geordief

Was the behaviour hard wired in because most of the survivors happened to be wired that way? The feeling of volition is just a post factum ordering (complete with coscious or unconscious thoughts )of the hardwired instincts?

Is information ordered data? Is that what a thought does ?Puts a construction on, or finds a pattern in sensory data?

As a preamble ,I have a memory (an indirect one at this stage) of "struggling" to express a thought but realizing that I had no words/language ...was I in the womb perhaps or just popped out ? Again,a year or two later I had a dream whereby I awoke in the middle of the night and attempted to get out of bed but each direction (of 4) turned out to be the wall (I went back to sleep) [/preamble] Anyway,what I want to ask is "What is the evolutionary origin of thought?" This is my hypothesis.It arose from sensory inputs and was the first living organisms' attempt to make a note of a particular observation. On its own any sensory input lacks context and so meaning but if two adjacent sensations can be compared then a direction (and a thought) is created . So that is my thought and question "Could that be how thoughts developed historically?"

No that is exactly on point. Yes ,would we eventually find a way to deduce their existence?

Funny how 1984 is now the past.

Patent that.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.",which is from Oscar Wilde's "Lady Windermere's Fan" A commonplace observation that over the aeons humans have looked up at the stars with what we assume to be a similar feeling of wonder that we feel now. But my question is whether we would have found another object to evince the same feelings in us had those stars not been there for us to have gazed up at. Is there a feeling looking for an outlet that used those stars or would we have just found some other things to observe that would have given rise to similar but not identical feelings of wonderment? What might those objects have been? (It is not so outrageous that there might be sentient beings at some point in history looking out at a starless world as I believe it is said that ,after a long period of further expansion our presently visible stars will fade from view)

Could this be Russian disinformation ? (why it would appear genuine for one ) Just stirring the pot now he sees how weak the social fabric of the States really is? Edit :plus maybe a message to Trump?

http://letslookagain.com/2020/05/craven-a-cigarette-a-history-of-carreras/ No it was a straight.

It represents a possible benefit to maturbating;not to "not masturbating " as per the OP. If it was the latter then abstainers would need a gun license and perhaps need to carry warning signs of some description. Was not me that neged (have never neged in my life unless by mistake on these small screens)

It would still apply to all companies who deselect candidates who vote against democracy Sure but I am in two minds.I agree with their assessment (if they have said this) that they are no longer giving funds to actors who are fundamentally anti democratic but I don't agree they should be in such a position in the first place. I understand (from very weak understanding) that powerful corporations were a mainstay of fascist regimes in the past and am not kindly disposed to their unregulated behaviour.

I wasn't necessarily applying that explanation to Toyota in particular.It was more a summation of what I have learned about the practice ,which so far as I know is confined to the USA. Indeed I see the political influence of corporations extremely differently to that of individuals.In my bones I am against it as essentially undemocratic. In the UK the great argument against the Labour Party was that it was beholden to the Unions. And the contrast may be between the Trades Unions and the Corporations.Which is more democratic in your eyes?

The standard explanation for funding both (why not all?) parties is that it supports democracy in the round. It seems unfair to me that big corporations should be able to tip their hat one way but one can only fight one war at a time. If there is a possibility that the anti democratic forces win this next engagement what plans are there for the morning after ?(or is Biden a strong bulwark?)

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57773010 About 50 Republicans who voted against accepting the result of the General election,it seems. On balance is this a good developments or will it fuel what seems like a grievance culture? Seems like desperate times for Democracy in USA.So vital the anti democratic forces do not get another foothold in the institutions of power in the coming elections . Can they be headed off at the pass? According to the story "Toyota has said it will halt donations to members of the US Congress who voted against certification of President Biden's election victory."

As in "cui boner" ? (it got a laugh last time) https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99493-trumps-denial-of-groping/?do=findComment&comment=949472 Once I was kept in a prison for a few days as an irregular economic migrant. I was taken aback when the first thing I was offered was a magazine that was obviously designed to keep me moist and docile.(they also removed my belt if I recall correctly all these years later)

Caveat ejaculator https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/10/media/jeffrey-toobin-returns-cnn/index.html Let Toobin be a warning to those who might masturbate in public. He says he thought it was a private activity .... Mind you Trump's and Barr's public exposure of their abuse of the Justice Department's procedures in going shamelessly after his political opponents counts as a far more obscene waving of their pricks in our collective faces.(a breaking story ;I don't have a link to hand but Schiff was targeted and many others it seems) Oh it it the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/us/politics/justice-department-leaks-trump-administration.html

There may actually be a disadvantage to not masturbating (a "medical fact") If you think Mary seems nice then you should consider finding time for onanism in your schedule

Perhaps you still remember Harold14370 from the .com site?(Dirty Harry😀 ) Some years ago I fell into the trap of asking about "events" in a GR context and was curtly dismissed by him **because I did not know what an "event" was (it is just a point on the spacetime graph,I think) Seems like those "events" I was clumsily introducing then may be the kind of thing you are talking about ; another way of describing a fundamental interaction. A kind of a phenomenological "atom" (in the historical sense where it was applied to a supposed irreducible building block of nature)? **well he was one of the leading experts on GR there then ,as well as being the Admin.

Would I be right to understand that this is a description of the impossibility of knowing the simultaneous position and momentum of a particle? If it is not an example of the "how not why" question could I ask why (or how) this is the case? Is this an observer related phenomenon or is it the case that the particle itself cannot actually be in a particular place with a particular momentum? (as applied to a particular frame of reference if that does not in itself imply an observer) I wanted to post in this thread https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125204-life-was-inevitable/?do=findComment&comment=1178225 but thought it was better to start a new thread......

Yes,that is what I meant.Suppose that there were eddies in the medium(caused by local areas of pressure differences,I think) then that would alter the characteristics of the medium and the speed of sound in it.. I am finding it a bit hard to follow now .I am probably going to need a longer period of reflection and study if I am going to make sense of it. Thanks for your help.I hope I wasn't too confusing.

Ah yes, a scrivener's error 😒

@MigLOK,if I take the two trains scenario of @sethoflagos and impose the restriction (if necessary)that the trains travel below the speed of light as well as specifying that the medium is at rest with respect to itself can I say that the speed of sound is "invariant" in the same sense that ,in a vacuum the speed of light is "invariant"? Or are there still differences between the two situations such that I cannot say this? It seems to me that ,under my (if necessary) restrictions that sound waves have a constant speed dependent on the particular (homogeneous and at rest with itself) medium and also that this speed is independent of the frame of reference Perhaps I am wrong on this last point? I realize that my restrictions may make this assertion of trivial importance but am I correct to describe the speed of sound as invariant under those limited conditions?

Thanks,yes I am happy with the two trains scenario.** It serves my purpose exactly. I am still reflecting on what lesson I can draw from this result (assuming noone disagrees with your understanding) ** and your information regarding meteorites, fireballs etc.

Sure I did have a possible connection to relativity on my mind. Let me gather my thoughts for a few hours or a day and see if I can take it any further or if this has no bearing on the invariance of the speed of light(where I was going to and hopefully may still)