DrmDoc

Yet another unarmed African-American shot by a police officer. The incident involved an African-American therapist trying to corral an escaped Autistic patient who he found playing with a silvery toy amid a roadway. Police were called to the scene by a report of someone brandishing a gun and threatening suicide. Prior to the shooting, as a video of the incident shows, the therapist was laying on his back with his hands extended in clear view and his patient, seated next to him, with a silvery object in his hand. Audio of the incident reveals that prior to the shooting the therapist informed the police that he was, in fact, a therapist who was trying to coax his autistic patient back to his treatment center and that the patient had just a toy truck in his hands. The therapist can be heard imploring the police not to shoot him and his patient. Subsequently, an officer fired 3x, striking the therapist in his thigh while he laid with hands extended. It was later reported that the officer thought he was protecting the therapist from the possibly armed patient. If this is true, then this officer was negligently trained or grossly undertrained in several ways. First, if the officer believed this was a hostage situation he should never have discharged his weapon amid negotiations where his actions risk injury to an innocent citizen. Second, if the officer was close enough to confidently discharge his weapon, he was close enough to recognized that the toy object was not a gun per the officer's likely weapons training. Third, if the patient with a suspected weapon was his target, it should not have taken 3 shots to strike a large, stationary suspect above one that is laying on the ground. It's clear from the illicit actions of a now suspended supervisor, who was on the scene at the time of the shooting, that police training or rules were violated. The supervisor was suspended without pay for falsifying his report on the incident.

Perhaps this topic should be moved to the Medical Science forum since the only afterlife of brain death is the physiology of decomposition--that is unless the physics of physical decomposition is the interest here. The brain produces consciousness and the physiology of the dying brain provides a plethora of explanations for NDE and the perception of life after death. At present, there is no tangible or verifiable evidence in universally accepted science of a continuation of consciousness after brain death.

All of the above plus DNews, AsapScience, and Mental Floss; however, none of these channels are adequate substitutes for your independent investigation and study of all the available peer-reviewed evidence and published research covering your topic of interest.

I recall an article or science program on this subject wherein it was stated that about 65-70% of the world's population is incapable of digesting a milk sugar called lactose, beyond puberty. Those who are capable have a mutant gene that allows the continued production of lactase, which enables the digestion of lactose. It is believe that about 11,000 years ago, our European ancestors began producing cheese from milk, which decreased the lactose content of this milk product to tolerable levels. Soon after, our European and some African ancestors developed the lactase producing gene mutation. Currently, about 90% of our lactose tolerant population have European ancestry, while those with Asian and African ancestry comprise >10% each. Populations such as Native Americans, whose ancestors did not domesticate cattle, are completely lactose intolerant. For more on whether "milk does a body good", here is a DNews YouTube video whose host describes evidence that "those who drink three or more glasses of milk per day die at twice the rate of those who drink one glass per day." Enjoy!

In view of what is now happening in Baton Rouge, apparently never. However, let's not characterize this regrettably new shooting incident as a planned attack on police until all the facts are known. Unfortunately, this is what happens in a country with legal and pervasive gun ownership.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that your statistics are irrelevant and I am not trying to justify any increased measure of fear among police ranks. Although not initially, as you erroneously believed I previously inferred, what I am now suggesting, as those quoted comments attest, is that there could be heightened fear among police given recent events and our nation's political environment. I'm certain you're aware of the enhanced security efforts implemented by various police departments throughout our nation. I think we can both agree that those efforts are not the result of an increasing climate of security among police, as your statistics suggest. Rather than a justification, this is a fact of the era in which we now live here in America. Although useful and meaningful tools, I don't think statistics are uppermost in the mind of the common beat cop while patrolling our communities. Regardless, I agree that fear is an oppressive tool unscrupulously employed to justify the most evil acts and should never sway an officer's judgment or actions.

I've reviewed my comments and did not find where I might have suggested or made such a claim of extra fear among police. However, given the Dallas shootings, current protests, threats, and increasing hostility towards police, I think there could very well be extra fear among their ranks however irrational the statistics suggest. Regardless, fear of any sort is not an excuse for not following correct police procedures and respecting the equal rights of all citizens to life and liberty.

I think similar interactions are currently true between the police and public, I think most do not include an armed citizen; however, those who are armed do seem more willing to use their weapons against the police. From the founding of our nation, our law enforcement officers had to regrettably deal with a potentially armed citizenry by force of our nation's Constitution. I agree, our nation appears to be approaching a crisis but it is not one that we didn't similarly experience during the protests of the 1960s. Hopefully, our nation's consciousness and conscience will be similarly raised by current events as they were during that troubled but progressive era.

It's a very simple formula to follow, begin by calculating depreciation using the Straight-Line method, which involves dividing the book value of the asset ($1,110,000) by the asset's useful life (5 years). Multiply the result of your calculation by 2 to get the double-declining amount of depreciation for the first year. Now subtract that amount from the book value of the asset to get the net book value, which you will use for the following year's depreciation calculations and so on. Repeat this division by 5, multiply by 2 and subtraction process until you reach the final fifth year where the calculated depreciation amount should reduce the asset's book value to its residual or salvage value ($300,000). I hope this helps.

To be fair and honest, the beholder should consider the available evidence. From your link: "Two uniformed 15th Police District officers stopped Tate-Brown because he was driving without headlights, police said. When the officers approached the car, a Dodge Charger with Florida tags, they saw a handgun on its center console. The officers asked Tate-Brown to get out of the car, and when he did, a struggle began. He broke free from the officers and forced his way to the passenger side of the vehicle, where he tried to retrieve the handgun, said Lt. John Stanford, a police spokesman. That's when one of the officers fired, hitting Tate-Brown once in the head, police said. He was pronounced dead at the scene at 3:05 a.m. Police said the gun in the car, a .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol with eight rounds, had been reported stolen in July 2013." This shooting incident appears to be different from the kind of accidental, perhaps intentional, shooting involving the Minnesota case of Mr. Castile​. ​In the case you've referenced, the officers appear to have followed their training and the driver's actions seem grossly negligent if harm to himself or the officers was not his intent. Of course, this is dependent on whether the police narrative is factual. In Mr. Castile's case, he remained in his vehicle, no gun was visible, he did not struggle with the officer upon exiting his vehicle, and Mr. Castile did not exit and attempt to return to his vehicle to retrieve an allegedly stolen handgun in his possession. Throughout the process involving Mr. Castile, he appeared to have complied with the law and the initial directives of the officer. In Mr. Castile's case, there appears to be no justification for his shooting and the officer will probably have to answer for that.

Except for that part about going home being their "number one duty," what your saying does apply to Philadelphia police training. I say that because I attended their Civilian Police Academy program several years ago. The program was part of a community outreach and neighborhood watch effort sponsored by our Police Department. Indeed, they are shown dashcam footage as part of their training for proper and safe traffic stops. It's a difficult job and their number one priority is citizen safety above their own. However, if the officer involved in the Minnesota shooting--or any officer for that matter--followed the method of training I witnessed and experienced, shootings like Mr. Castile would never have happened. Officers in Philly are trained to approach a vehicle's driver from behind and to maintain a clear view of the vehicle's driver and occupants from that position at an acute angle throughout the traffic stop. The angle of an officer's position during a proper stops means that a nefarious driver would have to extend his hand out the vehicle and backwards to aim and shoot his weapon at an officer. Officers here are trained to instruct the driver and passengers to stay in the vehicle and keep their hands visible at all times during the stop until asked to do otherwise. Noncompliance during a traffic stop in Philly should never result in an accidental police shooting because officers have more than enough time to see a weapon in the hands of a driver before discharging their own. To my knowledge, there have been no traffic stop related accidental shootings in Philadelphia.

Neuroscience confirms that what makes me, me and what makes you, you, is an expression of brain function. My consciousness, identity, and personality is distinct from yours because that is how our brain has interpreted those qualities arising from our individual life experience. There are some who believe that consciousness is a form of energy that can only be transform by death rather than dissipated. Although I do not subscribe to such notions, I do believe that there is more to life than death. In death, I believe the body that once produced the consciousness of DrmDoc will decompose and eventually return to the star stuff from which all matter arose.

I think most pundits have been amazed at how successful Bernie Sanders has been from the start of his campaign. I think his successes were a matter of campaign style rather than a matter of numbers and statistics. Although he didn't receive a Clinton equivalent turnout and is not the presumptive nominee, his campaign and campaign style inspired more support, particularly among our youth, than I think many of us initially thought it might. Mrs. Clinton had a nationally recognized name and record with built-in public support; whereas, Bernie's has been grassroots from the start. If turnout numbers, as you've suggested, are key to who will win the Presidency, I think our candidates have to have more than built-in numbers. They will have to also be inspiring in a way that doesn't incite and prey on our fears.

Although the percentages have remained consistent and turnout has been a factor, there are factors to turnout. Two such factors, as I see, are fear and confidence. I think the candidate that relies on fear to increase turnout will not be as successful as one that inspires confidence and faith in ourselves and our nation's future. I think that is what made Obama successful and why Bernie's campaign inspired similar voter enthusiasm.

I believe you'll see that this wasn't my notion, if you review my comments. My comments regarded the campaign tactic of inciting and instilling voters with fear. When we look at the nominating process, which involves like minded voters, I don't think fear has been an effective tactic particularly with the Democratic party nominating process. I think what we saw during the most recent Republican process, were campaigns based on fear of Donald Trump. I don't see how Mrs. Clinton thinks she can win using the failed tactics of Mr.Trump's Republican foes. I think the successful Presidential candidate will be the person who exudes stability, confidence, and security and who runs a campaign base on what she or he has done, can and will do rather than a campaign of fear.

It seems to me that both candidates are running campaigns of fear. Trump is campaigning on fear of everyone and Clinton on fear of Trump. It also seems to me that Clinton ran a similar campaign against Obama with fear of his inexperience and, as we know, she lost. I think Clinton will lose again if she doesn't step-up, change her narrative, and focus on what she can and will do to secure our nation and what makes her a better candidate without constantly referencing Trump and inciting fear. I think the American public is fearful enough without being constantly pushed over the edge and continually hammered with anxieties they already have and understand. I think we want our candidates to make us feel confident rather than afraid of our future and the future of this country. Essentially, they should be emphasizing what they will do rather than what could happen if they are not elected.

What would be interesting to know, if investigated, is whether any of those prior traffic stops involved the officer who shot Mr. Castile. That would suggest that the officer likely had knowledge of Mr. Castile's weapon and license to carry prior to the shooting. Therefore, one may question why the officer felt deadly force was necessary during his subsequent stop, particularly since Mr. Castile didn't have a criminal record precluding his license to carry. One may also ask that if Mr. Castile actions demanded deadly force, why didn't the officer's partner also discharge his weapon? There are, of course, a lot of unanswered questions; however, when an official of government like Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton--who likely had more access to evidence than had been publicly released--during his press conference subsequent to the shooting suggests that Mr. Castile would likely not have been shot if he were White, a non-racial narrative is exceedingly difficult to argue or believe.

In follow-up to the Castile shooting, a CNN television commentator reports that police records show officers had previously stopped Castile a total of 52x with only three stops resulting in real but minor traffic violations. This appears to suggest that police were familiar with Mr. Castile and his carry license. Further, recently released initial audio recordings of the officer's report to his command center reveal that the officer initially stopped the vehicle believing Castile matched the description of a robbery suspect, although the officer informed the driver of a nonexistent broken vehicle light as his reason. Subsequently released photos of the alleged robbery suspect did appear to match the driver. If these additional details are accurate, this might explain but not excuse the heighten response of the officer during the stop. From another report, if accurate, it should also be noted that the involved officer's partner, stood on the opposite side of the vehicle during the shooting event, within view of the vehicle's occupants, but did not discharge his weapon. Frequent stops, an acknowledged weapon, and an agitated officer suggest that Mr. Castile experienced a perfect storm of tragic consequence.

Castile was shot, as I understand the evidence, while reaching for his drivers license after being told to do so by the officer involved. The officer fired upon Mr. Castile, while in the process of getting his license as directed, when Mr. Castile informed the officer that he also had a weapon and license to carry that weapon--at which time, the officer proceed to simultaneously shoot Mr. Castile while ordering him not to move. He probably wouldn't have been shot, if he hadn't informed the officer that he had a weapon--as he was supposed to do, by law, in an open carry state.

I have to honestly say that I really can't find any stronger evidence, against the current status of strong AI compared to brain function, other than what AI is now doing isn't true consciousness. Again, I'm not suggesting that we are incapable of programing computers to simulate that quality. However, until some noted developer of AI announces and proves that his/her efforts have produced consciousness in a machine, we should remain unconvinced of that quality being currently expressed by current AI processes.

My comments regarding "Our responses frequently involve behaviors that do not compute" was a reference to the frequency at which our behavioral responses do not appear to conform to a rational or preprogramed process that the term compute infers. The arbitrary appearance of that distinction suggests that brain function does something that computers currently do not. Again, we can and may program machines to simulate what human brain function does but what we have done thus far, in my opinion, is an inadequate representation of that function. Consciousness isn't entirely about the medium through which information flow. Although consciousness arises from a series of electrochemical exchanges in the brain, consciousness involves a confluence of separate and distinct exchanges contributing separate and distinct qualities to our consciousness matrix.

Perhaps not; however, when computers like Deep Blue win against human competitors that suggests to me that those machines are doing something beyond the capacity or capability of the human brain, which is something not equal to what our brain does. Chess competitions between humans, for example, involve more than calculated moves, they involve intuition, which is an incalculable quality beyond the process of calculating infinite permutations. Because of that quality, exceeding the calculating ability of the human brain isn't, in my opinion, an accurate measure or reflection of what our brain actually does.

Again, if I understand, you are suggesting that Turing machines are brain equivalent essentially because Turing used his brain to devise those machines. If that true, then perhaps every machine and invention conceived by the brainwork of humanity are also brain equivalent. I not suggesting that Turing machines can't replicate or even exceed the computational ability of human brain function; however, computation isn't exactly what the brain is doing to formulate its responses. Our responses frequently involve behaviors that do not compute and that is because what our brain does is something less calculate and more organic in nature. It might seem otherwise but I'm not suggesting that what our brain does is in anyway chaotic or randomized. Our brain is capable of forming a mental environment of cognitive exchanges between distinct functional groups to produce behaviors independent of our innate programing or instinct. Relative to brain function, cognitive autonomy isn't about a machine's ability to learn, it's about a machine's ability to engage responses independent of what it is programed to do.

According to one definition, Turing machines are mathematical models of hypothetical computers that can use a predefined set of rules to determine a result from a set of input variables. If that is the nature of the neural nets you are referencing, it really isn't equivalent to the nature of brain function as I understand it. Human brain function, as I understand, involves a collective of several separate and acutely different functional parameters interlocking to produce a unified functional response potentially exceeding those separate functional parameters. Conversely, Turing machines are limited to and by their mathematical mold and predefined set of rules. Our brain's functional responses aren't necessarily limited by its functional matrix.

If we could reduce what the brain does to functional algorithms, I believe we would find that brain function involves an amalgam of separate and distinct algorithms--some self-evolving or self-writing--acting in concert to produce optimum system responses that may or may not conform to the plan of its base algorithm. If we can do all that with computer programing--inserting self-writing optimizing algorithms that can overrule but not replace its primary algorithm--then I think we will have the makings of true AI. Not necessarily an inconsistency with what we expect but rather an inconsistency with instinct or some hardwired programed response mechanism. If I may add, I think we can do that now with a proper understanding of brain function but we can't because programmers don't understand enough about brain function and its evolution to create such programs.