Ten oz

Yes, we both have opinions any time I make the mistake of asserting mine as fact or certian feel free to challange. In every example you provided there are many people unable to overcome those fears regardless of knowledge obtainment. People suffer from claustrophobia, agoraphobia, arachnophobia, glossophobia, acrophobia, aquaphobia, and etc, etc, etc. I have never seen a evidence of a link between IQ or level of education obtained and the prevalence of phobias. There are very intelligent people in this world whom are afraid to speech in people and very stupid people who absolutely love to. In different ways I suspect we all do. Do animals have emotions........do we humans all have the same emotions? If we look at the biology of emotions they are chemical based. different levels of adrenaline and dopamine creating various levels of anxiety and comfort. Despite our ability to define human emotions I don't personally think everyone experiences emotions the same. A narcissist doesn't experience empathy and modesty the same way others do for example. So it is possible that animals experience emotions but they are ones humans do not experience.

Not your speculations and thoughts. You are saying the obtaining knowledging changes a persons instincts. I don't think you have any evidence (research/studies) to support that assertion. I also don't personally think it is remotely true.

Republicans don't respond to campaign loses by conforming to the will of the people, hahah. They respond by deluding the power voters have. Republicans have lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 general elections. Midterms over that period have been split but ultimately Democrats have more popular support but the number despite being large haven't been enough. The 48 members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, in their most recent respective elections dating back to 2012, collectively earned 78.4 million votes on their way to victory. Republicans, by contrast, won just 54.8 million votes—even though there are 52 of them. In other words, Senate Democrats have gotten more than 23.5 million more votes than Republicans. In a head-to-head election, that would amount to a crushing 59-41 margin in percentage terms. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/5/1617584/-We-re-the-popular-party-Senate-Democrats-won-over-23-million-more-votes-than-Republicans Democrats in the Senate represent 35 million more people: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tn9v6Jq-fd0uT7FkwD757LMghX5jYUwlaeSgZbPgRUg/edit#gid=0 Republicans know they cannot compete on an even playing field with Democrats for votes so what they did post 2008 loses is focus on statehouse elections so that they could get control over state election processes. Then they changing voting regulations, moved polling sites, and did all they did to supress turn in key regions. Once they won back congress in 2010 it gave them control over redistricting and they made democratic district large as possible. That way Democrats may have more supporters and votes but ultimately Republicans in smaller districts will be more abundant which equals more individuals seats in Congress. http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482150951/understanding-congressional-gerrymandering-its-moneyball-applied-to-politics Exactly, they focus on manipulating the process and not on what voters want or need and it has been wildly sucessfully in part because most people out of equal parts patriotism, naivety, and not wanting to appear conspiratorial refuse to accept our system isn't a fair democratic process anymore.

I don't think Trump cares about optics one bit. I could sit here all afternoon linking videos of Trump contradictions. Everything from Ivanka won't be working in his admin to his healthcare plan will cover everyone, Free of how things will look at some future point doesn't weigh heavily into Trump's decision making process.

I don't think the outcome of the Mueller investigation will be enough. Mueller may call for formal indictments and it won't be enough. Independent Counsel determined Bill Clinton had corrupted Justice via perjury with regards to Monica Lewinsky yet Clinton serve out his term (his approval rating went up and the House Republicans who voted to impeach him suffered heavy mid term loses). So there is already precendence in place for the GOP to hide behind when Mueller reports Trump has broken the law. Obviously an affair is significantly different than cooperating with a foriegn aggressor to circumvent campaign ethics during a democratic election but it won't matter.

What evidence of this can you provide?

I think you missed the point. Sure most humans can follow intructions tailor made for them in their own language and with consideration for our tools and resources but the inventors that led the way did so without such. From Early Dynasty Egyt to Columbus humans lived without electricity or running water despite various flashes in history where both had already been invented, lost, re-invented, and lost again. Would we have AC power generation today if not for Nikola Tesla? It simply isn't accurate to list all technological achievements as examples of standard human intelligence and ability when comparing humans to animals. Tesla, Einstien, Galileo, and etc are exception and not the rule. Humanity has gone millenia without advancing then in a single persons life time shot forward due to individually brilliant, anomalous, minds. Humans have even experienced centuries of technological decline. It is the intelligence of those one in a million genius humans that is being referrenced when you say humans can build cars and TVs. The overwhelming majority of human minds which have ever existed and exist to simply are not intelligent to the magnitudes that associating all thuman echnological achievement would apply. If you were sent back in time to the Dark Ages, given all the tool available during that time, all the man power you wanted, and 10yrs time to work you absolutely wouldn't be able to constuct a car muchless a tv. Successfully growing Strawberries would probably be too great a task all things considered. Strawberries are easy to grow in 2017 when one can buy fertilzer our make a greenhouse out of vinyl. I am not saying humans are not more intelligent that animals. I am saying that we are not more intelligent to the order of magnitudes we generally assume. While humans collectively and overtime are responsible for launching satilites into space less than 0.01% of all the humans which have ever lived have any idea how it was accomplished. Tarigrade might feel this way as well. Ultimately your use of the word dominant is relative. Do you suspect Humans will out live all life on earth or will humans even last long as species like sharks and aligators already have?

"the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superioty, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self- awarenessof metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect I wonder if humans don't broadly overvalue their/our abilities. While it is true that humans have the ability to shape the world in ways other animals do not it is also the case that the average person lacks the knowledge and ability to design, build, or even maintain to various things which support ther daily lives. Despite nearly all humans being able to drive automibiles only a small fraction of people would be able to design and build one. Most people are nervous about adding oil or checking air pressurebefore a road trip. We all watch TV yet even with a parts list, tools, and detailed instructions most people couldn't assemble one. I have friends that need help assembling furniture from Ikea for goodness sakes. So while it is true that collectively over time humans have built technology and reshaped the world I think the average person overvalues their role and contribution. I don't mean any of that as a slight against humanity broadly. Just that I think when people discuss how much superior our minds are to the minds of other animals we get a little carried away. We commonly seem to assume our minds are greater by magnitudes of millions of times over when it might be more like a handful of times over. *not implying your post made any such assumptions. My post is merely what came to mind after reading yours.

All good points. Additionally I think mortality plays a role. Even spiritual and religious people don't believe anything happens to animals when they die. Acknowledging we (humans) are essentially no different than other animals would mean that the absolute futility most relate to the existence of animals would apply to us. Even amongst agnostics and athiests that can depressing thought which reflexively stimulates denial. Human babies automatically breathe, cry, suckle, and etc. Despiet the efforts applied towards teaching there are a variety of things humans cannot be taught until specific stages in development. No amount of instruction can teach a 1o month old to speak or a 6 month old to walk. Additionally a child not adopting those habits, regardless of "formal instruction", by certian time periods are signs of developmental problems. Humans do not formally learn everything. Many parents labor over the best way to teach infants but millions of parents also don't. In many cases the formal instruction parents provide infants 'n toddlers really just serves as emotional bonding with no significant knowledge or ability passed. That fact humans develop a variety of abilities naturally is never used as evidence we lack consciousness. The fact some bird adopt certian courtship practices without instruction isn't different in my opinion. Human males are not taught how to have rections or nocturnal emission.

Yes, it is a political process which is why I questioned if enough people would care. It will would take Republicans fearing mid term election losses if they don't acted and that is only possible if there is a massive wave of support for impeachment. Sadly I don't expect that to happen and congressional elections are so gerrymandered it is hard to envision any events which might leaad to Democrats winning a majority regardless of how investigations play out. As for 2020 I think Trump is actually already in a stonger position than he was ahead of 2016. For starters Imcumbency has advantages. Trump will have power in 2020 to shape world events which in turn will give him power to manipulate the issues candidates will be forced to addressand debate. A polutician with integrity wouldn't abuse such power but Trump is shameless. Worst of all Trump has already began a nation wide "investigation" into voter fraud. This will lead to subtle changes in how people will need to register to vote in key battle ground states. Will power over the White House, Senate, House, and the Court I suspect a voter supression effort unlike we have ever seen where registered voters are dumped in mass and forced to jump through hoops at the last miunute on the pretense of stopping fraud. Trump will be very hard to beat in 2020.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump's campaign paid $50,000 to the law office now representing Donald Trump Jr. a little more than a week before news surfaced of an unreported meeting with a Russian attorney that has prompted new accusations of collusion. The payment to the Law Offices of Alan S. Futerfas, dated June 27, was disclosed in a filing with the Federal Election Commission on Saturday. It was described as covering "legal consulting" fees. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-son-idUSKBN1A00QZ

Yep! Meanwhile causal supporters argue that it was a gluten free sugar free cookie so doesn't really qualify anyway.

...so than no. If the truth proves (many feel it already has) that Trump's campaign broke the law and that Trump himself has obstructed justice shouldn't impeachment follow rather than waiting till 2020?

Some humans repeat behaviors despite varying conditions as well. Not sure that support instrinct over conciousness anymore than it supports the idea that ducks have limited problem solve skills. Language certianly made learning and working as a team easier which in turn made individuals less reliant on innate personally abilities. I am not sure what you mean in biological terms when you say humans adopted a new operating system?

.....but will enough people care?

I don't think animals act only on instinct. I am asking why the notion is so popular.

In numerous threads ranging from ethics regarding animal treatment to religion and general philisophy discussions about the mind I seeing what appears to be a fairly popular position repeated that animals other than humans operate on instinct alone rather than conscious thought. That even when a domesticated animal apears sentient it is just imitation or a trick of our own human projection. If animals truly operate without consciousness how does their behavior come to be and evolve? To me the implication of a purely instinctive mind vaguely implies all animals are programmed. If true what is responsible for determining that program some sort of natural god proxy; it seems unlikely. Spiders evolved to create complicated webs. We can say they build them out of instinct but didn't the ability still have to have been developed at some point? Spiders have not always existed and as such haven't always instinctively known how to make geometric webs. Instinct only behavior doesn't promote change and new instinctive habits does it? If it is in a wolf's nature to howl how did it get in to wolves nature? I believe animals are conscious. Different minds are capable of processing information to different degrees. No animal o earth is intelligent as humans but I don't see why animals would not be conscious. The biology is the same, evolutionary process the same, and big picture the genealogy is the same. If animals operate purely on instinct how does their behavior(s) evolve? If instinct is akin to a program what or who is responsible for the program?

Republicans are much better at crying wolf than Democrats are. Republicans created outrage over Clintons emails and Benghazi at levels as great ifn ot greater than Democrats seem to be able to regarding legit matters like obstruction of justice and collusion. We can completely forget about Democrats being able to make noise regarding Trump's conflicts of interest and nepotism. It seems that Democrats don't feel any mountian if worth dying one and Republicans feel every mountian absolutely is.

One problem with all the accounts we have so far come from people who are either known liars or suspected Russian Intelligence personnel. Starting a year ago and ending just this week Trump, his staff, family, and supporters called the notion that such meetings took place insulting and denied them vehemently. So while the accounts show nothing useful was exchanged we don't actually know for sure. Just as we don't know if this was the only such meeting. I see no reason to error onthe side that Trump Jr and the Russian Attorney as being 100% honest.

No one runs a perfect campaign but not every candidate contends with foriegn adversarial attacks. We are living in a twilight zone where people are arguing that the biggest issue was Hillary Clinton herself. That if she had just been better the cheating and illegal activity wouldn't have mattered. Forget winning fair and fair Hilary Clinton failed by not being strong enough to beat a stacked deck; it's nuts!

I think far too much credit is given to Donald Trump regarding his success. We have seen it on this forum from a few different posters where despite knowing Trump is incompetent he is supported anyway from the position of us vs them. We all know many people who support Trump even while acknowledging his nurmerous faults. It is systematic of them and not proof of his genius. Trump is an effect and not a cause. The over crediting of Trump has accorded his whole life. I have seen it argued nurmerous times that while born wealthy it still took great business savvy to remain wealthy. Donald Trump's father at one point was one of the 10 wealthiest people in the country and was thee wealthiest real estate mogul in NYC. Donald Trump is wealthy but not moreso than his father was. While he has managed to remain wealthy he hasn't taken his inheritance to new levels. If simply not losing a fortune makes someone an intellegent at business what does that say about the many who start with nothing and become billionaires? Not saying Trump is an idiot at business but rather he simple receives more credit than he deserves. Society, in my opinion, does this too often. Everyone successful is deemed to have winning attributes which enable their success while everyone who fails is criticised as having various negative traits. The world simply isn't that linear. History is full of wildly intelligent women who failed to succeed because of sexism, brillant artists who died with little following only to be discovered later, and important scientists who were opressed by religion. Often how successful one is simply says more about society at large than it does the individual. Trump isn't fooling anyone. The posters in here like tar and Kiplngram who admit they voted for Trump are also admittedly aware that he is a liar. They have not bought into a delusion (at least not one created by or specific to Donald Trump).

While I agree with every word of your post I think it fails to reply in context to rangerx's last post. I believe, could be wrong, rangerx is pointing the OP's position has been treated with more respect than they are providing others and perhap it is all just a bit of partisan trolling.

Only when absolutely caught in the clear light of day has this administration and its surrogates ever conceded an inch or even bothered to address questions. So I think you are spot on.

First time I ever watched the old Chris Hansen show "to catch a predator" I felt it was entrapment. They were arresting people who hadn't committed a crime. Then after more thought it made sense to me. Grown adults who knowingly had solicited what they believed to be grade school kids for sex and then drove out to meet with them in hopes of engaging in molestation were in the act of attempting to commit a crime. Their failure to be success provided no cover.

1 - Isn't this a redundant charge considering bothsides of any debate frame their positions as superior? 2 - This is a science forum and not a "point of view" forum. Science does not require the caveat of good humor or an argeeable disposition. Science seeks to make things clear not fuzzy or gray. Why learn and know things when one can just feel things and ask others to respect that the same?