Peterkin

I'm aware of that argument, but don't find it entirely convincing. Why is it assumed that an unusual ability would spread among the population. I can think of several reason why it might remain relatively rare - association with detrimental genes, limited applicability, intermittent and uncontrollable, too weak for practical purposes - and maybe add social factors: conflict with prevailing supernatural belief, perception as a threat by others, nonconforming. One would think ambidexterity is so advantageous, all the world should have it by now, yet it's restricted to 1% of the population. Not quite the same: for feeling that a relative has died, we posit that an existing relative was alive. For sensing a ghost, we have to posit the existence of ghosts. But why suppose that they do? How does hearing voices in her head help a child reach reproductive age? How would feeling another person's pain help a boy with the desire to reproduce himself on the body of a girl he loves? Some anomalies make their bearers less successful at proliferating. The doesn't prove they don't exist and doesn't guarantee that they'll be bred out - not until the human population is drastically reduced, anyway. Whatever forms of as-yet-unknown extra functions a brain may perform, if the CIA is interested, it's potentially harmful; if not, it's probably unimportant.

So, the only answer to the title question is: Yes. Doesn't seem the cover the topic as represented by the other questions I attempted to answer. Not much room for discussion.

No. You are not. I know. Yes, they require more than a yardstick and a rigid set of inter-pluggable definitions.

It's always a good idea to observe and experiment - where possible and safe to do so. Sometimes spooky things are ordinary things. But it is by far better to discover it for yourself, rather than to be told. Often, adults give facile explanations (weather balloon explanations) too early, before their child is ready to lose faith in them. dependent children must believe in their parents without proof - because sometimes the proof (yes, gas does explode) is too late to be do any good, and sometimes it's misconstrued by uninformed minds. If an adult said: it's only branch tapping on your window and there is no tree outside your bedroom, you know the adult is lying. At ten, it's just part of the process of disillusionment and independence; at four, it could set up a cycle of nightmares and interrupted sleep. So, if a child complains of spooky goings-on, it's better to conduct a real investigation, rather than perfunctory glance around, and "It was just the house settling. Go to sleep." (He can't, now. The house can't trusted!) I've had noise in my ears for years, from chemotherapy. I refer to it as the crickets, but if I listen, especially late in the day, when I'm tired, it can be anything from five-alarm fire to the Vienna boys' choir. Sometimes I can direct a little, like lucid dreaming. But I can tell when a noise is not part of my internal orchestra. Not for want to trying! So far, the attempts have pretty much a foundered. It's possible the approach is wrong, as we have discovered with some physical phenomena. I don't see telekinesis as a contender - the energy requirement is prohibitive. Some form of ESP, why not? I find it hard to imagine an entire galaxy of this size containing one intelligent life form. Odds would seem me to favour none or many. If any of them are aware of us (I count it possible, unlikely) I don't think they have made any approach. The alien contacts people claim seem to me implausible, given the necessary qualifications. kind of like God: if he's like this, why would he do that? Unfortunately, in this case, the distances are prohibitive.

Biological replication of DNA is properly reproduction, yes. But I didn't restrict my comments to that function, since humans are not driven solely by biology. The need to raise only a biological child is not the standard in humans, many of whom are both more intelligent and more social than male lions (lionesses are far more affectionate and tolerant). It's not uncommon for humans to take responsibility and feel love for offspring other than their own, unrelated by blood or even ethnicity. Indeed, it's not all that uncommon for females of several other species to adopt orphaned young, of their own or another species. Less common for males to be nurturing, but socialized domestic animals sometimes are, and not only toward their own genetic offspring.

I'm often surprised at how much one can learn about oneself from belligerent, semi-coherent zealots.

Need, no. Urge, yes. But it is by no means universal, nor its intensity evenly distributed. Some people are desperate for a child or children of their own (which is biological offspring, and for many women, this includes the whole gestation and birthing process; for many men, the absolute assurance that they alone could have contributed the sperm) Personally - and this is a subjective opinion - I think this is more a psychological drive than a biological one. Some people are nurturing by temperament and thrive on parenthood, but don't mind whose DNA went into the product. Some people [like me] are allergic to infants but quite like children. Some want children and discover too late that they hate parenthood; some don't want children, but when presented with one, find themselves falling in love. Society is always a factor in influencing our assumptions and attitudes. Our society conditions our responses, shapes our desires, values and expectations. It also imposes rules and placements: allows and provides a defined range of options; individual choice is limited to those. Internal influences would include many factors from physiology and hormones, through instincts, sentiments and pragmatism to tax calculations. All of those play a part. I think you may have placed the question in too large a frame. If you narrowed the terms of inquiry, you might get more meaningful answers.

I hope you don't get nose-bleeds.

Nope. Yup. I know.

Those are your problems, not God's. Yeah, as to that - I'm not opening it. Get Mikey. The gods various people believe in all have different attitudes and desires. None of them, or their gods, care what you believe. Ultimately, the universe is just one more member of the audience that doesn't care what you believe.

Why? I never claimed that any society had no members who did bad things, and things that their society considered wrong, of who did not adjust well to some aspect or demand of their society. But if their own society does not consider that a single forbidden act turns a person into something other than himself, I respect that. I am not 'playing' with words. I take their precision, meaning and significance very seriously. You say so. Not everyone agrees. Why they disagree is psychological, sociological, anthropological and philosophical.

Solved what?

That's more or less my take. Something happens, but we don't know what caused it or how to interpret it. Some people claim to know all about the supernatural, the paranormal, the unexplained - but they're unconvincing, their motives suspect. Others claim absolute certainty regarding the scientific psychological causes. I have a problem with that, because I'm quite sure there is still a great deal that nobody knows about how brains and minds work; so, to me this certainty is as suspect as the other: though it may not have sinister motives, scientific presumption has had some pretty bad outcomes. So, mostly, people just don't talk about it. I suppose that's okay; nothing much will be changed by these isolated subjective experiences. How well the people who experience them fare depends - or seems to depend - on how much confidence they have in their own judgment.

Citation? Each nation had its own laws and justice. Some lenient, some harsh, and different means of enforcement - all according to their particular set of values. It was different from the European values and the European methods. Mostly, it worked, sometimes it didn't. The point however, is not that they had no infractions, wrongdoing, or retribution (all of which they had, and were prepared to deal with), but that they had no "criminals". And, yes, that is - unavoidably - a philosophical concept which determines the attitude of a society to its members, its values and the [philosophical] concept of "justice". Overview; not specific to the Lakota or John Fire Lame Deer's comments. http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter2.html

Hey, that's right!

Just started The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow. My Kindle can't hold a charge anymore, so I'm restricted to bedtime reading when it can stay plugged in. (Not in a hurry to replace, since i prefer paper books anyway.)

Not precisely accurate. You challenged the validity of John Fire Lame Deer's statement that the natives of North America had no criminals or law enforcement, and your argument against it was that they had wars, thus equating aggression with criminality. I challenged that assertion, citing the legality of war and illegality of refusal of military service in all modern westernized societies. You then cited a pacifist-draftee-turned-killer-hero as a testament to the law of the land. Now you repudiate that by claiming to have taken a couple of walks against involvement in one particular war, then re-embrace it by respecting the people who did not stand against that war. Yet the legality of all wars and even conscription goes unquestioned, while at the same time you want me to do something practical - presumably more practical than marching, which didn't work - against any laws I consider unjust. And yet, the Lakota did manage without a prison system or criminal justice system, and I think it was, as the man said, because they did not set as much store by property and the accumulation of things as the Europeans did. They had wars; the Europeans had more and bigger wars, and the Europeans also had public trials and executions, prisons, indentured servitude, transportation of criminals to distant colonies - and the Indians didn't. Now, I have a little rhetoric.

I put none in. They all came out.

In this instance, only those who are too young to remember what-all went down in 60's and 70's have the excuse of not knowing what sounds bigoted. And all the innocent Europeans, of course, who are so eager to defend Canadian ignorance from American arrogance - whether we need defending or not.

unless it's good an heroic So the only thing that's good and right is The Law

How, and in what context is the question posed? Maybe you're not supposed to get the answer from a book, but are expected to just think about it and come up with your own answer. What factors would you consider? What measurements would you take? What calculations would you make?

You do not know the sport. It's not a question of over or under; it's simply lack of basic knowledge. You do not have a foundation for your skepticism.

Is that what you've been on about? 1963 was the last year anyone in either country had an excuse to say "I didn't know any better." After MLK, Lenny Bruce and Selma, nobody in north America could possibly think it's fine to relegate people to 'colored' status.

There is a lot of $$$ tied up in professional sport. It tends to influence how sporting competitions are conducted. If one is running a business for profit, one must, at all times, be mindful of the consumer. Fair play is pretty low on the list of sports consumer demand.

They are our own! Slightly different forms, same mix of population, same prejudices, plenty of overflow. No excuse at all to be unaware of gaffes in labelling. I don't know how you got hold of that idea, but it's incorrect. The same people, and similar groups of people, and for similar reason, are sensitive to certain language. We all know that in the same way that Americans all know it, but some of us just don't care. Some of us, like some Americans, consider their own right to be disdainful and rude is worth the damage than they do. In most cases, they are allowed to do so. Sometimes, somebody tells them it's wrong - no repercussions, no loss of privilege, just a mild reprimand... and somebody else gets all mimosa'd up in their behalf. Yeah. We and the Brits helped with some of that. A lot of that. You're barking up the wrong telephone pole. It's not about Americans or favours. It's about awareness that people - real ones, living among us right now, hate being called certain names, or regarded in certain ways, and that using those words is crass, insensitive and rude. I would be happy to address any of her concerns, but not through an intermediary. (How did gender suddenly come into it? Have you appointed yourself advocate for yet another underrepresented group?) Stop acting like it!