MM

They use conscious and unconscious as way to describe awareness. As the experiment shows you are not aware that you made a decision to act the time its initiated. But so you understand my system. The key to understanding is that you can have a causal event that depends on a possible future not as every one else thinks that there have to be in a chronological order.

The brain is complex, meaning that there are many systems in place to make it work. You are writing about a system for continuation of acts but Libet's experiment indicates what system you have for _initiation_ of acts and how its connected to your concious will. That is without a system that don't connect your acts by your conscious will you will not even be able to pick up that cup of coffee to begin with.

I'm sure a lot of you have read in popular science magazines about Libet's experiment ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet ) and the supposed implication regarding conscious will of acts. From the wiki. " Libet's experiments suggest unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, therefore, little room remains for the operations of free will. If the brain has already taken steps to initiate an action before we are aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated. " A simple solution to this problem of a acts being initiated in advance is that the brain does a prediction of where the concious will ( resulting will ) is going to land on the time the act is ready to execute. One way of predicting the resulting will is if it is derived from a lot of competing wills in the brain and there is a voting system. Then as in almost any election the winner can be predicted long before all the votes has been counted. With the predictor you don't only resolve the problem of initiation of acts you also have a concious control. If there is no prediction of the concious will the system would be very inefficient because of the veto anyway. Thoughts.

Most likely fear of something, a survival mechanism.

Hope you can clarify this for me for when you write that mass yield space I imagine that it requires information (stored in space?). So when I add all information in space from a mass of a gravitational field I want a finite value.

This what I here from your side all the time. What else could we do. For starters one have to understand that civilizations came about cause of trade and with trade comes mutual interests. It then doesn't matter whose fault it is and who started what. This overall strategy has to come before various tactics like destroying infrastructure or other collective punishments.

Meaning what exactly. If you compare the overwhelmingly support with that they have today, it still would amount to a solid base. The important thing is the recruiting and the counter productive actions taken by Israel. Ponder if Hezbollah ceased to exist or was nearly wiped out. The mind set and the situation of the Lebanese people are connected therefore the void that Israel would have created would be filled again. History tells us that this would create an even more radical group. To defeat the resistance you have to bargain, there is simply no other alternative. I didn't think you were serious when you implied that the civilians that died as the result of Israeli bombings of heavily populated city blocks were in fact terrorists or the chance that they were. I mean it's hard to disguise on self as a child or elderly. Therefore I would assume that you meant civilians that support Hezbollah are terrorists themselves. To this I strongly disagree.

I belive it's wishful thinking that Hezbollah has been weakened. Common sense would suggest that a unjust aggression be met with anger/radical thinking and thus more support for the Hezbollah.

Yet after reading that you don't realize that Israels actions are counter productive ?

I'm not sure if your trying to explain yourself or if you are defending the documentary. With the same logic, your are making a fallacy not debating the "facts". Those who decide the funding are still people. His explanation was childish because he thought the causes for religious behavior were solely based on the persons childhood. It was foolish because he has no studies (facts) that tests his guess. As there are people who see Jesus as someone to belive in. I predict that the same kind of behavior for non religious people who aren't too narcissistic. Thereby Dawkins is misusing his influence when he so bluntly and disrespectly talks about religion as if it was a disease.

Dawkins seem to want to speak for the whole scientific community regarding religion. With his documentary "The Root of All Evil?", well there he makes a complete fool of himself with his childish explanations of a such complicated system as the human mind. We like to see science as unbiased but for what I can see its just people with different agendas.

" Starting with a population of caged wild animals, he selected from each generation the puppies who were friendliest (or, initially, least hostile) to humans, breeding only from them." If he's going make the correlation between small brain size from domestication why breed only the friendliest, where is the control group. The control can't be the wild foxes since the one driving force for a brain is finding food.