DrmDoc

Indeed, the key is getting the wealthy to this understanding that paying taxes is, in parts, an investment in government's social efforts that support and promote a stable economy for their self-interests and welfare as well.

If I may, your link does indeed lead to a paper discussing how inner speech may facilitate our awareness of mind-wandering. However, it does not appear to support your original assertion that "Mind wandering is the independent introspection of the subconscious system by our sensory neurons." There was no mention of sensory neurons in the abstract and I'm always immediately suspicious of any assertion that references subconscious any sort of system relative to brain structure and function. As I have previously explained many times elsewhere in this forum, our brain does not have or produce subconscious systems because subconscious is not a state of mentation that brain function produces. As I explained, our brain produces just two measureable states of activity: Conscious and Unconscious. Unfortunately, many of us perceive and reference subconscious and unconscious as synonymous terms, which they are not. Unconscious references a state of brain function and activity while subconscious references an influence that either affect brain function or is produced by brain function. This distinction is analogous to person and package. In this analogy, as I previously commented, unconscious references the person while subconscious references the package that person may either receive or deliver.

It's government that provides and sustains an environment where an investor may succeed or fail. I don't think that government should be held liable for losses because those losses are reciprocated through government's role as the provider of general services to a stable and relatively secure business environment and nation. I agree with this basic investment view of such contribution but it's a hard sell to a class of individuals who generally view greed as good and who have little concern for interests beyond their own.

I can't say that I agree with not considering the government a partner. A true partner is indeed entitled to a share of the wealth a company generates. Considering the government as a true partner entitles it to a share of the profits without consideration of its personal expenses (size of government) or consideration of what it does with its share. As I see it, the problem with a view of government as being too big and wasteful is that those who hold that view perceive the government as a dependent rather than a partner. As a dependent, government services are perceived as valueless and contributes nothing to income and growth of profits, which simply isn't true. The government actually does provide services through infrastructure and law enforcement that promote a stable environment for building wealth. Appealing to the wealthy's sense of social responsibility would not be as productive because the wealthy perceives such obligations as just another dependent that doesn't contribute to income or wealth building. In cases of social obligation, the government is a more credible conduit for those services via funds provided through reasonable taxation on the wealthy.

Yes, a progressive increase that tops out at 50%. I don't think the government can be more than a 50% partner for it's contribution to the success of wealthy earners.

Although not a peer reviewed reference, I recall this comment in the Fossil Forum and, if I understand correctly, the respondent discusses finding "a variety of fossils such as Ammonites and other anomalies" in split Strombolite rock. I also referenced Spurrite as you have informed. From my understanding of this Spurrite reference, this rock is formed "as mafic magma intrudes into carbonate rock" that can comprise limestone containing remains of marine organisms, which suggests to me the potential for Strombolite rocks contain marine fossils. In addition, I found these images that appear to show marine fossils comprised of Strombolite. Whether this rock contains fossils is, perhaps, not very clear but, in my opinion, there seems to be some evidence of that potential..

I think a 50% tax rate would be fair at a reasonable margin that, admittedly, may be difficult to fairly determine.

I did some checking and I think you're right. All relevant citations I've reviewed referenced Strombolites as the rock in which Cambrian and Precambrian fossils were found.

Although I am not a wealthy man, I think there's something inherently unfair about having such a high tax rate on wealthy earners. At 91%, the government is suggesting that it's contribution to your financial success is worth 91%. The government is essentially saying that it is entitled to a majority share of your profits because the stable and secure environment it provides for your business to thrive makes it your controlling partner and, as such, should receive a 91% year-end bonus for the decisions, risks, and costs you shouldered alone. In consideration of the environment our government provides, I would consider no more than 50% to be a fair tax rate. I agree that the super wealthy should be made to pay more--but not to extremes exceeding an equal partnership.

I think what DrP is referencing here are Dasycladales fossils, ​which is a type of green algae. According to this Berkley reference, "Dasycladales has perhaps the best-known fossil record of any group of green algae." ​Dasycladales, as this reference provides, "secrete lime (calcium carbonate) which increases their chances for preservation and later discovery as fossils." ​As you have referenced, Strombolite is "produced by thermal metamorphism of carbonates." I've read that one fossil sample was dated at nearly 2 billion years old.

According to this National Geographic video, London scientists have discovered the oldest known "mircofossils". At about half the width of a human hair, scientists say these fossils are of organisms that fed on minerals expelled from sea flood hydrothermal vents about 3.8 to 4.3 billion years ago. Enjoy!

That's an inspiring notion but not one support by any real evidence or legitimate research, in my opinion. After four decades of study, I can confidently say that dreaming is indeed an altered state of consciousness produced by the metabolic processes our brain engages amid sleep. Our dreaming brain is equally as active as our waking brain. As I stated in my prior comments, our brain is the single largest consumer of our body's energy uptake and it arouses during sleep to increase the delivery of that energy (glycogen) via increased blood flow. If not for the energy needs of our brain in sleep, it would remain in a slow-wave state and we would not dream. The perceptual imagery we experience as dreams are byproducts of this metabolic process in the brain during sleep. During the arousal this process causes, our brain's subtle sensory perceptions within our sleep environment combine with its latent or lingering mental activity to produce perceptual scenarios we perceive as dream content and experience.

How does a president of the most powerful nation of the free world accuses his government of spying on him without ordering an investigation? I welcome Trump's continued belief in nonsense conspiracies and tweeting about it to the world. I think a little worldwide embarrassment for our nation is worth Trump's eventual ejection from a position for which he is clearly not qualified.

I thought this question was resolved nine months ago. We both read the same question but had and offered differing opinions. Although I'm no expert as you have professed to be, my interpretation, as I said, was indeed as valid as any previously offered given the limited description provided. As I also conveyed, we cannot know the intent of the hand-signer but what we do know is that the description of the gesture provided is very similar to a downward-facing handgun as I described, which is the holstered position as I also described--and according to the link I've provided, that gesture can be made with either one or two fingers, which includes the middle finger.

I think your experience suggests that facial recognition by name applications have more cultural significance than in heterogeneous societies where cultures mix and names become cross-cultural. In those cross-cultural society types, for example, I think we'd find little success in associating names such as John, Michael, or Alex with Asian citizens who have taken those names.

I read their paper and saw that the researchers, from France and Israel, did conduct a cross-cultural study that included a nearly equal number of both French (117) and Israeli (123) participants. Their limited cultural sampling and small number of participants do suggest to me that further validation of their results may be required.

Yes; the process is known and it begins with retinene, a light sensitive molecule in the rods and cones of the retina. Retinene changes configuration in the presence of light, which generates neural impulses that deliver ocular sensory stimuli into brain structure via the optic nerve. I hope this helps.

Ha!

According to this article's title, "Science Says We Look So Much Like Our Names, Strangers Could Guess Them". The article discusses the possibility of recognition by name based on a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The article also discusses the implications for computer applications. As to validity, I've was told that I don't look like a "DrmDoc". Enjoy!

Here's a glimpse of the mindset of one Republican lawmaker, a physician, working to repeal and replace insurance for many of our nation's poor and vulnerable citizens. According to this Washington Post article, Rep. Roger Marshall said: Rep. Marshall appears to be under the mistaken belief that an inability to afford healthcare by the poor is the same as their not wanting healthcare. In my opinion, Mr.Marshall has certainly lost all credibility as a competent physician--much like HUD Secretary Ben Carson, a once respected surgeon who now equates slaves with immigrants.

You've written quite a lot here and, unfortunately, I was not inclined to read its entirety. The comments I've read thus far suggests to me how little you may understanding neural anatomy and development. Generally, the human brain achieves its peak development around age 25; therefore, "skull growth" or cranial expansion is fixed at that age. Our brain organizes new data by creating new connections (synapses), which isn't the same as requiring additional cell growths or neuronal growths to accommodate new data. New data is maintained and retrieved via a series of new connections that have no upper limit. Think of these new neural connections as highways and our brain as Earth. Using this analogy, developing thousands of new synapses doesn't expand brain volume any more than thousands of new roads and highways across our planet expand Earth's volume. Although I'm not entirely sure what perspective you're trying to convey here, you'd probably convey it more cogently with empirical science on brain development.

I imagine that each new president ensconces his administration with various insiders loyal to his cause. Here is access to the names of more than 400 individuals this administration has appointed to positions in government that did not require Senate approval.

To understand why we dream, you'll have to start with why humans likely evolved as sleeping species because dreaming emerges amid sleep. Although dreaming happens when we sleep, dreaming isn't sleep. Our brain is as active while dreaming as it is when we are awake. There is evidence which suggests that sleep evolved as a means to conserve energy during periods of rest and between periods of feeding. in other words, sleep evolved as a means to manage our metabolism and dreaming emerges because of our brain's metabolic needs in sleep. Our brain is the largest consumer of our body's total energy uptake, which is about 20%. When we dream, our brain becomes active and that increases blood flow, which increases nutrients to the brain during sleep. The content of our dreams is how our brain synthesizes or interprets this metabolic activity in sleep. As far as why dreams can be difficult to remember, memory evolved congruent with experiences that had a real physical/material impact on the survival of ancestral animals. We don't remember our dreams easily because they are not real physical/material experiences and don't have the survival impact conforming to the evolved nature of memory. I hope this helps.

Perhaps my perspective of voter suppression effectiveness this past election is skewed by my perception of the turnout in Philadelphia. Philly's voting precincts were unchanged during this past election and voter ID requirements were also eased. Yet voter participation was down about 36% over previous elections. It's just implausible to me that voter suppression was a factor in Philly when those tactics were virtually non-existent here. Trump won Pennsylvania, which is a state wherein a single voting distinct--like Philadelphia--can sway state elections. Pennsylvania's Governor, as I commented previously, is a Democrat and Philly has a majority Democrat voting population by 2/3. To my knowledge, there was no sizeable outcry of voter suppression from anywhere in our nation that was reported this past election; therefore, a reasonable person may only conclude that some other factor is responsible for the less that stellar turnout of votes for Hillary. I voted for Hillary and I wanted her to win, I just think that a substantial number of other voters weren't as motivated as I. FYI: This recent New York Times article provides a rundown of all the protective regulations reversed by this administration thus far. Regrettably, there's very little we can do to halt this absurdity before our nation's mid-term elections.

Perhaps I didn't explain the distinctions between an imperfect information game (poker) versus a perfect information game (chess), but the video host's description convinces me that poker is a more difficult game for AI than chess. In chess, moves are based on parameters visible to all participants while in poker, decisions are made based on parameters not visible to all participants. Moves based on unknown parameters aren't as easy as those based on known parameters. Indeed, I would argue that learning for humans is exactly the same. Experience for humans is the accumulation of data and making decisions based on that experiences is the predictive output from our mental analysis of those accumulated experiences. Although learning is an indicative aspect of consciousness, I agree that a capacity to learn is not by itself indicative of consciousness as a whole. I agree that consciousness involves much more than a capacity to learn.