DrmDoc

Really? Just how much is the Trump administration paying you to spew this alt-fact? I defer you to iNow's post for real facts.

Donald was referring to unreported terror attacks like the Bowling Green Massacre that occurred in Kellyanne Conway's mind, which the media and, possibly, Kellyanne didn't and doesn't have access to. On events entirely in Conway's and Trump's world of imagination, I think we can forgive the media for not reporting fake news--which is something the Donald really hates.

This "streams of consciousness" idea is primarily philosophical rather than scientific. Mind wandering references an insufficient measure of mental focus essential to the demands of some focal task. An inability to maintain mental focus could be caused by a variety of physical or environmental distractions, as well as, insufficiently stimulating or compelling attention focals or tasks.

This Wiki-link on the neuronal aspects of hearing is a good place to start your search for answers about what happens in the brain. This article describes the path of sound information from the ear to the primary auditory cortex where sound is initially received and processed. For a more detailed perspective, you should also consider a review of the auditory system. I hope this helps.

Because I don't require fairytales or allegories to compel my morality or to assuage my fears, anxieties, or uncertainties.

Although simple methods do exist, you're asking for reasons related to amusement rather than medical care. This is a horrible idea and no competent neuroscientist or physician would ever suggest a way to induce paralysis for non-medical reasons.

Let's... You're half correct, my comments included both Dodd-Frank and the DOL Fiduciary Rule. The proposed rules were an update of ERISA rules enacted in 1974 to reflect the changing investment landscape. The Department of Labor (DOL) Fiduciary Rule this administration has suspended is based on the simple principle that retirement advisors should "put the best interests of their clients above their own financial interests", so why is this an argument? If you have a broker or financial adviser, your response here suggests that you could care less whether the advice you receive financially benefits your advisors only or lines their pockets with extraordinary and unnecessary fees expensed from your accounts. If that is true, then you are not the prudent investor you profess to be. Which proves you actually have no idea what Dodd-Frank is and what it did for you. Dodd-Frank was a response to the 2007-2010 financial crisis wherein every retirement account was adversely affected by a substantial collapse of overextended derivative investments and lack of sufficient consumer protections in the market. Dobb-Frank made investment brokers tell you that your high-yield investment--the source of that "more today without Dodd-Frank" that you would have made--is a derivative based on junk bonds and mortgages. The DOL Fiduciary Rule would also have made your advisors tell you that they were being paid 20% or more off the top to sell you those high-yield, risky investments. Whether or not you engage in stable or risky investments, a collapse in the stock market always creates a domino effect that impacts every retirement account and most assets. Although you believe Dodd-Frank stalled growth, in reality it brought stability and less risk to your retirement investments.

And you're not a one percenter? Your prudent investments will certainly go the way as many other prudent investments did if Wall Street is freed to run unchecked as it did before Dodd-Frank--but you're immune, right? Your investments didn't lose a penny of value during this past recession and they don't need no stinking financial protection, right? Although the markets have rebound under Dodd-Frank, it's incredibly naïve to believe your investments don't need Dodd-Frank's continued protection--but, it is your money and, like you said, "Who cares?"

If you​ have a retirement account, make investments, use banks, or own property, then it is your financial protections that this administration is removing...now do you understand? These are protections put in place to avoid the kind of financial collapse and nation-wide depression unleashed on our nation under the last Republican administration--which is something you probably believe isn't necessary.

You clearly don't understand that the protections Donald is removing are for the ninety-nine percenters, which means you--although I assume you are a one percenter in sheep's clothing like Trump's primary supporters and his cabinet of advisers.

So...only rich people have retirement accounts, make investments, use banks, and own property? Are you still trolling? He tends to pop in and out of discussions with not much interest, it seems, other than his personal amusement.

Here we have more evidence of this administrations support for wolves guarding sheep. The Trump administration is about to remove regulations put in place by the Obama administration to protect clients and investors from predatory investment practices (Dodd-Frank). One rule particularly "hated by the financial industry", according to a Bloomberg report, "requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients." Removing this rule could result in advice lining the pockets of advisers rather than counsel sustaining and growing the retirement accounts of unaware and unknowledgeable clients. One may only assume that dismantling the financial protection of retirement accounts from Wall Street is why those who supported Trump voted him into office.

Let me stick my neck out and predict Trump will never be elected to a second term as he will be the most unpopular American president since George W.

I read this and similar papers on the sleep processes association with memory consolidation. I agree with none of them because their experimental outcomes are based on flawed assumptions. The flawed assumption is that the sleep process somehow consolidates and improves our cognitive function because we seem to think better, learn and remember more after normal sleep than when we don't get enough or the process is continually interrupted. In reality, sleep does improve our mental acuity because of metabolic factors unrelated to some assumed consolidation process. The research in the link you provided focuses on the slow-wave stages of sleep, which involve those stages of the sleep process that do not include brain activity suggestive of dreaming. Among their conclusions, this paper's researchers said that slow-wave sleep is likely the stage in which memory consolidation occurs but that memory enhancement is "selective inasmuch as it does not enhance every memory" which, in my opinion, is a significant indication of their flawed conclusions. In my opinion, there should be no such selectivity in memory enhancement if that is the evolved nature of slow-wave sleep. All memory types should experience either the same enhancement or degradation whether or not a sleeper experiences a complete slow-wave cycle. What the researchers may not have known or considered is that slow-wave, as the least active stages of normal brain function, primarily allows for more efficient removal of extracellular waste and toxins from the brain (see, Glymphatic system). In truth, our memory and mental acuity improves after sleep because our brain functions better with the removal of waste and toxins its metabolic processes generate.

What troubles me most is that their supporters may already know and accept the kind of men they are.

You're quite right; as I now recall, humanity's inhumanity has never failed to disappoint me.

It seems like what little protection and consideration humanity's most vulnerable receives are rapidly vanishing from our world.

Shameful and absolutely horrifying.

Given enough time, as evident by Trump's recent actions and protests around the world, you will come to realize that the Republicans screwed up as well.

Seriously, Ten oz, was there anything about "Seeing him all day everyday for over a year" that normalized your view of Trump or altered your opinion of him as president during the elections? Did your daily exposure to Trump's fallacies weaken your determination to vote as you did? If you weren't swayed to Trump by his pre-election press coverage or motivated to vote for him, why is it impossible to believe that others didn't experience the same and may do so again in future elections? As for voter's sentiment, Trump was less disliked in those states where Electoral College votes were pivotal. Although Hillary won the popular cumulative vote, she did not receive the popular votes in those pivotal individual states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, etc.) which was the distinction that led to Trump's election. As I said and continue to believe, media coverage didn't fuel Trump's success and likely will not in the future.

Although our brain is as active while dreaming as it is while conscious and awake, it remains an unconscious experience in that real external sensory stimuli does not reach are awareness as it does when we are fully conscious and awake. At no time is dreaming a conscious experience.

What's proven is how media coverage reflects voter sentiment. Trump's election wasn't presaged by his sizable number of headlines over Clinton's because the election was far closer than that percentage; however, Clinton's measure of unfavorable reports relative to Trump's do indeed seem to be more reflective of the voters sentiment levels that led to Trump's election. As I said and still believe, Trump did not win because the media gave his alt-facts continuous coverage or because the media covered him more than Hillary, he won because of more complex factors that include what his and Hillary's relative negative headlines suggest--simply stated, the electorate disliked him less than they disliked Clinton.

As I commented previously, what you're describing is called lucid dreaming, which is a state of being aware that one is dreaming while being within a dream. Lucid dreaming is also a type of unconsciousness or unconscious experience in that the dreamer is not consciously aware of what is happening outside the dream state in waking realty. When you are lucid dreaming, you are still unconscious of true conscious realty; therefore, consciousness within a dream is indeed an unconscious experience.

Therefore, the division here wasn't necessarily the attention she received but that she received more negative press than Donald. So what may have factored most in this past election's media coverage wasn't that a multitude of negative press on Trump propelled his election, it was a multitude of bad press for Hillary that contributed to her loss. This appears to support my position that a continual preponderance of bad headlines for Donald will ultimately result in unfavorable future voter turn-outs for his administration and political supporters.

Some might argue that Hillary received just as much media attention and bad press as Trump, particularly during the latter days of the election when the FBI chief clearly sought to influence the election in Donald's favor--yet, she didn't win. Bad press may be good for entertainers but in politics, it's just not that simple--IMO. NOTE: What sort of nonsense is this, "eliminate two regulations for every one regulation proposed"? Shouldn't government regulations be proposed or eliminated based on need rather than some seemingly arbitrary 1-for-2 metered trade? Absolutely moronic!