DrmDoc

Still waiting for an answer...

If I now understand correctly, your idea is that thought evolved as a type of internal reflection or feedback of sensory perception or detection. I think you should probably be asking yourself what evolutional pressures might have compelled this development. The anatomy of our CNS reveals functional developments contiguously increasing in complexity starting with the spinal brain (myelencephalon). At this level of our brain's evolution, we find rudimentary afferent neural systems that suggest the intake of nutrients as a compelling factor in the early organization of brain structure. In subsequent contiguous CNS developments (metencephalon), we find more sophisticated afferent neural systems associated with sound detection. This is significant because it's the first real indication of mobility among early ancestral animals where they were likely orienting themselves either away from or towards sensory stimuli. The next significant stage of afferent neural development came with the detection of visual stimuli at the diencephalon level of brain evolution contiguously beyond the MET and MYEL. The introduction of visual stimuli compelled developments in brain structure that likely led to the capacity for thought responses. There's a lot more detail involved, but you probably can sense where this is heading. If you have further interest, the philosophy forum is probably not the right place for this discussion. I hope this helps.

Regarding Mrs. Clinton, does her penchant for lying disqualify her candidacy? If so, why? Wouldn't we be a nation without government if that metric, lying, was a disqualifying factor in all elections?

Although each of the issues you've raised is itself a separate discussion, your overall candid admission here is refreshing. Unlike you and certain others, it's difficult for me to take a position that appears as firm as yours without being informed from all sides of an issue. I want to be fair and balanced in my views as I hope others might be in their perspective of mine. We can be an uncivil people whose uninformed opinions are frequent excuses for unconscionable behavior, cruel and unfair treatment of other people. On the issue of so-called radical Islam, I don't perceive any different from it and that of Christian fanaticism or other ridiculously fanatic religious ideology. I agree that the Black Lives Matter movement should be inclusive of the community crime and violence that also ruin black lives; however, that does not address the movement's origin which sprang from a continued culture of social injustice and, seemingly, official oppression of people of color. Regarding the issue of a PC culture, I don't see how respect we demand for ourselves is a denial of our free speech when others demand equal respect. I just don't see how civility others demand is abridging our personal freedoms.

Although I did not rate your comments here and made no judgement as to whether you're right or wrong, I did ask whether you were informed. Do you think you are sufficiently informed about Islam, Black Lives Matter, and the other socially significant causes you assessed in Hillary's thread?

If you're merely repeating positions with which you agree without consideration of both sides of the issue, do you consider your assessment informed? I ask because an uninformed assessment, in my view, is without the support or basis of fair and balanced reasoning. Perhaps this is a subject for later or separate consideration or political discussion.

You're quite right, it was an expression of disbelief and surprise at your ultimate assessment of the examples you gave. Is this your own assessment through personal review or are you merely parroting right-wing ideology so prevalent in our society?

I didn't rate your comment here and I'm not passing judgement; however, weren't Hillary's speaking fees, which Republicans rail so much about, on par with Former President Clinton? That suggests to me that they are at least publicly of equal halves. Wow! Just wow!

As a member of the President's cabinet, I would know that sort of thing was inappropriate as there's no legal substitute for the President other than the Vice President. However, in a similar frame, didn't Nancy sub and sit-in with her husband Ronny as he suffered through the early stages of Alzheimer? By the way, How did that support turn-out for Pres. Reagan?

Bill was her husband before he was President and there's no indication to me that she bows in Bill's presence because of his former title. I think maybe Mr. Clinton being a past President is more significant to us than to her--to her, Bill maybe just another man with government experience she can exploit like previous Presidents have done. As I understand, even Obama was advised by former Presidents, Bush included, after his election to office.

Clearly, you have a set of standards for Mrs. Clinton presidency that do not apply to any other male president preceding her. Every POTUS preceding Mrs. Clinton's potential presidency had advisors both in government and private, male, female, and wives. I don't see an issue here nor should anyone else.

It's certainly a good idea with meaningful advantages worthy of further discussion.

You do know that every President since the beginning of our nation democracy relied on the advice and support of advisers? Does that suggest to you that they were weak whenever they sought the counsel of those advisers? Isn't that why POTUS has a cabinet of advisers approved by Congress?

That's a noble idea but there's a couple of issues you should consider. First, foreign aid is primarily earmarked for specific programs, services, and supplies those foreign countries desperately need. Shifting those aid funds to American manufacturing jobs or other charitable services in America will leave other, perhaps, more needed foreign programs and services without support. Sure, there's waste and fraud but the funds are given with the presumption of need. Secondly, government funding is neither an endless nor reliable source of funds a company requires to sustain viability. Manufacturing solely dependent on government funds must turn a profit for further investment to either sustain or grow a company beyond its reliance on increasingly limited government resources. For example, military equipment suppliers, the largest recipient of government funding, also sell to other nations and produce other, non-military supplies for profit. Although America is a wealthy nation, it's wealth comes from the American people who are not always as giving or capable of giving to noble causes as some might hope. When we give, that gift should be towards some measure of self-sufficiency or profit, were possible, to sustain our system of giving.

So...you're a republican with slightly liberal views? That type of hyperbole is usually espoused by republicans when calls of fair and reasonable gun control laws are raised. Could you be more specific about which attacks on free speech, what specific culture of victimhood, and what particular PC excrement you're referencing? Tyranny and less freedom are usually not qualities that one, other than republicans, immediately associate with left leaning issues.

The lack of similar reactions from the men in that war room is not evidence that they felt any different from Mrs. Clinton or that men are somehow more emotionally equipped to handle the pressures and stresses of higher office and war. Tell that to the female officers on the frontlines and the men returning from war who are suffering PTSD, if you believe otherwise. In Mrs. Clinton's case, she has seemingly been under continual political attack and legal investigation since her husband, Bill, was elected to office. Despite those attacks and challenges, Mrs. Clinton has not resigned from seeking public office or retreated from public inspection. Even in the picture link you supplied, she sat with the men and did not appear to avert her eyes from witnessing the heroic acts of our soldiers--as she is quoted as saying, she considered it a privilege. This was not the reaction or the words of the fearful female you construe her to be. You're reading more into her gestures during that event than the men in that same room. How about the general seated beside the President in your picture, who seemingly couldn't bear to watch the action--with bowed head--unlike Mrs. Clinton? If we're judging by appearances, she certainly seemed more stoic than him.

If what she's quoted as saying is true, then that is what I think, which was her usual reaction to action related viewing. From your comments above, I now understand the position you're trying to convey in that her female sensibilities render Mrs. Clinton unprepared for certain harsh realities. If so, I couldn't disagree more with such beliefs.

To be clear, I acknowledged what she was quoted as saying. What isn't clear to me is the significance of whether or not she was covering a gasp.

According to your link, Mrs. Clinton said "that's how I usually look when my husband drags me to an action movie" and she also said it was "an extraordinary experience and a great privilege to be part of." Although I'm not sure what position you're addressing here, I appreciate your submission of an article about Mrs. Clinton that isn't primarily partisan opinion.

Brain evolution may seem a complex issue when you don't know were to start. Even neuroscience, in my opinion, can get it wrong; however, I would suggest you start with a clear idea of evolution and how it may present in brain structure. If our brain evolved from simpler structures and functions, we should find some evidence of those simpler aspects and attributes in contemporary brain structure, which is precisely what we find when we examine the functional hierarchy of our central nervous system (CNS) from spinalcord to cortex. You should also understand the significance of afferent versus efferent responses and neural pathways. Afferent neural pathways regard the input paths of sensory stimuli and responses into brain structure; whereas, efferent paths regard the output paths of our brain's responses. This may be important to your ideas because thought and vocalizations are efferent responses of brain function, while our auditory system involves the detection of afferent sensory stimuli.

Did you? Didn't you submit a video opinion piece in support of your posted comments? Are opinion pieces facts or just opinion? Are there better, more reliable sources of fact than opinion pieces? As you should know, there are no penalties for lying in unsworn videos, which is opposite of sworn testimony and facts. Therefore, which would you genuinely prefer, opinion in video or facts delivered under penalty of law (e.g., sworn testimony)? Given your previous responses, you will likely ignore my questions or not answer any of them honestly; however, as I previously wrote, "I think my position is clear to any reasonable and objective observer, which is there are readily available sources of reliable and factual evidence other than partisan opinion pieces like the video you supplied. If you're going to make a claim, you should be interested and willing to take whatever time is necessary to support your claim." ​Otherwise, withdraw your claims or don't make claims you don't have time or intend to support.

If I now understand correctly, you're speculating that brain evolution arose from thought processes propagated by random mutations in our species vocal/auditory systems. That's an interesting idea but does it have a basis in brain structure and function? The reason I ask is that I believe the evolutional theories we pursue about the brain should be supported by evidence of that evolution in brain structure. If your ideas are valid, for example, we should find a strong and clear functional correlation of those ideas reflected in what brain structure reveals about its evolution. When we evaluate what our brain's functional structure reveals about its evolution, there is clear evidence of the factors leading to the evolution of the attributes in speculation here, again, in my opinion.

And I have agreed that such testimony can be false; however, as I have also stated, opinion, even in sworn testimony, isn't factual evidence. You presented an opinion piece as evidence of facts in support of your claim, which it was not. We could continue to circle the issue of congressional hearings but I think my position is clear to any reasonable and objective observer, which is there are readily available sources of reliable and factual evidence other than partisan opinion pieces like the video you supplied. If you're going to make a claim, you should be interested and willing to take whatever time is necessary to support your claim. Although you may believe otherwise, I was never wrong in presenting congressional hearings as a more reliable source of factual evidence than the politically partisan pieces you appear to fervently favor.

I'm not sure how your topic here relates to the topic (Subconscious vs. unconscious) from which you referred me. If I understand correctly, your comments essentially here speculate on the evolution of thought. There is, perhaps, a less speculative path to understanding that evolution through the investigation and study of how our brain likely evolved, in my opinion.

Your link led to an article discussing the false testimony of a expert witness before Congress. Once again, you are conflating opinion presented as testimony to Congress during a hearing with actual facts presented as evidence during those hearings--which opinion is not. Those climate change hearings also involved actual data entered as evidence other than so-called "expert" opinion. Although congressional hearings may include false testimony, most testimonies are accompanied or supported by facts, data, and details that can be independently scrutinized for validity in support of claims other than partisan opinion.