DrmDoc

Today I learned why we are attracted to people who look like us. It seems the attraction could be genetically based because people who share similar genetic traits tend to have more stabile relationships.

The human brain and its equivalency in nature are the only means by which we may scientifically determine or define the nature of consciousness. In the most basic terms, consciousness is merely evidence of awareness; however, human equivalent consciousness is much more complex. Human equivalent consciousness emerges from the equivalent of a confluence of electrochemical exchanges--within and between specialized groups of neuron equivalent structures--that arise in response to stimuli as suggested by measureable or observable responses or behaviors. Animals possess a measure of consciousness and we are fully capable of creating artificially intelligent systems capable of mimicking human consciousness. Therefore, consciousness isn't quiet an exclusive or elusive quality as some of us may believe. If your OP regards the quality of consciousness that defines the separate sentient nature of humanity, there's really nothing unique about that nature because we can so readily observe aspects of it in other animals and reproduce it artificially. In human context, consciousness emerges from the functional matrix we call mind. Mind, as I've observed from study of brain function, is the environment of cognitive activity within the brain that arises from brain function. I've also observed that a mind can be quantified as evident by a brain's capacity to integrate separate and distinct sensory information through a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct. Essentially, a mind is evinces by proactive rather than reactive behaviors and enables an organism's ability to override its instinctive or preprogramed responses to stimuli.

Ha!

The comparison was only in the sense of it being an example of this administration's attempt to execute an illegal directive, which this administration has done, rather than it being the equivalent of a nuclear order. I don't think this administration particularly cares what is and isn't legal given its efforts to undermine the investigation of it's staff potentially illegal collusion with foreign interference in our electoral process. The subsequent illegality of the original order surely suggests this administration doesn't clearly understand the definition of "legal" either. However, admittedly, the limited ban may meet the standard of legality set by our courts.

My compliments to this administration for shooting itself in the foot yet again with the hiring, then firing of a White House official even less qualified than Trump to hold a position in our government. Trump's incompetency as chief executive of our nation is embarrassingly overwhelming.

You're quite right; however, genocide in war wasn't a crime either until the Genocide Convention of 1951, which enactment after the war didn't prevent the perpetrators of genocide during the war from being charged, tried, and found guilt of that crime. I think if Japan had been the victor, Truman and his generals would most certainly have been tried as war criminals.

I take your point, Japanese civilians had been the target of our bombings well before America needlessly launched its nuclear attacks. That war was nasty business on both sides with Germany's attempt at genocide, Japan's death marches, and America's ignoble distinction as the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another nation and its civilian population.

The Telegraph reports: Facebook A.I. researchers had to shut down a pair of artificial intelligence programs after they developed their own "incomprehensible" language. No doubt they were plotting in secret the demise or subjugation of the hairless chimps that created them. This story is both humorous and disturbing. Enjoy!

What's legal or illegal is, of course, determined by the victor in war and the established laws of a governing body. However, what is legal isn't necessarily humane, moral, or decent and, perhaps, that is the distinction between my perspective and some of those expressed here. Indeed, it's all subjective and better discussed as philosophy.

If not in violation of our administrator's note, many thanks for your insight.

I agree and said as much in this discussion with the following:

Indeed, the Vietnam conflict revealed multiple atrocities suffer by the innocent but none as vast and devastating as those suffered by Japanese citizens when our government dropped two atomic bombs on their country.

I see; however, I can't imagine any soldier would consider an order to end an innocent's life legal. Nevertheless, our military has indeed engaged behavior, under orders, that would be considered a crime against humanity if we had not won the conflict; i.e., Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in my opinion.

Your assumption that all orders are legal surely doesn't hold for orders to commit crimes deem to be against humanity? For example, Hitler ordered the extermination of people of Jewish decent. Do you believe his soldiers were following legal orders?

You don't rely believe that, do you? If a deranged commander ordered a soldier to kill his family without military provocation, would you think the order legal? I know it's hypothetical, yet here we are.

You're quite right; however, the video's host afterwards correctly describes hydrogen peroxides chemical composition. Also, the host does indeed reference more recent clinical findings by the German Cancer Research Center in 2014 on the nature of H2O2 in the body rather than rely on 30 year old references or those supported by a 2003 reference as in the Wikipedia reference you've provided. Although he did not cite a reference, the host does say (4 min. 20 sec. in) that topical hydrogen peroxide has been implicated in "several fatal and near fatal incidents." I'll see if I can find a reference for those incidents.

I thought about what I found so disturbing about the admiral's response and it seems to be the lack of some qualifier in his answer. True, he shouldn't answer this sort of hypothetical question in open forum about the use of our most powerful weapons against a nation with which we are not in military conflict. However, Adm. Swift's unqualified "yes" to the launching of nukes on order from the president suggests to me that he would do so whether the order was provoked or unprovoked, legal or illegal. As some have argued here, our soldiers are only bound by commands that have a legal basis and, for me, that is a basis rooted in universally acceptable provocations of war. Without qualifying his answer, the admiral essentially said that crimes against humanity be damn and he would follow an illegal, unprovoked directive it so ordered. It's tantamount to being a baby killer--as some Vietnam veterans have been accused of being--if so ordered. If the admiral had to answer that idiotic question, he certainly should have qualified that answer with a yes to and a legal order from the president. This president has already demonstrated his penchant for issuing illegal orders (i.e., his immigration ban), which doesn't inspire much confidence in me in his competency as commander and chief of our military.

Today I learned why hydrogen peroxided should not be used to clean wounds. Its interaction with catalase at the wound site causes oxidation that can slow the healing process by damaging cell and entering the bloodstream.

I just think it's bad form for our military leaders to be discussing hypothetical nuclear war with a non-combative nation in our present unstable political environment.

Yes, he's acknowledging policy but was it necessary and is it conducive to our nation's international relationships and reputation?

I agree, the problem is Trump. I also think that Swift's poorly considered comments have made him a problem as well. His acknowledged willingness in a public forum to execute a nuclear attack goes to his judgment as a commander. He should have just kept his mouth shut! I agree, he has to follow the orders of his commander and chief but he should never discuss those orders in an public forum where they might be construed as a threat or policy. Swift's comments are potentially incendiary and a unwarranted.

I've been somewhat reserve in voicing my opinion on aspects of this administration of late; however, after reading comments made by Admiral Scott Swift I feel I must comment here. In his answer to a hypothetical question posed to him at a security conference in Australia, Adm. Swift, commander of our Pacific fleet, said he would launch a nuclear attack against China next week if Trump ordered it. Indeed, I understand the chain of command and how important it may be for foreign nations to know the strong allegiance of our military to the presidency of our nation, but this response is incredibly idiotic and out of line for one of our military leaders to make in a public forum. His response doesn't make our nation any more secure and our citizenry any less fearful given the impulsive, incendiary, and moronic tendencies of our current president. Given the totally unqualified man we've elected as president, this kind of saber rattling doesn't make the world or our allies secure either, in my opinion. Adm. Swift's response should have been that he does not engage in public responses to hypothetical questions where the defense of our nation is a concern, period! It's all just so frustrating given the sort of things being said and done under this administration. Trump has brought instability to our nation, IMO, and our next elections certainly can't come soon enough.

Sounds like the feeling one gets from a rush of adrenalin although not so much of an affect on one's gut but more a feeling of vessel constriction or dilation. Perhaps what you're experiencing is much like what occurs during a meditative state with a focus on your adrenal responses without the element of fear and the mental dread fear causes. I hope this helps.

Yes, I think it's all in the tradition of humans training animals for jobs we can't or won't do ourselves. For example, there was a breed of dog, now extinct, that humans bred and trained to operate a hearth rotisserie attached to a treadmill. The breed was treated most inhumanely which, if I recall correctly, may have led to the emergence of the very first animal rights group. Also, today I learned why we have earwax and why its removal, when necessary, should be performed properly.

Today I learned how the CIA tried to train cats to be spies. It was a hilariously absurd idea.