Ten oz

@ Pymander, history isn't proved through introspection. Whether or not a historical figure did or didn't exist shouldn't be a purely philosophical exercise.

If you haven't read the material referenced in the qoute and you are using it for your own context. You are basically arguing that Einstein was smart and he believed in Jesus therefor we all should believe in Jesus because none of us are smart as Einstein. That is absolutely not what Einstien in saying in that qoute.

He was outside not the margin of error nationally. However in the key swing states that gave him the election he was. Trump out performed the average of all polls in WI by 7 points. All 4 individual polls in the average had Clinton above the margin of error. In MI Trump out performed Polls by 4 points. Amongst individual polls 4 of the 5 had Clinton above the margin of error. In IA, which leaned Trump, polls were within half a percent accurate for Clinton and Trump exceeded them by ove 6 points going above the margins for 2 of the 3 polls. In OH Trump also exceed by 5.5 points beat the margins in 2 of the 4 polls. Collectively across all 50 states polls were good and most were with their margins of error. However 7 points in WI was certianly not and every individual state has there own individual process so averaging out how good polls were in other states to explain WI doesn't work. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html There is NO proof election machines were hacked. I am not claiming there is clear evidence. That said there wasn't a hand recount to confirm paper ballots againt the machines. Jill Stein attempt to get a hand recount is WI, MI, and PA (WI & MI performed outside the margin of error) but was shot down in court and hand recounts did not happen. One of the steps require to get possibly obtain proof of tampering, if their was any proof to obtain, never happened. And yes, I understand that the absence of a recount is not evidence of anything. I amnot saying we should believe something happened. I am saying we all (U.S. population) should be more skeptical than we seem to be. We are erroring on the side that the checks and balances work. The man who Ran Trump's campaign during the primary is wanted in Ukraine and has known Russia lobbying links. Campaign advisor Cart Page has connections to Russia and is under fedewral investigation. Trump was briefed by U.S. Intelligence that Russia was being the hacking attacks of Clinton and still used that material and went around implying it might be the Chinese. Trump had to fire his National Security Director Gen. Flynn for lying about his contact with Russia. The Attorney General had to recuse himself from investigation into the Russia cyber attack on the election because he lied to the Senate about his contact with Russia. The House Intelligence Committee Chairman investigating The Russian cyber attack of the election had to stepdown bcause he was caught lying about the intelligence. And Trump's Son in Law and top advisor failed to reveal foriegn connections including those with Russia for his Security Clearance. All of that is merely the stuff which has been proved. I am not even listing the other charges and rumors regarding Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, the Dossier, and etc If we had known in realtime that Trump had been briefed by Intellegence that is was Russia and still continued to use the material as part of his campaign and still continued to claim it was not Russia and imply it was the Chinese that would have be a massive scandal. Instead there has been a slow protracted discovery that grows and grows seemingly every week. As such I believe we have entered new territory where healthy skepticism is in order. That doesn't mean we just accept every wild unsubstaintiated claim as true. I don't feel we should be dismissive though either just because something is highly unlikely. Trump as POTUS was highly unlikely but still happened. Gen. Flynn who had been removed and forced to retire then acted of a foriegn lobbyist becoming the National Security Director was highly iunlikely but still happened. If the systems worked the way they should would Betsy Devos be in charge of Education, would Ivanka have an office in the White House (both her and her father promised during the campaign that wouldn't happen)? ....but yes, there is no proof election machines were successfully hack. Just proof that attempts were made and the candidate they sought to help won in unprecedented fashion and has since proceeded to bold face lie everytime he opens his mouth at will about anything and everything with seemingly zero ramifications.

While I agree it is unlikely to have changed the result I wonder if that isn't a naive position. Both England and the USA were target by hackers during elections and both saw stunning upsets that went against the margin of error of polling. Almost reflexively I reject conspiracy theories. We have no hard proof that the vote was manipulated via hacking directly. That said I imagine the hackers celebrated on election night. I am sure they feel as they they suceeded. Things falling there way in unprecendented fashion isn't proof though. Unfortunately the governments and positions the hacks sought to help won so there is little interest amongst the winners to investigate their own victories too vigorously.

While I agree to an extend with what you are saying it is subjective. It assumes what behavior would've been. It gets used both ways. Other people argue that the emergence of christians within a few decades of the claimed life of Jesus is proof that there must have been a Jesus because where else would have been the cause. Both make some sense both neither prove much of anything. It also depends on the way one chooses to qualify the question. Some argue that Jesus is based on some preacher that existed during the time, traveled in around the same general region, and was killed. That perhaps the story of Jesus is loosely based on that real person.I personally don't like that argument because it lowers the bar too much. By that standard every fictional character in every story is loosely based on someone to varying degrees. For me the lack of contemporay evidence mixed with a long history of religions being based on fiction leaves me leaning towards Jesus maybe but probably not having of existed.

I know when and why it was designed but everything which was good in 1787 isn't good in 2017.The system is currently being exploited. Every metro area in this country votes democrat. Hillary Clinton even won Dallas, Houston, San Antinio, and Austin in deep red Texas. Republicans lost the popular vote in Senate races 2012, 2014, and 2016 yet still control Senate! The system which was meant to give equal power and balance is currently doing the opposite. It is giving power to lower populations areas at the expense of the majority. The republican party has lost the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 general elections yet still control our govt. The Senate is Republican controlled 52 Republicans - 48 Democrats yet Democrats in the Senate represent 35 million more people. Think about that. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tn9v6Jq-fd0uT7FkwD757LMghX5jYUwlaeSgZbPgRUg/edit#gid=0 In principle Article 1 section 2 is good but it needs an update. In 1787 there were 13 states. The most populated was VA with about 600 thousand and the least was Delaware with 60 thousand. The difference was 10x largest to smallest. Now we have 50 states and the difference largest to smallest is over 65x. It is also important to keep in mind the role slavery played on these decisions and how the scales were intentionally tilted from the get to. Slave holding states feared nonslave states would team up against them. I don't think in 2017 we should still hold ourselves to rules designed to protect slave states.

Local gerrymandering, the electoral process, and the way Congress is proportioned have enabled this too. Every state gets 2 U.S. Senators for example. Wyoming has less than 600 thousand residents yet has the proportion of representation in the Senate as California which has 39 million residents. The result is rural community have far more representation per capitia than metro communities. As such politicians can successfully campaign on bringing back coal mining jobs and demagoguing renewable energy despite that fact that there are 5 times more jobs in renewable energy than coal mining. What happens in San Francisco, Seattle, New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles , Philadelphia, Boston, Minneapolis, Portland, and all the out metro areas is what drives our national economy and innovation yet to win elections politicians must spend a bulk of their time in Lincoln Nebraska and Madison Wisconsin. Winning votes in Des Moines is simply more important than winning them in Silicon Valley. Ironically all these unproductive parts of the country have their own names: Bible Belt, Rust Belt, Bread Basket, Heartland. Imagine what this country would look like if national politicians felt even half as compelled to pander to San Jose CA's population of over a million strongly as they do Des Moines IA's couple hundred thousand.

Yes, we humans are too impressed with ourselves. That we are uniquely special. So special that it is impossible for us to exist in the natural world. Perhaps that is an atifact of sel awareness? Perhaps an overly developed sense of self is vital and creates a center of the universe syndrome.

Many Republicans in past decades absolutely believed the Governement had a role to play in the social and infrastructure of the country. Eisenhower built our Highway system and sent in the military when when the Governor attampted to refuse Brown vs the Board of Education. Nixon signed Medicare into law. What has happened to the Republican party is very sad.Towards the end of the Civil Rights era they began pandering to those in the South who felt their way of life was under attack to win an easy block of voters. Local groups would present extremist positions which were specific to their reigon and Republicans would placate them with talk of States Rights and Religious Freedom. It worked better than they could have imagined because that group were lock step and only cared about superflouos (nationally) issues. As time went on the efforts became increasingly cordinated as Conservatives began taking over talk radio and white evangelical churches became political action committees. More and more extremists joined the party and eventually the scales tipped. The Republicans who understood that the rhetoric about it not being the Gov't job the govern was a ruse used to secure southern votes became out numbered. With all the propoganda used to secure southern votes they had forgot to educate enough of themselves that it was just an act. Rural whites everywhere and not just the south began identifying with the rhetoric of a healthy federal govt being the root of all evil. Nixon, Reagn, and the Bush familiy all used racial and identity politics with a wink thinking that the majority of their party was winking back but that isn't the case. By today's standard all Republican Presidents who have come before the Tea Party are basically Democrats. Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, Bush 41 raised taxes, and Bush 43 campaigned for guess work programs. They are still claim to love Reagan because he represented the extreme right in his day but the reality is that by today's standard Reagan was a moderate. More moderate than any Republican I can think of today. The pendulum has swung too far. It is all backwards. Alternative facts are a drug conservatives think they are selling to get all us progressives and normal people hooked but the reality is they are getting high on their own supply.They are strung out junkies. Their propaganda is killing them. Sadly they seem prepared to take everyone down with them.

You said "no one here". That addresses a body of people. Your statement lumbs me and everyone else in here together. So I responded with "us" rather than typing out "me and all the others in here you say can't prove you wrong". You are right, I don't want explanations rooted in your feelings. I would like facts and examples of methods which can be used to prove your claims.

Because you're challanging us to prove a negative. No one here can "prove" there is not a Lochness Monster.

Indeed. Immidiately following the election I saw many people who had voted Trump say that he wasn't really going to build a wall, wasn't really going to ban muslims, repeal the ACA, and etc. Those same people argued that Trump was just keeping his promises when he began try to do all the nonsense he campaigned on. The bar for Trump is laying on the ground. His supporters don't really care what he does. As such so many of his early mistakes have been unforced errors. All the talk of Syria denying the use of chemical weapons and false flag attack is troubling. In a very short time everything has become suspect. During Obama's time in office conspiracies were small nuanced things. Obama was accused of not really loving the country, secretly being Muslim, and etc. Hillary Clinton was accused of breaking Dept policy by using a blackberry to read emails.. Hillary Clinton acepted responsibility for her mistakes acknowledging media and official reports. Obama address direct questions at length and love him or hate him people overall trusted what was going on. Today that is all upside down. We can't trust the media, can't trust the President, can't trust Congress, can't trust the FBI, can't trust anything. Not a day, not one damn day, has gone by since election day were I haven't seen a headline or 5 in the news and immediately began wondering if it was true or not. Everytime a politician step to a mic it is a given that whatever they are saying is either a complete lie or at least a contextual exaggeration. In a matter of months we have become a nation of utter doubt. Liberals doubt the result of the election, doubt Trump's intentions, doubt the competence of Republicans, and see media as headline chasers obsessed with numbers. Conservatives doubt our intelligence agencies, doubt congress, are suspicious of immigrants, worry about Trump's competence, and believe the media is a liberal sanctuary. It is a highly combustible situation.

@Dave Moore, if you successfully project your own reality why are wasting time trying to explain it?

We also gave Russia advance notice of the strikes to minimize any potential risk to their personnel. I understand Assad demies it but alternative would be to do nothing which itself would have been problematic amongst our allies. The airstrike happened. What comes next is where my head is. We should not send in ground forces. We should work with our allies to formily charge Assad with war crimes.

Assad shouldn't have chemical weapons. It is something that the U.S., UN, and Russia all agreed with back in 2013. Sp provided the airstrikes are targeting Assad's chemical weapon arsenal that are the right thing to do. Even if it was a "false flag" attack. Assad isn't suppose to have chemical weapons. I don't believe it was a false flag attack. I believe Assad felt embolden by the fact the White House seemed to be implying a shift in policy. Sec of State Rex Tillerson had indicated that he expected Assad to remain in power at the conclusion of the civil war and we (U.S.) had stepped up our campaign against ISIS in Syria in recent weeks which was benefiting Assad. I agree about Turkey. It is a real concern. That is why the U.S. cannot afford a go it alone approach here. Assad denied it but he also isn't suppose to have Chemical weapons per international argeements. So provided all we are targeting are the Chemical Weapons we are acting within standing policy.

Assad agreed to give up his weapons and Russia agreed to ensure it happened. Policy was put in place in 2013. Any attempt to Syria or Russia to interpret this as a new act of aggression which isn't in keeping with standing commitments would be inaccurate.

September 2013: "United States and Russia through our talks in Geneva, which represents an important, concrete step toward the goal of moving Syria's chemical weapons under international control so that they may ultimately be destroyed. This framework provides the opportunity for the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons in a transparent, expeditious, and verifiable manner, which could end the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people but to the region and the world. The international community expects the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/14/statement-president-us-russian-agreement-framework-elimination-syrian-ch Russia is well aware of U.S. policy. The notion that by acting against Assad's use of chemical weapons we are somehow acting against Russia is a false one.

What Assad did is a war crime. We (U.S.) have an obligation to our allies around the world to hold to our various commitments to rebuke such acts. Bombing Assad's arsenal was the correct call in my opinion and is in keeping with standing U.S. policy. As iNow pointed out what happens next is the big question. I would like to see continued bombing directed at eliminating WMDs. Additionally I would like to see the U.S. work through the U.N. security counsel with our allies (Germany, England, Australia, etc) on a plan for charging Assad with war crimes. I do not want to see U.S. go into Syria on the ground. Other issues to consider here is the stability of Turkey and the ongoing refugee crisis. If U.S. forces push into Syria in an attempt to both crush ISIS and Assad at the same type fighters and refugees will press into Turkey which how the portential to destablize Turkey which is already stressed. Also I believe Putin is more intelligent that the current White House. That makes everything the U.S. considers doing alone dangerous. We need our allies. We cannot make independent choices here.

@Kiplngram, being aware is essential to living. Life must be aware of its own needs in order to live. Life must be aware of its need to consume, breath, move away from danger, and etc. Computers need electricity to functions yet my computer never turns its own power button on because it is not aware, it isn't alive. I think you are adding a level of meaning to being aware which isn't real. Being aware does serve a purpose and does add an evolutionary advantage. The more aware of things life is the more it can take care of itself.

Show and not tell is the way one proves an experiment. If you recorded a dream that contained an accurate prediction it would be tough for all us "entrenchment" types to dismiss it. There definitely a place for mental experiments and reasoning things out within ones own mind however you are stating as a matter of fact that this is real and happening to you. You aren't merely taking a philosophical approach. If this happens to you ihan it should be provable. I have recorded many of my dreams. I have done so for years. I have experienced what you are describing. I am not merely dismissing dreams as meaningless nonsense. I even started a thread about dreams. Because I record many of my dreams I am able to look back at what they were and what I have found over and over again is that the dreams which I feel predicted something or show me something about the furture didn't. I have found over and over that the feelings and thoughts I was attributing to specific dreams weren't in line with what I recorded. Memories are imperfect. My wife and I were in Irvine California driving to meet some friends for lunch back in 2009 when a can changed lanes and bumped us. No one was hurt. Just a little paint was exchanged. The driver of the car was very apologetic. Years later, perhaps 2011, I mentioned the incident to my wife. In mentioning it I said the car was tan. My wife said the car had been black. I argued that the car was 100% tan. I could clearly recall it. I could recall the street we were on, the driver of the car, the color, and etc. I had no doubt, NONE, the car was tan. So my wife pulled out her phone and scrolled through her pictures and guess what, the car was black. Why I so clearly remember tan I have no idea but the car was black and my memory was wrong. Not was wrong, is wrong, to this day when I remember the incident I still see a tan car.

So.....the burden of recording your dreams is too great?

Go to the dreams thread I started (linked in post #49)or start one of your own and record your dreams. Then if and when one of them comes true is a demonstrable way as recorded you'll have the beginnings of the type of evidence many of us say you are lacking. If it isn't worth your time to prove it certianly isn't worth my time to just take your word for it.

Airplane's going down, Cruise ships sinking, Nuclear reactors malfunctions, Train crashes, space shuttle explosions, and etc are all popular imagery on TV and film. 6 months before 9/11 the show X-Files had an episode about the world trade center being struck by a commercial jet. Seems like too great a coincidence but considering how many shows and movies depict catastrophic events it really isn't. Just like dreaming of a catastrophic event isn't uncommon.

Ideally down votes should push one to take a second look at what they posted. I have had down votes and gone back and looked and realized my errors. I have also had some I felt weren't deserved but honestly more times than not those got corrected by other posters. Either way lashing out isn't the correct response. Learning what specific it was about the post which bothered someone can be useful whether one actually changes their opinion or not.

I have a friend who is constantly claiming to have predicted things. He sends me texts all week claiming this or that will happen then later follows up with boast that he told so, "I called it". Typically he lines up on both sides of an issue saying something will happen but then pointing out why it might not. He also refuses to be specific. He claims things will happen be if you ask when specific he refuses to answer. I even give him windows like one week, one month, one year and he just tells me to wait and see. As the person receiving his prediction I have yet to see one thing he has gotten right. He has himself convinced however and gets offended when I point out that he actually predicted nothing. By saying something will happen but probably won't happen and then refusing to provided a timeframe he is positions to take credit for whatever happens. Sadly he is convinced. It doesn't seem aware of the self deception. Similarly we wife employees the popular self deception that she knew the right answer to a question once she hears it. Upon hearing the right answer to any question she gets wrong my wife say "that is what I was going to say". She does this so often I no longer will provide her answers to questions she asks me after only one guess. I always make her exhaust her guesses before answering a question. If I am asked to pick a number between 1-10 every number between 1-10 will cross my mind. Once 7 is revealed as the answer it is easy for me to generate a false memory of having favored 7 when in fact 7 merely crossed my mind just as every other number did. It is easy to trick oneself. Even when recording a seemingly accurate prediction people often tend to ignore the odds of their prediction. I see this in sports all the time. People will say "I knew it" after a specific team wins. In reality though simply picking the winner of a sports game between 2 rivals isn't miraculous which is why gambling houses always have a line. If you want to win money you need to predict who will win and cover the spread. Predictions need to be specific. If I wake up every morning and write down key words from then I saw in a dream that list of words by the end of the week could look like anything. Maybe Monday's dream I saw a Japanese styled ship so I write down "Japan". Then on Thursdays I dream about flying through my neighbor so I write down "flying". Then over the weekend there is a Japanese airline crash. It would be real easy to convince myself I predicted it. Which is why in science an experiment must be observable and repeatable. @Dave Moore, I too have very vivid dreams. I even created a thread here where wrote a few out in moderate detail. www.scienceforums.net/topic/83722-dreams/ Beyond the thread I created I record many of my dreams. There have been several times I have had the feeling of deja vu or precognition based on something I previously saw in a dream. However every time I go back and read what I actually wrote down it never matches. I find that with time my memory of the dream fails to be accurate. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83722-dreams/