Ten oz

Comments like this are insulting and accomplish nothing another than provide you the momentary pleasure of demagoguing people you feel contempt for. Refugees are fleeing for their lives. They are force to make dangerous choice to cross deserts and oceans ill prepared and then those who make it out alive are herded into camps. Nothing about their plight relates to the hypothetical scenario I posted. You say "when their society breaks down", I assume, as a way to give them ownership of that breakdown which depending on which refugees we are discussing is potentially a disgusting perversion of history. All of us familar with your political views understand that you are extremely pro tribalism and feel the less fortunate amongst those you preceive as not your tribe can all go to hades. This isn't the place for it. This isn't a political thread.

I am in agreement withPresident Eisenhower, General MacArthur, and Admirals Leahy, Nimitz, Halsey on the issue.

a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : awareness; especially : concern for some social or political cause The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness 1. mass noun The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings. ‘she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later’ 2A person's awareness or perception of something. ‘her acute consciousness of Luke's presence’ 2.1 The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. ‘consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain’ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consciousness Above are Webster's and Oxford's dictionary definitions of consciousness. I don't see a meaningful separation between being conscious and being aware. Sentience requires consciousness and sentience does vary in scale but the two are equals.

This of course isn't always true however. Some mothers kill their children, some fathers kill their spouses, some children kill their parents, some sibilings kill each other, and etc. On a larger scale some wars throughout history have pitted members of the same genealogy (all humans have the same ancestors of course but in this case I mean within a couple generations) agaist each other. Many people have died at the hands of a member of their own "tribal members". Moreover as it relates to suicide some people kill their whole families and then themselves.

Yes, Ants problem solve as a collective but so do humans. Drop the average person off in a forrest naked and alone and they'd most likely die soon there after. Drop off a hundred naked humans and they mostly all probably would survive. Ten ants are smarter than 1 just as 10 humans are smarter than one. Ultimately ants do have a brain and the ability to work together. Equating consciousness to a flame for an analogy; both a small birthday candle and raging inferno qualify as containing a flame the inferno's size doesn't matter because a flame isn't a revelant term. Something is either a flame or not. Scale doesn't matter.

I personnally look at it in terms of how evolution is a result of mutation. We are all born with various mutations. offspring are not all identical. The first mamal born with something akin to a thumb was a product of mutation born different than all others of its genealogy. Just as were the first hominids who stood up right were. There simply isn't a true normal or static way to be. There are averages but no set values one must "normalize" to. Blue eyes in humans is caused by a lack of melanin on the front of the iris. Shall we practice eugenics to "normalize" human eye color to brown ensuring melanin on the front iris? Of course not, that is ridiculous. Assumptions about what a human should or should not be is the root cause for most all forms of bigotry and prejudice in the world. We are all different and that is a normal natural biological fact.

Eisenhower was a genral during WW2 and did become President not long after the wars conclusion so the mistake is understandable. Most people do view FDR as WW2's President followed by Eisenhower. Truman is often forgotten. That said the mistake is a bit egregious when one considers how Eisenhower actually felt about it: Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years: "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Thank you for the well thought out response, +1. I previously started a thread which specifically discusses the conscious & unconscious mind. Much of your response is addressed there at length so I am not going to delve into it here. When you have time and if your are interested we can discuss it there: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105499-consciousness-and-the-illusion-of-choice/ 1 - This is exactly to the point of this thread. Ants do have a brain. They also have distinct behaviorsand are capable of problem solving. Why is it ridiculous to think they have a thoughts? Their ability to build colonies, collect food, work together to cross water and opennings, and etc came from somewhere. If it is purely instinct which is programed into them than where did it come from and how'd it get in them. To me the simplier solution is to accept that they think. Obviously they lack human levels of ability to process information but it isn't human level or nothing is it? Modern day computers are significantly more capable then computers where 40yrs ago. That doesn't mean that the basica fundamentals are different. It is still one and zeros. Ants do have brain cells. 2 - I have told this story before but don't recall in which thread. About 10yrs back my wife and I were in a fender bender. A van came into our lane and hit us. Low speed, no one was hurt, very little damage. I remember, in my mind, everything about it crystal clear. A year or so back I mentioned the fender bender to my wife is casual conversation. I recalled the van that hit us as being black. My wife recalled it as being tan. My memory was, is, crystall clear on this. The van was black and I even recall a chrome pin stripe along the side. I see the van in my mind as black and it is picture perfect. My confidence that the van was black was 100%. My wife dug up her old phone, charged it, flipped through her pictures, and found pics of the van she had taken. The van was tan and didn't have a chrome stripe. I have no idea why I remember it as black yet even after my wife showing me pictures I still see a black van in my mind. Memory simply isn't reliable. 3 - The juxtaposition in the dog/fence story was that instinct took over and not a process of the mind resulting in no memory or concious control. If you concede education and training impacts fight or flight response than you're acknowledging that the thing being called instinct which jumped over the fence is consciously influenced. If instinct can be educated and trained than isn't really just a type of consciousness?

What is the dopamine reward for siuicide? If I understand the concept here correctly it is that we all pursue dopamine. Our choices, lifestyles, and etc are constructed in a manner based on dopamine reward. While I agree we all want to be happy/comfortable I don't believe it is in the drives seat of all our choices in life. People make painful choices all the time be it to unp[lug and allow a loved one to die, various forms of self sacrifice, suicide, or etc. Meanwhile some in society seem to require much higher levels of reward. Surely the dopamine reward for a narcissist and depressed person are different?

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution "Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Intergrated Operations Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

This seems like a scenario South Korea should be gravely considered by more so than one the U.S..I don't understand why you think the potential threat of North Korea and various imagined scenarios lands at our (U.S.) feet more so than there neighbors and our partners in the region:South Korea, Japan, and China? I agree Kim is a bad person, I agree the people of North Korea have a bad situation, I agree our govt should be exploring options, and etc. I even started a thread about what should be done about North Korea back in April http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104943-north-korea-paradox/ All that said I disagree that now is the time for the U.S. to independently use force against North Korea. I do not fell legitimate diplomacy has been attempted. Rather there has been an uptick is saberrattling to which North Korea has responded to in kind.

No, every order isn't automatically lawful. The President does not have absolute authority: The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict. Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541). https://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

"Pacific Fleet spokesman Capt. Charlie Brown later said Swift’s answer reaffirmed the principle of civilian control over the military. “The admiral was not addressing the premise of the question, he was addressing the principle of civilian authority of the military,” Brown said. “The premise of the question was ridiculous.” https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/07/27/us-admiral-stands-ready-to-obey-a-trump-nuclear-strike-order/ Spokes people for the Navy itself have been walking back and re-clarifying/re-defining the answer the Admiral gave. He didn't handle the question well. I don't understand the point of arguing otherwise. The President Constitutional authority to use force is a separate and more complex conversation.

As linked in my previous post spokesmen for the Navy have come out and attacked the question as "outrageous" and "ridiculous". The Navy would not do that if they were pleased with the answer and felt the Admiral handled it well.

No, I actually have considerable experience with this. Also at no point have I implied the answer to the question should have been no. Every military branch has public affairs personnel and every branch has vetted information and best practices for those who go before the press. That the Admiral is not the Commander in Cheif and must follow orders is a given. It is redundant to argue that. POTUS has nuclear authority, POTUS has the nuclear football with him, we all understand that fact. It was a hypothetical question about using nuclear weapons against a country which we aren't even currently at conflict with. A hypothetical order a reporter was making up and not an actual order from the President. Lets not conflate the two. Military members do not have to follow make believe orders. Public affairs personnel and most public representatives and or speakers are trained to identify pointless hypothetical questions and not fall into the rabbit holes they create. Especially when they are redundant or rhetorical. All of which is why official spokesman for The U.S.Navy's Pacific Fleet came out and did some damage control because it wasn't a question he should have entertained: The fleet spokesman later said the question was asked as an "outrageous hypothetical" "Frankly, the premise of the question was ridiculous," he said. "It was posed as an outrageous hypothetical, but the admiral simply took it as an opportunity to say the fact is that we have civilian control of the military and we abide by that principle." http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN1AC1TU

1 - It has peaked?No, it continues to worsen. According to the UN, 83,650 people have reached Italy by sea since the beginning of the year - a 20% increase on the same period in 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40470102 "The flow of refugees is steadily increasing, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR). As of mid-2016, there were 16.5 million refugees globally, 5 million more than in mid-2013. More than 30 percent of all refugees as of mid-2016 came from Syria, the largest source of global refugees." http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/03/27/518217052/chart-where-the-worlds-refugees-are 2 - Again, we are abandoning containment. Those stateless rebels won't just sit in place and wait tobe detained or killed by Assad. Where they go next matters. 3 - POTUS is the one tweeting and giving interviews saying he want to get along with Russia. Meanwhile Putin is decrying U.S. policy regarding sanctions and strongly defending Assad. Perhap you feel that it should be Russia who reaches out to the U.S. but that is not what is currently happening. 4 - We (U.S.) just bombed Assad facilities in April following gas attacks which Assad and Russia deny Assad was responsible for. Our policy is currently mottled and unclear. We have gone from hot to cold a couple times over in just a matter of several months.

There are such things as best pratices. No one here is has posted that the answer should have been no.

People in govt refuse to answer a variety of questions and or point out the silliness of them all the time. He should have just said " I am not going to hypothetically discuss using Nuclear weapons". Saying yes to a question about hypothetically incinerating an unimaginable number of people is in poor taste. Addressing the question as absurd would have been more appropriate. The use of nuclear weapons on a population isn't something one casually spitballs about. I have no doubt had the reporter asked if he'd drone strike his own children if ordered his answer would have been something more akin to my recommendation above. perhaps it was a bad question but it was also a terrible answer.

1 - Whether via an emotions, unconscious, subconscious, or etc it is all still a function of the mind. We do not have empirical definitions for an unconscious vs subconscious vs emotional process. Ultimately it all occurs in one mind (brain) and being aware that it occurred is a conscious recognition. Additionally memory is not reliable. People misrecall events or can't remember events they were involved in all of the time. The story involving to dog and the fence, said to have happened over a decade ago, it is not a good example for this discussion as there is no way to know what happened. It counts on the accuracy of a childhood memory that was charged by a fight or flight response. 2 - You are referencing a U.S. behavior. Police in the U.S. kill more people a week that than U.K. police kill per decade. The prevalence of police shootings in the U.S. vs other Western Countries supports the notion that training and education impacts response in fight or flight situations. 3 - Referring back to #1 do we have a clear definition for instrinct and a remote operator for action? You are asking why can't instinct learn yet some in this thread are arguing that there is no such thing as instinct. I personnally am not sure if it exists. How many drives does a person have and do we all have the same ones: emotional drives, instinctive drives, unconscious drives, subconscious drives, conscious drives, and etc.I think it overly compartmentalizing the mind to imply instinct vs something else is learning x, y, or z. Considering the fact whole portions of the brain is devoted to things like eyesight and hearing; I thing we've isolating process too much.

The definition I used is the actual definition: thought1 THôt/ noun noun: thought; plural noun: thoughts 1. an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind. https://www.google.com/search?q=termendous+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=thought+

From memory foam to GPS both the middle class and upper middle class have a lot to be thankful for with regards to the space race. Smartphones to LEDs technologies created by our space race have pumped trillions of dollars into our economy. It is myopic vision to demand knowing where research and development, discovery, will lead in advance. Columbus sought out looking for a short cut and on that front was a failure that lost Spain money. Initially all the Spanish and Italians cared about with regards to the Americas was gold but eventually realized the termondous profit values of Coca, Tobacco, Tomatos, Corn, Peanuts, and etc, etc, etc. It is impossible to know where colonization technology will lead. History has already proved our space program to be an huge success responsible for trillions of dollars worth or new technological growth and innovation.

Do people with body dysmorphia improve themselves or the world around them. What about people who suffer from depression and commit suicide?

Improving something is relevant concept. Humans believe we are improving our lives through industrialism and technology yet our actions are causing nurmerous species to go extinct. Additionally we are (to our knowledge) the first animal on earth with the ability and at times the inclination to whip ourselves out.

Thought is defined as an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind. With your story about the dog were you truly without thought; I do not believe so. A rush of adrenaline sped up your thought process and greatly narrowed your focus. Ultimately everything you did was still controlled by your mind and as such still falls under the purview of thought. That is why even when panicked Police, Pilots, Soldiers, Doctors, Fire Fighters, and etc are still accountable to do the right thing. Because fear induced instinctive reaction is not a medically or legally accepted thing. A police officer can't shoot and kill people then write in his report instinct took over and he or she doesn't know what happened. As for animals surviving on instinct alone I don't think we have a clear definition of what instinct is to make a clear statement regarding the extent it is used. If you take a healthy adult human who has no survival training and an average dog which has been raised as a standard family pet, abandon each in the wild alone with nothing I think the dog would fair better. Not because of instinct though. A dog's superior sense of smell and hearing would increase its chances of successfully scavenging for food and locating water. A dogs fur is better at regulating body temperature. The also see better in the dark. Using superior adaptations is not equal to instinct. If a dog knowingly uses its sense of smell to locate food than, in my opinion, it isn't instinct anymore than when we humans use our smell to see if milk has gone bad or the gas has been left on. Animals are not "perfectly attuned" to nature. The overwhelming majority of every species which has ever lived has gone extinct and the mortality rate of nearly all mamals is 50% or greater. Humans came together and built communities to shelter ourselves from nature because of how brutal and hard it actually is. Animals use the adaptations they have to survive. I believe using those adaptations require a learning curve and as such require thought. Wolves, tigers, killer whales, bears, and etc fail to catch prey countless times before they suceed. A learning curve is involved. Deer antlers do not evolve to be smaller so to deter humans and fish do not shrink so to wiggle through nets. That is not how evolution works. Rather it is the smaller fish and deer with smaller antlers which are able to reproduce are healthier numbers on the account of not being killed which results in the changes.

The word meaning is defined as what is intended by a concept or action. I don't think the natural world has meaningas there is no overall intention. For life specifically the meaning seems to be, in my opinion, to reproduce. It is the single most common drive all life seems to share. Beyond that on an individual level everyone must answer the question for themselves. Our minds are singular.