview--in my opinion.

No, your arguments weren't nearly the same in my view. Essereio's comments were peppered with "black people this..." and "black people that..." without qualification. The difference between his references to rap music and yours, for example, is that his regarded his view of black people exclusively while yours regarded a your view of music. Unless your arguments also expressed your view of black people in that rap music is exclusively representative of black behavior and culture , then your arguments were not the same. Misogyny and bad behaviors expressed through music are not exclusively black or exclusively black expressions.

What you may have overlooked was Essereio's clear association of certain distasteful social tendencies (ex: loud music and voices, disrespect, drugs, and gun) specifically with "black people." His rap music references were a means to characterize his perspective of a people rather than his or our dislike for a certain music genre. "A good portion of black people", using Essereio's words, aren't anymore inherently loud, disrespectful, misogynistic, or into drugs and guns than a good portion of people of other racial distinctions. It wasn't what he said about the music that's important here, it was how he used that music reference to describe a people. Rap, as I understand, is a culture that engages people of multiple races. Admittedly, I'm no more a fan of rap music than my parents were fans of rock and roll. It a generational thing and one I accept as the sound of all young people and not just people of color.

Perhaps not overtly, but.... essereio wrote: "You're twisting everything without seeing the bigger picture of why a few or maybe a good portion of black people turn off a lot of other people. It's not just white people who are extremely annoyed by the rap/hip pop garbage personas. Loud music, loud voices, insults to innocent people, drugs, gun shootings and the list goes on. You get what you give. Injustice? Verbal abuse on a consistent basis is a lot worse than physical abuse. Black people are much less likely to be taken seriously because of the rude behavior/rap persona of a few. I feel sorry for a good portion of young blacks who get brainwashed by the rap/hip hop music and then go on towards causing psychological issues towards society." In this example, essereio's references here to "black people" and their "...rap/hip pop garbage personas...loud voices, insults...drugs, gun shootings, etc..." speaks to his emotions rather than fact or reason because these are not distinctions anymore adherent to a "few or maybe a good portion of black people" than they are to humans of different pigment. True, he didn't loudly proclaim his hate with that singular word, he proclaimed his hate through a totality of words delivered through his various comments in this forum. Like systemic racism, hate can be subtly expressed through contrived notions that have no basis in fact or reason.

We might all benefit from some therapy of sorts but not in this forum. Racism in America or anywhere for that matter isn't rooted in fact or reason. If I understand, you see essereio's ban as a stifling of meaningful discussions where opinions and ideas, regardless how heinous, are freely exchanged without rebuke. In this science forum, as I believe, our opinions and ideas should have some basis in reason or fact. If you read any of essereio's comments, you'd know they were based in neither. His "opinions" were clearly rooted in his dislike or hate for what he saw as the distasteful social proclivities of fellow human beings he appears to distinguish solely by skin color. This was not a expression of ideas but rather a spewing of hate. Although what happened to George Floyd has awakened our global consciousness to the hypocrisy of racism in America, America's racist and systemic racism won't be solved by therapy or discussion. Racism is a social disease that require social solutions and pressures to remove from our society as essereio has been removed from discussions in this forum.

Racism isn't about labels, it's about hate. Hate is an issue of emotion not intellect. As emotion, the afflicted may only be solved or remedied by therapy rather than by reasoned discussion as we may find in open forums like this. In this forum, we can intellectualize the causes and cures for hate but we can no more treat that condition via our online debates with racist than we can remotely remove a tumor. There's a reason why this science forum discourages visitors seeking medical advice. Similarly, there are reasons why hate filled sufferers are equally discouraged in this forum. They need help we can't render here.

If not too late to this topic, I've speculated about the social origins of belief in a god or gods in past discussions. I've speculated that this aspect of religious belief likely owes its origin to ancestral reverence shared among early humans. No sources to provide but I think strong evidence could be found for the idea of ancient people wanting to remember deceased family members and respected tribal leaders thought some ceremony or symbolism. I think it likely that belief in gods evolved from these symbolisms and ceremonies engaged by our ancient ancestors to soothe their grief and keep the memory of their fallen ancestors alive.

I agree, discussions centering on defunding the police is a shameful distraction from this history making movement gripping our nations conscience and the world....yet it remains a distraction arising from the movement itself and it is quickly becoming a significant part of it's message and call to action. I fervently agree and believe that "WHY" is profoundly important and should remain at the forefront of our nation's discussion but I also believe that "HOW" should remain as equally important if our goal is to remedy our country's inequities and create a nation more securely rooted in freedom, justice and true equality for our citizenry. What happened to Mr. Floyd is indeed the "Last Straw." The moment for action is now. This movement is a call to action and the HOW in its message should inform and direct our actions with resounding clarity if we want it to prevail.

Although I agree that services to a community might benefit from redirected funds, I think there's a danger to promoting this idea of defunding the police. In our society, I think most people have a tendency to consider only the bumper sticker version of an issue rather than read the fine print as Booker eloquently provides. Just today, Minneapolis protesters ejected their mayor from their peaceful action when he refused to support defunding and, specifically, removing police from their community. When the protests are done and the police are gone, crime in America remains. We are an uncivil and uncivilized society that require policing and the slogan "Defund the Police" sends our communities, citizens, police, and, particularly, our criminals the wrong message. A message that we are a reformed society, which we aren't, and that we do not require protection, which we do. I think "Defund Bloat and Waste, Fund Public Schools and Mental Health Clinics" would send a clearer more effective message.

I support every constructive effort to reform our police policies and tactics, as well as, every civil effort to bring equality to our nation's people; however, "Defund the Police" is an idiotic idea. As a wise person once said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!"

Your advocacy for police brutality suggest your statement here is unequivocally disingenuous. You've touted your belief in police brutality and, thereby, confirm you do believe it exist. It's hardly convincing that a person who holds such beliefs is in anyway sincerely or slightly interested in humans rights protection whatsoever. As decent human beings raised with a modicum of morals, they should have innately known to weigh "following training/orders" against the loss of common decency. "I was just following training/orders" is not an excuse for crimes committed while doing so.

Didn't Chauvin, the offending officer, provide a very clear and concise statement by holding his knee to the neck of a handcuffed and deceased black man for nearly 3 minutes? What more can he possibly say to clarify or justify something so abhorrent.

I completely agree and if my comments were construed otherwise, you're mistaken. My intend was to convey an opinion that one was likely the progenitor of the other rather than both being somehow synonymous. I've imagined that before early humanity diverged into separate races, we were separate families that became separate tribes that would one day savagely compete for the same resources. I believe racism owes its ancient origins to that savage competition among early humans for survival between families and tribes. It was may way of conveying to Moreno our equal potentials.

Racism likely owes it origins to tribalism emerging from the dawn of the human animal 200,000 years ago in Africa. All of humanity share an equal potential for varying degrees of suspicion and savage hostility towards divergent groups as we vie for the same, singular, and often limited resources. What we witness through Chauvin's actions was an expression of savage indifference towards a fellow human being with whom he saw or felt no kinship and, therefore, no empathy. Although we are all predisposed to behaviors emerging from our savage origins, I believe we equally share a potential to change that predisposition and become something more than the animal we were thousands of years ago.

Although the proof you seek isn't as overt as you perceive, Chauvin was a 19 year police veteran with numerous (18) citizen complaints in a predominantly minority district. This service record suggests that Chauvin was as deaf to the complaints of the minority citizens he was supposed to serve and protect as he was to the pleas of the black man he asphyxiated. Minus his uniform, badge and position on that fateful day, Chauvin was just another white man with an unyielding knee on the neck of a black man. Yes, it was racist!

This is not to suggest that the death of an Asian or Caucasian from police abuse isn't equally egregious, it's just that the distinction of George Floyd's horrifying murder comes after several recent murders and over a century of similar well publicized murders among America's black citizens at the hands of police or similar authorities whose sworn job is to protect and serve those very same citizen. Chauvin's demeanor and expression while compressing Mr. Floyd's neck amid his desperate pleas to breath suggest that Chauvin was well aware of what he was doing. What we saw in that horrible moment in America's recent history was a very public lynching albeit by knee rather than rope.

I had a look at the article and agree with its position on the inaccuracy of the Triune Theory of brain evolution. I also agree with its position and most neuropsychologist that brain evolution was not and is not a linear process. However, I believe the ideas this article appears to support isn't very clear or convincing. As I prepare to author a book on the subject myself, I believe I've uncovered more convincing evidence of our brain's stages of evolution based on neural and functional developments we find in comparative species with humans from fetus to birth as the brain matures. What I'm suggesting is that if our brain followed some contiguous functional path of evolution, some remnant of that path should be discernable in brain structure. For example, I intend to show in my next book, with sufficient peer reviewed metadata, how cortical dependency on subcortical neural projections and stimuli suggest a linear stage of development concurrent with the survival demands and functional needs of ancestral animals. Still, the article provided here was a very interesting read.