Ten oz

I personally do not like the fact that every state has there our process. Each state should have the right to manage their own elections for their own seats but POTUS is a national position which impacts the whole country. I think every state needs the same process (# of earlier voting days, registration window, absentee voting, etc). I think one way to maintain the system we have while better respecting the popular vote would be to have a second round of voting in the event that the electoral college and popular vote is split. All votes cast stand but a second day of voting is held a week later where all eligible voters who had not yet cast a vote get the opportunity to vote. One votes get switched, the electoral college stands, more people get the opportunity to vote.

During search and rescue cases, oil spills, plane crashes, and etc many attempt to predict using currents, tides, winds, and etc but it is still not an exact thing. The environment changes minute by minute with each passing hour any prediction regarding drift wood would increase in error margin. I can think of numerous ways a student wouldn't have control over their grade. In general children have little to no control over much. Children get up when they are told, eat what they are told, read what they are told, go to bed when they are told, and etc. Does a student who is being abused emotionally or physically at home have control; they don't even have a safe environment to study from. Saying a student has control is a bit of an all things being equal conclusion in my opinion. It doesn't account for environmental factors. Some children are molested, beaten, bullied, ignored, malnourished, sometimes all of the above. Then there are illnesses which impact mood, strength, stamina, dexterity, and etc. In my opinion all the influences of a students grade have the potential to control it. Example: If you are floating in a current that current is controlling where you float however 10 knots of wind is equal to a knot of current. So if it were windy enough the wind would control where you floated. In light to moderate conditions both current and wind would have marginally equal influence but in server conditions either could dominate.

No, I don't think consciousness is either an emergent phenomenon or greater than the sum of it parts to any degree beyond other traits. Being an emergent phenomenon greater than the sum of its parts is how I would describe the existence of life itself. I view consciousness as a function of the brain no more of an emergent phenomenon eyes, lungs or the brain itself. Evolution has produce many thinks which we humans can selectively be in awe of. I am not sure in context how you are defining "above" but will concede that on my part it was a poor choice of words. I should have used the word separate rather than above. I cannot predict the precise route or speed drift wood washed out to sea in a storm will travel or if that drift wood will ever make it to land again but that isn't anecdotal proof drift wood has free will. A couple pages back I asked the question does a teacher have control over the grade they give a student or does the student? The question being directed at grade school. I know parents who move to specific neighborhoods, feed their kids specific diets,medicate their kids, buy them specific type of entertainment (toys, games, books, puzzles), and etc assuming they can influence the type of student their children will be; do parents have control over the grade? Then of course they are school boards members and elections (in some places) for those jobs. Candidate argue their policies will increase academic performance. They claim they can increase the average grade but can they? Making things messier is the fact that students are forced to go to school and the whole grading system is measuring how well they are learning the mandatory information they must learn per the direction of others. I think that if you provided a psychologist, sociologist, statistician, or any smart person who is decide at understanding people and likelihoods key points about a child's life they would be able to predict what type of grades that child receives. I wouldn't call that determinism. Even if we assume free will is 100% thing and everyone is exercising choice all the time people would still make predictable choices over and over again.

This thread is about the purpose of consciousness. Pointing out environmental interaction traits which all organism exhibit as anecdotal proof of control or free will sort of lays the bar on the ground. There is no debate over whether or not organisms interact with their environment. The debate is about conscious free will and don't feel you are addressing that. 1 - No free will is required for basic environmental interaction 2 - Again, no free will required. 3 - I am me; brain included. When the brain dies I die. All genetic limitations of my body (Brain included) are limitation my "you" has. The "you" inside of us is purely ego. It is not capable of a single thing more than genetically designed for. 4 - Correct, only a supernatural all powerful limitless being isn't constrained by relativism. All organisms exist physically. Humans have a physical form. So I don't understand what you mean by there is no possible physical mechanism that could produce a conscious entity. Are you not a conscious entity? Correlation doesn't equal causation but in this case it has been repeated tested. We have seen neurons firing in the brain in direct association with thought. We understand which parts of the brain are responsible for different feelings and knowledge. You are basically saying that because we can't disprove that their is another dimension of existence not bound by natural physics where all consciousness continues after brain death all options remain equal. Why is there absolutely no burden of evidence required? Can you provide a single reason why I should suspect there might be a magical place out in the ether where all consciousness continues free from the brain?

What is control; does a teacher have control over a students grades or do students have control over their grades? Sticking with that analogy studies show teacher to student ratio, parenting, school budget, and etc all impact grades so can any individual fact truly said to be control?

1 - Organisms are born and hatched with this ability. Genetics leading the way and not conscious choice. Did you consciously choose to take your first breath? 2 - We do not have control over the whole system. One cannot control their genetics. A short person cannot will themselves tall, a bald person will new hair growth, will away cancer, will 20/20 visions, and on and on and on. There are many more things we can empirically say we do not have control over than there are things we can anecdotally say we do have control over. 3 - This makes no sense. 4- What does and doesn't matter is purely relative. If the car is needed to travel at 130 mph than it wouldn't matter at all that it can travel at 120mph.

People exerts no conscious control over their heart beating, hair growth, calcium absorption, or any number on things going on within their physical form yet imply someone went to sleep because of biology and not free will and suddenly life loses meaning..hahahaha. Identity exists in our consciousness and we tend to have a hard time attributing things which happen beyond our conscious control to ourselves even when it is ourselves do it. An example would be dreams. We all understand we manifest our own dreams but don't understand why or how and as a result generally don't feel responsible for them. We are aware of them, think they are weird, but are otherwise disassociated from them.

How would one prove that their wishes and believe originated from free will and not from biological signals in the body? Once a thought emerges in ones consciousness ownership of it is immediately assumed consciously. I don't see how we could consciously know the true origin of any though. Every thought I have is a thought I have all are experienced equally despite the fact we know some are reflexive and biologically triggered. I think one of the challenges in this discussion is that our consciousness doubles as our identity or understanding of self. If consciousness isn't in control than we feel free will doesn't exist. That isn't true though. If one can accept that consciousness is merely part of a larger network/system than it doesn't really matter whether the control resides in consciousness our other parts of the mind. A person's choices do not need to be conscious produced to be individual but merely individually individual to that person. A rose by any other name is still a rose. A choice I make consciously or as a biological reaction is still a choice; everyone doesn't make the same choices. Your two questions: 1. As entities (whole body and neurological system) I believe we control ourselves and our interactions with the world. Consciousness playing the slave role to the master (brain, genes, biology, etc) which has unidirectional control. 2. That control is experienced via our consciousness; not exclusively originating their.

There are well regarded scientific models out there for how consciousness evolved. Attention Schema Theory is testable and being peer reviewed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407481/ https://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Consciousness_Research.html There is no example in history of a single person every having consciousness without a brain. Doctors regularly recommend those who have been determined to be brain dead be removed from all support systems and their bodies allowed to die. There is no medical/scientific theory out there which supports human consciousness existing free from the human brain. I can't prove that a tree falling in the woods with no one around to hear or record it makes noise but there is absolutely no reason on earth to assume it wouldn't. Asking people to prove negatives doesn't provide supporting evidence for anything. It merely attempts to make the threshold of evidence more burdensome.

I rather created a thread about this a while back: The original post I opened with was poorly constructed. At the time I didn't conceptually have any conclusions just thoughts and questions. Through the thread I did develop a line of thinking which did satisfy me. The line of thinking is that consciousness provides humans an evolutionary advantage with reproduction by allowing us to have personalities. A projection of self to influence other humans. Consciousness is not where our reasoning or decision making happens but is merely window dressing making us more attractive to a mate. Intelligence, physical symmetry, health, and etc all play a big role in being attractive to a mate but when all biological factors close a good sense of humor makes all difference. Personality appears to be one of the primary things humans select for. Provided a person doesn't have obvious disabilities a good personality can make them successful as someone with numerous more exhibited abilities or healthy physically traits. The cool factor often being a huge trump card. In order for consciousness to have fully flushed out personality capable of being projected complete with intangibles like self confident, ability to lie, greed, sarcasm, irony, and etc consciousness needs to believe it is its own entity (lack of a better word) making its own decisions. So strong is the conscious minds sense of singularity that most people have a difficult time even accepting that it dies with the brain. People actually believe consciousness is above biology itself and can exist beyond it somehow; very powerful delusion. Our consciousness does whatever our brains decide based on a multitude of inputs but believing it is in total control provides a better outward display for other humans. Best way I can convince you I am who I say I am is if I believe it too. It is less "to be or not to be" and more "to be or I am".

"Mr Trump said on Saturday he had had "two or three" brief conversations with his Russian counterpart at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) summit in the port city of Da Nang. "He (Putin) said he didn't meddle. He said he didn't meddle. I asked him again," he told reporters on Air Force One as he headed to Hanoi. He said he believed Mr Putin was "very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country"." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41954436 Along the lines of the truth not mattering Trump continues to bold face lie about Russia's meddling in our election choosing to cast it as partisan nonsense. Meanwhile even Trump's own administration acknowledges the meddling, Republicans in both the House and Senate have already voted to sanction Russia for it, and the Mueller investigation has already begun charging people in the U.S. for colluded with the Russian. At what point do Trump's continued lies become crimes: knowingly misleading the public, aiding our enemies, and interfering with ongoing investigations? Trump is POTUS !! There is no plausible deniability here. Trump has been briefed. Trump's own Admin: Defense Secretary James Mattis on Thursday said that there was "very little doubt" Russia has attempted to interfere in democratic elections in the past. http://thehill.com/policy/international/319832-mattis-very-little-doubt-russia-has-interfered-in-elections Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly warned his Russian counterpart that alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election is a "serious" incident. "We talked about it in the discussion we had with [Russian Foreign] Minister [Sergey] Lavrov yesterday — and trying to help them understand just how serious this incident had been and how seriously it had damaged the relationship between the U.S. and the American people and the Russian people," Tillerson said http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/345553-tillerson-russian-election-meddling-created-serious-mistrust-between at the Aspen Security Forum, Kelly was among several top national security officials who backed the government's conclusion that Russia carried out a campaign of cyberattacks and fake news to influence the election in favor of Trump. Kelly joined CIA Director Mike Pompeo, White House Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism adviser Tom Bossert and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats who all expressed their support last week for the intelligence community's findings. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/28/john-kelly-recently-broke-trump-russia-election-hacking/521844001/

You need to define "abuse the process". In my post listed those who support social programs and separately listed others who have spoken out against the current state of affairs. I did not list anyone as perfectly ethical in all manner of circumstance.

In fairness there are many uber-wealthy people who support many fantastic social programs: Warren Buffett, Laurene Powell Jobs, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Mike Bloomberg, John Kerry's wife in a billionaire, and etc, etc. Uber-wealthy people are not strictly conservative and all do not collude to corrupt governments. Billionaires like Elon Musk, Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook,and etc have all voiced their concerns about the current state of politics. Just as Republican have claimed to be the party of patriotism, faith (Christian), fiscally responsible, hard work, families, and of course wealthy businessmen. Republicans claim these various labels and then proceed to use a litany stereotypes and straw-man talking points to define each. Republicans create caricature of what a successful business person is. That caricature is never that of a polite socially minded person interested in making the world a better place. It is always that of a alpha male jerk who knows that to succeed one must be crass, confident, and focused on winning at all cost.

I think many Trump supporters have their own individual concept of "our own". I am not under the impression by "our own" they mean U.S. Citizens broadly. That is part of the reason they are so dismissive about Russia's interference in the Election.

The World War which preceded it? The U.S. actually attempted to stay out of it till Pearl Harbor. It literally took the bombing of out Pacific Fleet to get us fully committed. At that point I don't think it would have mattered if it was Communists, Fascists, or anything else. Failure to fight and win would have meant the destruction of the Western World.

Seems like a relative statement. Fidel Castro died a year ago and had been out of power for several years before his death yet relations between the U.S. and Cuba still haven't been normalized; new restrictions just week. " The U.S. government made it tougher on Wednesday for Americans to visit Cuba and do business in the country, making good on a pledge by President Donald Trump to roll back his Democratic predecessor’s move toward warmer ties with Havana. " https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cuba/new-u-s-government-rules-restrict-travel-and-trade-with-cuba-idUSKBN1D81XN The U.S. engaged in an anti communism cold war for a generation with anti communism positions dominating our (USA) foriegn policy around the world. Anti Communism policies played a role in the Korean and Vietnam wars. AntI Communism efforts are also what led the U.S. to arming/training the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Joseph McCarthy used Communism hatred to attack countless public figures. The difference between the way Facism and Communism is treated is totally relative to which time period and individual(s) we are using as the baseline. Neither have been treated good by western society at large in my opinion.

I think we all understand why politicians lie. The question is why do the tens of millions of voters who have nothing to gain from those lies go along?

In 2017 those are partisan issues. Pro choice Republicans no longer exist on the nationa levell. I didn't make it that way and identifying it for what it is so doesn't encourage it. The current Republican Party is not what it once was. As a party they havetaken a hardline on abortion, guns, taxes, immigration, and etc. It has been swinging that way for somtime. It isn't Trump who pushed it there. GOP has had 3 waves prior to Trumpism which pushed them further and further: Reagan revolution, Newt Gingrich's contract with America, and the Tea Party. It is sort of off topic though to discuss why politics are so partisan. The topic is more about why people tolerate it. Why voters accept lies and don't think the truth matters. I think it is has a lot to do with the way people are educated. For a long time I have felt education in the country was going in the wrong direction. Too much is geared around multiple choice tests. To often I see people create flashcard or study guides for a singular test which focus entirely on key words but lack any actual definition or information. People pass their testes and move on often having learned nothing. The tests themselves serving as something akin to a game one must beat. The process in different in STEM fields as knowledge is compounding and one must actually know the prerequisite material which is one of the reasons why society struggles to get more young people into STEM despite all the associated great paying careers. STEM is too difficult to get into once one has conditioned themselves to pass tests of keywords rather than knowing things. The way people are getting educated, broadly, these days doesn't build a solid knowledge base. It is easy for politicians to lie about things like the Civil War, for example, because such a large portion of the population only ever memorized dates to pass a multiple choice test and didn't really learn/think about it any further. The Civil War is just something that happened and knowing that it happened is all one needed to know to pass. Developing a childs mind into adulthood this way establishes a type of apathy towards facts. They (facts) are just key words on a flashcard without context. Something to brain dump after a test; disposable formalities. Listening to a civics discuss in a classroom today is a cringeworthy experience.

There are significantly more people employed in solar than there is employed in coal. I feel like you are proving the point that fear of losing what one has isn't actually behind climate denial. Coal only accounts for les than 8% of the total number of people working in energy. That isn'[t enough inidividual people to move the needle on public opinion and yet coal miners and their concerns is a centeral topic of national conversation. Clearly tens of millions of more people than those actually associated with the coal industy are taking up strong positions and denying facts. Fear isn't their reason; they don't work in the industry. Their jobs are not on the line and they are not being asked to be retrained. The 50yrs men who worked in coal their whole life are a very small group. Their individual fears don't explain the national obsession with their plight. Far more people work in the retail industry and major retailers like JC Penny, Kmart, Mervyn's, Sears, Radioshack, and etc have been closing store fronts in mass all over the country. We doesn't fear of lossing jobs created a backlash against Amazon if fear of losing what one has had or known is really what the motivating factors are? "Between 2001 and 2016, jobs at traditional department stores fell 46%, according to Labor Department data.That's a much steeper drop than other troubled industries. For example, coal mining jobs dropped 32% during the same 15 years. Factory employment fell 25%. About 60% of department store employees are female, compared to 47% of workers overall. Minorities, the elderly and teenagers are also far more likely to find jobs in department and discount stores than they are elsewhere. Teenagers hold 8% of department store jobs, compared to 3% of jobs overall. " http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/12/news/companies/retailers-dying/index.html

In the OP waitforufo's link included a line saying something to the effect that while laws were not broken it was somehow unethical. Everyone has understand from the beginning of this thread that Clinton hadn't substantively done anything wrong. It is all just mud throwing.

Flynn was the National Security Advisor. Trump has tried to distance himself from Manafort and the rest but Flynn was put into a position with immense access to Intelligence and policy influence. Barrack Obama personally warned Trump in private about Flynn so this whole situation can't be dismissed as something Trump wasn't aware. It reflects a level of deliberateness in the way Trump disrespects this country's institutions.

WASHINGTON — Federal investigators have gathered enough evidence to bring charges in their investigation of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser and his son as part of the probe into Russia's intervention in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mueller-has-enough-evidence-bring-charges-flynn-investigation-n817666

An independent shouldn't expect to be the nominee of a party to which they do not belong. Sanders exploited a loophole in my opinion. Primaries are not open and "fair" contests. Some states hold caucuses, some have closed voting, and the process is staggered with different states get more premium polling dates. Super delegates also are tossed into the mix and have no obligation to support a candidate who gets the most votes in their home states. The whole process is designed to ensure the party has positive control. It is not meant to be fair and equal. It is meant to boost the profile of the nominee and get the whole party bought in. If anything the GOP should consider changing their rules in the future to be more like the DNC was in 16' so that someone like a Trump who isn't a typical or loyal party member can't hijack the nomination. Had the GOP had superdelegates Trump probably doesn't win the nomination. Donna Brazile isn't saying the Primary was rigged but rather Clinton had influence because of a connection between her campiagn's and the DNC's money raising apparatus. It is also worth acknowledging that Brazile also claims she was pressure to put a plan together to potentially replace Clinton and give the nomination to Biden. Doesn't seem the DNC was overly loyal to Clinto per se. Tom Perez also made a good point, one I had forgotten, about the way primaries are structure; states manage the voting in primariesraces while theDNC manages the caucauses. Sanders did better in caucuses than he did in election voting were Clinton beat him by 4 million. "The comments came as Brazile details the fundraising agreement in her new book, writing that it was “a cancer” that disadvantaged Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) because it gave Clinton's campaign a measure of influence over some DNC operations in exchange for helping the party raise money. Still, asked Sunday on ABC's “This Week” whether the primaries were rigged in favor of Clinton, Brazile told anchor George Stephanopoulos, “I found no evidence, none whatsoever.”" "Brazile writes in her book, “Hacks,” that she had settled on Vice President Joe Biden as the best replacement and had serious doubts during that period about the direction of Clinton's campaign but did not initiate the process. As party chair, she did not have the power to unilaterally replace the nominee. “I was under tremendous pressure after Secretary Clinton fainted to have a 'Plan B,' " Brazile said on ABC. “I didn't want a Plan B. Plan A was great for me. I supported Hillary, and I wanted her to win. But we were under pressure.” Brazile said she kept her own counsel during this period and did not talk about it with Biden. “This was something you play out in your mind,” she said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/11/05/brazile-says-she-found-no-evidence-that-democratic-primaries-were-rigged-for-clinton/?utm_term=.7adb3890fac4

Trump regularly doubles, triples, and quadruples down on his statements. Implying his remarks are just off the top of his head errors is disingenuous. I challenge you to name a SINGLE time Trump has ever indicated that he misspoke or didn't mean what he had said or tweeted.

So you think people who deny truth do so out of fear of losing what they have? It is possible but if the case finding middle ground should be very easy considering recognition of the truth leads to better decision making and outcomes. True. They may not be ignorant in terms of education and experience but ultimately supporting an ideology which is counter productive to ones goals is ignorant. It isn't done out of ignorance though. No one is really taking on the second part of the question; can/should middle ground be reached with those who deny the truth? Something has to give.