Gees

After reading this, I started to wonder who burnt your morning toast. Then I remembered. You are one of those people, who gets upset with the "woo woo" factor. I apologize. If I had remembered, I would have used a different example, as it was not my intention to cause dissent. I know that you know that magic is not real. If it looks like magic, then I see it as a puzzle that has not been worked out yet. Much like those "magical" rocks that we discovered ages ago. They were not magical, they were magnetized. Although magnets can look like magic and amaze little children, we know better. I am just trying to know better. The "random non sequiturs" that you see may actually exist, or it may be the case that you simply do not see the connections. I am having no problem following 1x0's thoughts. You might want to consider doing more reading and less posting until you can also see the connections. Gee

Strange; Your above statements are not entirely true. I think there is a huge difference, but explaining that difference and then proving it is difficult and time consuming. I don't want to take this thread too far off topic, so an extended explanation can not be made here. This is why I usually bring up "bonding", as that is one product of emotion that Science accepts and recognizes as being caused by emotion. You brought up the word "magic", which is interesting and gave me an idea of how to show that there is a difference between thought and emotion. What if we look at thought and emotion historically? Historically, thought can be logical or illogical, rational or irrational, and be good or bad thinking. A few centuries ago, it might even be described as "Godly" good thoughts or "the Devil made me do it" bad thoughts, but these are explanations of what thought is, or maybe even where it comes from -- not what it produces. Thought has not been associated with producing anything close to "magic", unless it is a trick. But, historically, there are ideas that seem to be "magical" like "Gods" and devils, angels and demons, demonic possessions, saints, miracles, and psychic phenomenon. Some of these ideas even have evidence that supports their claims like documents that the Church holds, or research by psychologists, who study psychic phenomenon. Most rational people dismiss these claims as "hysterical ramblings", which means emotional ramblings. For a long time, I dismissed them also, but it is a little difficult to get past the evidence. At some point, I realized that each and every one of these "magical" ideas related to emotion. Coincidence does not cause something to be consistently the same -- that is cause and effect. So in my studies of consciousness, I started to study emotion more closely because it is the commonality in these "magical" ideas. Is emotion the result of these "imaginings", or is it the cause of these "imaginings"? Can they even be "imaginings" if they produce actual evidence? These questions, along with a much better understanding of the unconscious aspect of mind, is what caused me to conclude that thought and emotion are very different. Gee 1x0: I will try to respond to your post tomorrow.

Strange; You are usually brighter than this. Maybe I should have said, "directly cause". Do you suppose that I can think at your computer and cause black and white patterns to appear? That would be a neat trick, but I can't do it. The body can affect emotion and thought. Emotion can affect the body and thought. Thought can affect the body and emotion. They work together, but what about individually, outside the body? The body can affect it's surroundings simply because of it's weight. Emotion can affect other lives through bonding. Thought does not seem to be able to directly affect anything outside of the body. As far as I can tell, telepathy is not real. Thought, knowledge, or even information seem to have no physical properties or attributes that I have been able to find. On the other hand, emotion does. It can affect matter, cause bonding, and it can also remove or relocate awareness, so it has abilities. My question is how? It is clear that emotion is some kind of force, but it seems to be entirely made up of thought, knowledge, and/or information. So I was wondering if the actual motion is what causes it to have these abilities. 1x0; I think that I agree with this. Physical space gives us a kind of format for our consciousness and shows no signs of being conscious itself. But when you have a format, you have rules that formulated that format, and I suspect that those rules developed into what we call Laws of Physics or Laws of Nature. So I think that some kind of fundamental information was part of the organizing and development of the Universe. There were rules. These same basic rules are reflected in Mathematics and mirrored in the unconscious aspect of mind. Specifically, I think that "same and different", "equal", and "more and less" form some of the most basic and fundamental rules that order reality. These rules are also basic and fundamental to Mathematics, which is why Mathematics can give us such an accurate representation of reality. These are the same rules that guide the "thinking" of the unconscious aspect of mind. The unconscious is neither logical nor rational, mostly because logic and rationalization are both linear processes, and the unconscious ignores time -- so linear processes can not work. What I find fascinating, is the idea that if we can understand the unconscious aspect of mind, to know how it works and uses information, then we may get some insight into how information was/is used outside of the Universe. Outside the Universe would also ignore time. I don't see anything except life as being aware. I could be wrong, as I have seen theories that state that the Universe is alive, but so far, I am not convinced. I gave it a quick look and will review it later. For now, I can tell you that we have very different ideas about "Nothing". When I see the word, nothing, I interpret it to mean, no known thing. Historically, when we used the word nothing in Philosophy or Science, it was often the case that we had not yet discovered what the "nothing" was. (chuckle) For a thought experiment: Take a blank piece of paper with "nothing" on it. We will say this represents reality before the Universe. Then draw a circle on the paper and examine what is now there. What do you see, one thing or three things? There is still only one circle, but there is also inside and outside, concepts that did not exist before. Many people, and most scientists, will say that the circle created the concepts, and that is why they exist, but it is not really an explanation. Ink does not create concepts. But if you look at the fundamental rules that I noted above, you will find "same and different". The circle caused a difference, and that difference created the concept. So I think that these simple rules that became more complex, over however many light years, caused the concepts and complexities that are our reality today. imo Gee

Sensei; Not being a scientist, I don't know much about the other ideas that you mentioned, but is it possible that with the "traditional" communication, the ink itself is what causes the weight difference? Not the information itself? For that matter, is weight the only measure that proves something is physical? I study consciousness, and consciousness is simply information in motion. There have been tests where researchers try to weigh the body just prior to death and immediately after death in order to determine if consciousness has weight, with limited and inconclusive results. So is there another way to determine if information is physical? 1x0; I have been loath to bring up the subject of consciousness, because few people study it or know much about it, and I do not want to damage or distract this thread. On the other hand, I see relationships between some of the ideas regarding information and consciousness, so I think it may be relevant. Actually, I see comparisons between information and the unconscious aspect of mind, like Shannon's bits, 1/0, which work in much the same way as the unconscious aspect of mind works. Even Mathematics has fundamental comparisons to the unconscious. In my studies of consciousness, I have had a great deal of difficulty determining if thought and knowledge (information) are real, if they have any properties that can cause an effect or in any way influence matter. On the other hand, emotion does have an effect on matter, and emotion is, for all I can determine, just information in motion. So does the motion of emotion cause it to be more real? More physical? Does the fact that it is in motion allow us to determine that it has a physical aspect? Gee

Swansont; Logic. Did you read the rest of that post, or just the first line? You are a really bright guy, Swansont, but you are such a scientist. As Studiot noted, the word exist can mean different things in Mathematics and in Physics; well in Philosophy, the meaning is closer to that of Mathematics. I am not trying to state that information is physical, as I don't know that it is, and it is one of the questions that this thread is trying to determine, but information does exist under the rules of Philosophy. Unless you can dispute my logic, or come up with other evidence, there is no argument that you can make. You can not use the rules of Physics in a Philosophy forum, any more than I could use the rules of Philosophy in a Physics forum. This thread is finally in the forum where it belongs as categorization and classification falls under Ontology -- Philosophy. Do you mean physical or material? Gee

1x0; Hello. It has been a long time since I talked to you. You are still working on the same problem and writing interesting threads. I wish I could help you more, but I don't have the answers either -- I don't think anyone has them . . . . yet. 1+ simply because your threads are interesting. But I am enjoying reading this thread, and hopefully will be able to comment before it goes too far off topic, or someone closes it down. In the meantime, I would like to make an explanation, to Swansont regarding the following question, on your behalf. I think I can get him to understand what I think you meant -- if it would not offend. If I am wrong, please let me know. I don't think the idea is to "find" these coordinates as much as it is to know that they have to exist. That the information or data exists. Following is 1x0's statement that you initially responded to: This is very much like an argument that I made many years ago. I was refuting the idea that a consciously-aware all-knowing "God" created the Universe, and made the observation that awareness can not exist without space and therefore time. In order for awareness to exist, there has to be someone/something that is capable of being aware, and there has to be someone/something to be aware of -- two separate things. Two different points. This means there has to be space and therefore time in order for these points to exist and for awareness to work. Conclusion: there was no awareness before there was space/time/matter -- the Universe. Observation is much the same in that space/time is required in order for it to work, but 1x0 has brought the idea to another level and noted that information is passed by awareness and by observation. So is this information created by the awareness or observation, or is it a fundamental property of space time? He thinks it is fundamental. I really don't know. Gee

Phi for All; Well, I did read the link and came away with the same conclusion that MarkE made. I did not see the point. Following are some excerpts from that link. The underlining is mine. Please note that the underlined words, may, maybe, and probably, are not conclusive terms and not conducive to good Science. On the other hand, the word, truth, has veracity and is very conducive to good Philosophy. This is the Philosophy forum. If I did not take issue with his words for being so wishy-washy, I would still be skeptical of his critical thinking skills, because he started his paper with the idea of left-handedness and right-handedness. Then he proceeded to state that left-handedness could be "overcome" in some circumstances. It was the word "overcome" that bothered me, as if left-handedness were some form of defect. Many of us know that "overcoming" left-handedness is strongly linked to dyslexia, which would be why our public schools no longer try to "overcome" left-handedness. So I was not impressed with the link and did not see any point -- or at least any valid point. Gee MarkE; The really crazy part of this whole argument is that in the link, the author agreed that location does matter, so the argument makes no sense. On the other hand, the point that I made and you seemed to understand is that feeling/emotion does not work or activate the same way as knowledge/thought. It would be a natural progression of that idea, to think that feeling/emotion and knowledge/thought might come from different areas of the brain and/or from different chemistries. Freud obviously thought so, and tried to map the brain failing rather miserably, but his mapping of mind has been upheld as valid and been supported by clinical studies. Of course, he did not have access to MRI's and the technology that we have today. Even so, I think there is much more to learn before we can pinpoint many of the mental aspects and associate them with specific parts of the brain, even if they tend to be on one side or the other. But we are getting off topic. I have no idea who that emperor was, but find the idea interesting, and even see the value that could be associated with this type of thinking. If you figure it out, let me know. Thanks. Gee

The Almighty; Interesting name that you have chosen for yourself. (chuckle chuckle) I am neither almighty nor all knowing, but think I might have an answer for your question. There are lots of opinions regarding the whys and wherefores of art, and lots of studies of historical art, but none of these really answer the question that you posed. If you study the different ideas and histories, you will find that there is one commonality in all of the opinions and speculations. All art expresses some form of feeling or emotion. So the short answer to your question is that art is to feeling and emotion what language is to knowledge and thought. The point of art is to express feeling and emotion. Whether it is music, painting,, dance, poetry, sculpture, architecture, or some other form, the art is an expression of your self, your hopes and dreams, your view on beauty and ugliness, or your feelings about something in your environment. It is all an interpretation of how you feel. I am a philosopher by nature and habit, not a scientist, and I study consciousness, which means that I also study emotion -- an aspect of consciousness. It surprised me to learn that almost no one actually studies emotion. We study emotion(s), how we feel and why we feel that way, and we study the body and brain and how emotion is regulated and caused, but no one, that I have found, studies what emotion actually is -- it's properties, abilities, and limits. A few years back, I discovered that we do not know feeling and emotion. This surprised me, but we do not actually know it, we experience it. Yes, there is a difference. When we know something, we can put what we know into words, pictures and thoughts, then we can share those words, pictures, and thoughts, and the person that we are sharing it with will know those words, pictures and thoughts. I can say 2+2=4, and you know exactly what I am talking about, but if I state that I am feeling rather depressed, you can only guess at my feeling if you have also been depressed -- you can not actually know the depth of my feeling. Am I feeling a little down, or ready to commit suicide? Who knows? On the other hand, if I could write and play a song that reflected my feelings, then you could experience what I am feeling. Or maybe I could write a poem or paint a picture that showed you the depth of my feeling. This is what art does for us, it allows us to know and share feeling and emotion, or you could say that it gives shape and substance to feeling and emotion so that it can be known. This is a more complex idea that I may not be able to explain to your satisfaction. It depends upon how much you already understand about consciousness. To start: All life is conscious down to each and every cell in our bodies. All life has survival instincts, which means that every cell in our bodies is constantly working to eat, reproduce and stay alive. All survival instincts work through, or are activated by, feeling or emotion. So it helps if you understand that all life feels. We can call it "perceives" or "senses", but the reality is that all life feels, is aware of some things, and has enough knowledge to maintain it's life. Then you need to understand the main difference between the unconscious and conscious aspects of mind. If you understand Freud's divisions of mind, it would help. Freud's Superego and Id (the instinctive drives) are both part of the unconscious. The unconscious is reactive and works through feeling and emotion, which is why instincts are part of the unconscious. We don't regulate the unconscious, and it works pretty much on it's own, which is why we don't actually think about what we want to do when a car is about to run us over, we just move instinctively -- the unconscious is reactive. We call it unconscious because we don't really "know" what is going on it there until it happens. (chuckle) Just like we don't really "know" emotion and feeling. The Ego, or the rational aspect of mind, is where we do our planning and thinking. This is the aspect of mind that we "know", where we make our decisions, think our thoughts, regulate our lives, and plan our days. At some point in evolution, I suspect that it was well after the evolution of the brain, we started to be consciously aware of the experience of feeling and emotion. (A cell may react from feeling and emotion, but it would have no ability to be consciously aware of that reaction and experience. It would not "know" that it had that experience.) At first it would be simple things, like touching a picker bush; we would attach the idea of a picker bush to pain. Maybe we would attach the idea of a certain food to pleasure. As we advanced, we would attach more ideas to feelings and emotions and these "ideas" would be what we remember consciously. This is an important point, as we still only experience and do not really know feeling and emotion, we can only know it by the ideas and thoughts that we attach to the feeling or emotion. This "important point" is why emotional memory is so very unreliable, and why Science does not like it. Science has proven over and over that emotional memory can change. It can create memories of things that never happened, change things that did happen, or forget things that did happen. The reason that emotional memory is so unreliable is because we don't actually remember the experience of the feeling/emotion, what we remember and "know" is the ideas that we "attached" to the feeling and emotion. This is why we can think that someone is drop dead gorgeous, stop dating them, see them a year later, and wonder what the hell we were thinking! Or why we can think that labor is not really that bad, because we went through it before, but when that first really hard labor pain comes, it is more like, "Oh God. Now I remember." (chuckle) As we advanced and became aware of more elusive emotions like love, hate, fear, jealousy, and greed, it became more and more difficult to attach thoughts and ideas that would express our feeling, so we turned to art. So to answer your question regarding other species, I would say yes, many do have at least the beginnings of art. Art is feeling and emotion given form and substance. Many things that we attribute to "instinct" may also be a beginning form of art, like a mating dance or decorating a nest. Both of these things are a form of emotional expression and an invitation to share that emotion. Looks like art to me. The next step after art is religion, as religion is also an interpretation of emotion and the unconscious aspect of mind. I am pretty sure that I have seen articles on elephants and some primates, who linger around an area where one of their own died, and even suggestions that they brought some small tokens to the site. This has been interpreted as the beginnings of religious thinking, so any specie that is involved in this activity would also be able to appreciate art, beauty, ugliness, and finer feelings. Gee

Strange; When I wrote the words "level of stupidity" something triggered in my mind with relation to law. I could not think of what it was, because as far as I know, it is not actually written in law. There are no blatant references to stupidity, but it is considered in many areas of law, as is evidenced by protections and legal defenses for children, the mentally handicapped, diminished capacity, etc. In order to understand this, one really needs to understand law, and I can not teach enough in this thread to stop all of the denials this post will probably cause. So let me state up front that I am not going to respond to any yahoos, who want to argue about this, but have no clue as to what they are talking about. I went to sleep thinking about this and woke up with an idea that may help you to understand why women seem to think they are blamed. I think the problem comes up in Contract Law. I am not saying that rape is a contract, so please bear with me -- I am trying to help people understand the limits of the law. The rules of Contract Law are kind of funny and often deal with stupidity. I found this very amusing when studying it. The problem is that one man's garbage can be another man's treasure, so how does one decide that the contract is valuable and acceptable by what is exchanged? We can't. Unless it is immoral, illegal, or maybe fraud, we can only determine if the parties, who made the contract, thought it valuable and acceptable. So if a very rich man states that he would pay a million dollars for the air above Mount Arafat, because he would like to breath in the air that was touched by "God", and if another man said, "I will get it for you", they may have a contract. If, months later, the rich man decides that it was a stupid offer because air is always moving, so it is not the air touched by "God", he may decide not to pay. If the second man actually climbed Mount Arafat to get the "air", he is out costs and time, so he may sue for breach of contract. The Judge is going to look primarily for two things; was there a valid offer and a valid acceptance. If he finds a valid offer and acceptance, then there is a valid contract. The Judge may order the rich man to pay, or may mitigate his costs because the "air" does move, and at least compensate the second party for his costs. Contract Law is mostly about the offer and acceptance. There is also something called a Bi-Lateral Contract. This contract is formed when one party makes an offer and the other party accepts by action. So if a man states that he will pay $100 to anyone who can swim all the way across a river and back, then another man does it, they may have a contract. The first party may be ordered to pay the $100. Again this is mostly about offer and acceptance. In law, offer and acceptance denote agreement, so taking this idea to sexual assault and rape cases, we find that there is no crime if there is offer and acceptance. So when policemen, attorneys, and prosecutors are questioning a "victim", what they are trying to find out is whether or not there was an offer. She would state, "Of course not. No one asks to be raped." and be very offended, but the reality is that there are many ways to offer, as it is not always a verbal offer. I know that between my husband and myself, there was not always an offer, or even a verbal exchange -- sometimes there were no words spoken. I could give him that "look" or smile, or receive it from him, wear a negligee, or just tell him that we have a free evening and the kids are at the babysitters. He would know that it was an offer. If any of you are honest, you know that this is true. A rape kit just proves an exchange and has no relevance to offer and acceptance. Bruises and screaming, "No." may or may not have relevance as porn sites and magazines featuring S&M are not a scarcity, and there is the best seller, 50 Shades of Grey. So successfully prosecuting a sexual assault case comes down to protection of children, nuns, the elderly and handicapped, and people with a great deal of credibility -- sometimes circumstances can help. It is a damned nightmare for prosecutors. Or you could say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of law. Gee

iNow; What exactly do you think those "better options" are? Because people have been looking for ways to protect women for thousands of years. If you don't believe me, then go to Wiki and see what they have under "sexual harassment" then skim down to "Ancient Rome". Yes. They were trying to pass laws to protect women thousands of years ago, and I expect that those laws were as successful as the laws we have now. The only thing that I have seen that is in any way effective in protecting women is the rules that regulate behavior and contact between men and women, and most of those rules are set down by religions. Have you noticed that you are very much an idealist when in the Philosophy forums, but are a staunch defender of determinism in the Science section? Do you know what you get when you mix idealism with determinism? Think about it. Phi for All; Wonderful. It is good to learn that someone wants to resolve these issues, so I think the first step would be for you to study law and Court procedures, then you could work for some insurance companies and learn about the denials and ways that people try to swindle insurance companies. Strange; Maybe, or maybe they are assigning some level of stupidity. Stupidity is not against the law, but I remember thinking that it was definitely considered by the law when I was studying it. I can't remember the specifics of why I thought so, but am sure of it's relevance in many areas of law. I will try to remember something that I can give as a specific example. Phi for All; Ronald Reagan did many things that I don't like, but he did not cause the damage to black women that you think -- he just took advantage of a myth that already existed. If you read the arguments that were made regarding slavery in the United States, one of them was the argument that black women had babies much like animals with little or no trouble, unlike white women. This is a very old concept that in my opinion was caused by "The Doctor's Plague". I wrote about it in the thread, Split from Sam Harris, in the General Philosophy forum. It is still on the first page of the forum. Swansont; Have you ever heard of Victoria's Secret? Do you know what the secret is? Sexy nightgowns, lingerie, underwear, etc. Ads that say, "If you want your man's attention, wear this". Most women know that if the hubby is unhappy with her, a new negligee may very well resolve the problem. Most women also know that you can go into a restaurant, order a banana or ice-cream cone, and eat it in a way that is suggestive and raise two erections out of ten any day of the week. Men are sexually aroused visually. Most women know this. Little girls do not, which is why we will not allow them to wear certain clothing. When my youngest at 14 argued that the clothing was appropriate because Britney Spears wore it, I countered that Britney Spears has body guards, so when my daughter could afford her own body guards, she could wear that type of clothing. Gee

Swansont; Oh, stupid me. So you are telling me that I let my thread be high-jacked? Maybe I should tell a Moderator. Oh wait, some of the Moderators are already part of the thread. Just for General Principals, I would like to make some predictions. Now that the balance of power has shifted, the Senators will stop "toppling". The government in Washington will not realistically change one whit with regard to Women's Rights. The "trickle down" effect of the new tax laws will not trickle down any more than they did in Reaganomics. Just like in Reaganomics, the effects will not really be felt and understood for another 20 years or so, but when they are felt, the crunch will be to the middle class and the poor. Obamacare will die a slow death because there is not enough money to fund it. The media will find something else to promote. Trump was right about "fake news". The American people stop thinking when faced with emotional media glitz. We may deserve what we get. As men -- in this thread -- are guilty for being men. You think this is a competition? Do you understand that equal does not mean the same? My "tangent" about custody issues is not about women, it is about the laws -- stupid LAWS. It is interesting to note that a person does not have to have any training in law in order to be voted into the Legislature. Sometimes is it like saying that my mechanic is very good at fixing things, so I think I will make him my doctor. Most people are not that stupid, but voting an untrained person into the Legislature so that they can make new laws, is very stupid. Five hundred years ago a rich man could have his wife sent to an asylum or nunnery for life. A poor man could simply throw her into the street, out of HIS house and away from HIS children -- because he wanted to. Right now a woman can throw her husband out of HER house and away from HER children because she wants to -- especially with No-Fault divorce. If he does not pay for the privilege or gets angry, she can have him sent to jail. Which part of this do you think is an improvement? Change does not necessarily denote improvement. Bad laws corrupt people, it does not matter if they are men or women -- they still are corruptible. Rights and responsibilities CAN NOT be divided. Raider5678; This question was not to me, but maybe it is time for me to state my position with regard to rape. I know probably 8 or 10 people, who were actually raped, myself included. I was 15 when it happened and terribly innocent. Twenty years later, I could still have panic attacks when being intimate with my husband, so I do have a clue about this subject. My door was the one that people came to when they were hurting or in trouble and my ear is the one they turned to when they needed someone to listen. It has always been this way, so maybe I have some experience worth listening to. My training in law has also helped me to understand that it can not solve this problem. Law can guide the situation, but society has to do the solving. I have been fired for "assaulting a customer", who grabbed me; been to conventions and sales meetings where the boss thought that my hotel room was also his hotel room, so he had to be straightened out; and even had my ass pinched while walking with my Mother in the Vatican in Rome -- right in the church. It occurs to me that no one has grabbed my 66 year old ass in quite some time. Wonder why. (chuckle) My point is that emotional rampaging, joining pity parties, and demanding changes in law are not effective. Changes in law can actually make things worse. It takes rational cool heads that are willing to look at the problems and find solutions. According to Phi it is because you think, but are not yet experienced -- so I am still right. (chuckle) I have no doubt that the members you mentioned have the ability to think as I have discussed things with most of them. The problem, as I see it, is that when the topic is emotionally charged, some people's ability to think rationally flies right out the window. Yours did not. There are other members in this thread who are also still rational. Well, it looks like there is more tragedy on the girl's part, but we don't know how the boys fared in a prison environment. There is rape in prison and abuse, so we don't know how this affected the boys or what kind of men they will grow into. Our prison system does not have a good record for rehabilitating people. I am not saying that the boys are innocent, as I don't doubt their guilt and they needed to be stopped, but it is a tragedy for all. If the boy were your son or brother, you might see things a little differently; you might find him more stupid than evil. I am not sure about the knife. Did they use it or just threaten with it, as the Law would make little distinction. Rape is not really a sex crime, it is more about intimidation, power, and control over another person -- it is more about violence and empowerment. A boy holding a knife may not intend to actually use it, but think it a grand way to get what he wants; a man would know the difference. It is too bad that you were influenced by your "evil Christian church". May you never get over it. You are right: Rape = bad. I don't blame her, I blame the adults. Were the boys the homeowners, who threw this party? If not, then where were the homeowners? Where were her parents? Why the hell wasn't some adult paying attention? I think that sometimes people assume that at a certain age, children can be allowed more freedom. This is not necessarily true, teens must be watched more closely than 10 year olds much of the time. Ten year olds don't routinely sneak off to parties, are not as involved in drinking and drugs and sex and trying to be an adult. Yes. This was a child. Someone who is supposed to be protected and stopped from making bad decisions like deciding to put their finger in an electrical outlet or drink household cleaners. Just because the crime is an adult crime, it does not make her a woman. Dimreepr; Sure you could. Happens all the time in bar room brawls. Zapatos; This post was not to me, but I think I started the line of thinking that prompted it, so I will respond. When I stated that Raider can and does think, I was not talking about intelligence or agreement. It might be better if people read what I actually say, rather than what they think I mean. I was talking about someone who can take facts, evidence, training, and experience, and run those ideas around in their mind using logic and reason, then spit out something worth listening to. I define someone who can not, or does not, think as someone who takes speculation, assumption, imagining, biases or belief, then spits out something that is not worth listening to. I don't always agree with someone just because they can and do think, but they are still worth listening to -- I may learn something. Gee

Raider5678; Thank you. In this forum, when I see a member with over a thousand posts, but a low reputation, it usually means that they can and do think. Thanks for proving me right. Yes, there are lots of cases, and one must remember that this type of case is judged and prosecuted by different laws in the different States. This type of crime is under the jurisdiction of the States, not the Federal, so there can be differences in the actual wording of the laws, the Statutes that apply, and the Court procedures. That may not seem like it should make a great difference because it is all illegal, but it can make a difference in the Courts. For example: Some Courts may allow her prior sexual experience to be admitted as evidence, others may not. Although some people in this thread would have you believe that this injustice is all about women and sexual assaults, that is nonsense. Consider the following scenario: A man calls the police and says he has been burglarized. They come to his home. While filing out the report, they ask, "How did the burglar get in? Is there any sign of forced entry." The man states that he does not usually lock his doors, so that would not be a problem. The police ask if he has any idea who might have done this. The man states, "Well, there was a guy, who was down on his luck, so I let him stay here for a few days. He is gone and my property is gone." The police finish the report. Would this matter be prosecuted? Unlikely. There may have been a crime, but there is no case. Fingerprints are irrelevant because the man lived there and there was no forced entry. Even if you caught the guy red-handed with the goods, he could simply say that the homeowner gave him the property. It is his word against his word. In many cases, the only thing that the prosecutor has is the HOPE of prosecuting because of the "victim's" credibility. Would his insurance company reimburse him for his losses? Unlikely. They would most often claim that there could have been collusion between the men in the hope of ripping off the insurance. The most likely outcome is that the police tell him to start locking his doors and stop moving in strangers. Maybe this is "stupid man" shaming. All crimes are not reported. Police, when called, do not always make out a report. Prosecution does not always happen. Conviction is never sure. The biggest difference between sexual assault crimes and other crimes is that no one is keeping count on the others and screaming for justice. Swansont; Maybe you should take that up with the American Bar Association. "To Kill a Mockingbird" may have been based on that case. All cases do not make it into the textbooks, but I know it was an old case when we studied it in the early 1980's. I remember being surprised that attempted rape could carry a longer sentence than rape. Hopefully, that law has changed. Of course racial issues were the driving factor. All cases, where credibility is part of the decision, have to take biases into account -- that means most cases. It is just like in this thread. People want confirmation of what they believe, not facts. Giving them facts is likely to make you guilty of something and sentence you to 3 down votes and accusations of "victim blaming". You are making me laugh. I hate to shock you with this information, but most "evidence" is testimony. Even if you have actual physical evidence, it means very little without testimony. For example: We will say that a one hundred dollar bill passed from your hand to my hand. That is the physical evidence, much like a rape kit that proves a transfer of bodily fluids. So when this money passed, what did it mean? Was it a gift? Or a reward for something that I did? A loan? Was it payment for something purchased or contracted? A deposit that must be returned? A retainer fee that does not have to be returned? Was it theft? Or maybe I swindled you. Which of the above is found to be true depends mostly on testimony, and with testimony comes bias. So credibility is kind of important. If you have credibility, then you can lie all day long and get away with it as long as you are a reasonably good liar. So what do you think the point is? Please review my post to Raider above. What do you think the OP is about? It is about power, all kinds of power, and it's abuses. The power of wealth and position, the power of beauty, the power of sex and sexuality, the power of genders, the power of races, the power of innocence, the power of victims, the power of media and how these powers are used and abused. The power to down vote someone without telling them why, which is in my opinion one of the more gutless powers, because we have the right to down vote, but no responsibility -- and don't even have to admit we did it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When power gives you rights without responsibilities, you have absolute power over something and will be corrupted. It is inevitable. Maybe so, but that is not what we are talking about here. Men and women are not equal; if you don't believe me look at some of CharonY's posts. As for blaming; CharonY blames men, you blame the judicial system even though you obviously don't know anything about it, and both of you blame me. I am not blaming women for anything, I am just looking for feasible solutions and know that they can not be found by writing more laws as that is already tipping in the wrong direction. Raider5678; I did not read this when Outrider presented it as I was occupied, but it is interesting. I have little doubt that the child was raped. I also doubt that the boys had any idea of the realities and consequences of their actions -- this was a tragedy all the way around. So many lives ruined. She was 14 years old, right at the beginning of the "age of rape" when little girls want to be beautiful, exciting, and glamorous, but have no idea of how to be women yet. The boys were simply ignorant and arrogant, which is what boys often are, before they become men. What was a 14 year old doing, going to a party with "friends" where there was drinking and obviously no adult supervision? Did she have her parents' permission? If so, maybe they should be prosecuted. If she didn't, that may be why the attorney was so rough on her. I was remembering when my youngest turned 14. She wanted a party, but believed like most teens that you can not have fun without getting high, so thought that no one would come to her party. We threw her a bang up party with 40 or 50 kids and a few drop-ins. There was no booze, no drugs, and if they wanted to smoke they had to leave the yard. But we gave them a scavenger hunt that had them running around the whole neighborhood, tons of food, dancing with a Rent-to-Own stereo system, lots of games, a bonfire, and two tents for the 12 that were spending the night -- one for girls and one for boys. Her Father and I stayed up all night and kept our eyes on them. I think I would trust a ten year old alone before I would trust a 14 year old. There are three times in a child's life when they must be watched closely; in the first year when they are turning into a person, in the toddler stage when they are turning into a child, and in the teen years when they are trying to be adults. It is the times of change that are most dangerous. Gee

Raider5678; I am going to respond to your post because it is intelligent, rational, and unbiased -- which is a nice change. Sure, there are lots and lots of Court cases. There are so many that you can pick and choose the ones that support your position. We have seen some of the cases that support the "victim" female position, and the one about Amherst, but what about the one that I learned about when studying law? This was a case from many years ago about a black man, who was sentenced to prison for 30 years to life, because he attempted the rape of a white woman. What was the evidence in this case? The ONLY evidence was that he was walking down the road behind her; following her, maybe. There was no other evidence presented. So my thought is that an innocent person being made to feel "dirty" or like a "slut" is a lot better than being an innocent person who was convicted and had to do 30 years hard time. This is assuming that he survived 30 years after being convicted of attempted rape of a white woman. I will not argue that there are not incompetent judges, biased and stupid juries, and incompetent attorneys, but that is the reality. Law is not like what you see on TV. There is no script writer that will make everything come together the way you think it should. As I stated before, I worked in law offices, so I have some personal experience in these things. In one office, I worked for an attorney who was very good at Juvenile cases, Protective Social Services cases. I had been doing some filing, as many of these cases require annual reports, and started reading the file. When the attorney walked into the office, he took one look at my face and then the file in my hands, and said, "Don't read those old cases." There were tears streaming down my face. I said, "Does she still have that little girl?", he answered, "Yes." It is very difficult to sever parental rights in Michigan -- especially for the Mother. As far as the Father goes, it is a little different. Everyone knows about "dead-beat dads", who do not take care of or claim their children. These cases are usually paternity cases, where the Courts do blood tests, establish paternity, and charge child support. We had four paternity cases the year before I was forced to retire because of disability. One of the cases was what you would expect, but the other three were men who wanted access to their children. These men were suing their child's Mother in Court for parental rights. These men wanted to talk to the child's teacher, have input regarding their education, take them to a ball game or out to dinner, or fishing or on vacation -- they wanted to know their children. They wanted the children to know them and their heritage and their Grandparents. So if they wanted all of this, why didn't they marry the Moms? Why would the Moms marry them? A woman can have a baby, live with Grandma and Grandpa, who are the best babysitters in the world, and cry to the State that they are single parents. They will get free medical, housing costs, food assistance, great babysitters, and even get to go to college. They can date anyone they want, keep whatever hours they want, and not answer to anyone. If the Dad gives them trouble, they can "forget" to be there when he comes to pick up his kids. If a man is fool enough to marry in this environment, he has to know that she has the power to take everything from him whenever she chooses. He will lose his home, his family, the patio that he worked to build, his quiet evenings, his holiday experiences, his life. She, on the other hand, can keep the home, the children, and her routine, while running up his charge accounts, slandering his name, f*cking his brother, his neighbor, and his co-worker, and beating his children and sending them to bed without supper. There are no laws against this. She can move in her boyfriend, make him her babysitter, and if her ex gets mad, she can have him sent to anger management, all while he is paying for the privilege of being her ex-husband. If anyone questions her behavior, she explains that "He was mean to me" or "I was afraid of him" -- and people will buy it. Do women do this? Yes. I have witnessed it more than once, and it is becoming a problem. When a news show tells me about a man, who murdered his wife right after she said she wanted a divorce -- I am not surprised. Of course, all women are not like this, but if you like statistics, then look at the marriage rates. They are down in every State except Hawaii. Male suicide is up and children are running wild with little discipline or control. Many people marry, but don't have children -- that rate is also down. My personal experience and the above statistics tell me that this is a trend -- a trend that is destroying families. What is causing it? Are the men that women work with also aware of this trend? Yes. It is damned personal, and many have experienced at least a part of it. Some people think that this trend is caused by Women's Rights. For myself, I don't know, but I do know that for all the talk about women's rights, there is damned little talk about women's responsibilities. Most men know that justice is nice to get, but you have to learn to roll with the punches. Men also know that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. If women want equality, then they have so stop yelling about being a "victim", start learning how to solve their problems, and look at their responsibilities. That is my whole point. Gee

Evgenia; That figure "76%" seems a little high to me. I could see 76% for some kinds of sexual harassment along with other forms of violent sexual assault, but am having a little trouble believing that three out of four women I know have been physically and violently assaulted. Where did you get your statistics? StringJunky; In threads like this, people tend to formulate their opinions based on their personal experience. So I just gotta ask, were you are real hottie in your youth? (chuckle) Or maybe rich? Or maybe in a band? Any of these situations could expose you to unwanted female aggression. I remember being about 14 years old and reading about a girl, who actually mailed herself to the Beatles. I thought it was a pretty bright idea at the time. Did you report being harassed? Somehow I don't think so, which would be why the "numbers" are not reflective of reality. Men don't tend to think of themselves as victims until a comparison comes up which victimizes them for being men, then they say, "Me too." Swansont; This is Federal law and only relevant to "workplace" situations. It is also a Civil law, so it is a "he said, she said" problem, which is damned difficult to judge. There is a whole array of sexual issues that would be legislated at the State level and would include rape, sexual assault, child molesting, stalking, and other forms of harassment. Some of them would be criminal, some of them would be civil, depending on the laws as written. In Michigan, we have a law that is referred to as the Statutory Rape law. It states that if anyone has sexual relations with a person under the age of 16, it is rape, per the Statute of Law -- consent is irrelevant. After sending a lot of 17, 18, and 19 year old boys to prison for many years, we have revised that law to make allowances for teens, who have consensual sexual relations when the girl is less than 16. Most of the boys were sent to prison because the girl's parents did not like the match. Laws like this also skew the statistics, because some of this is not actual rape -- some is. I know that all States do not have the same limitations, because my husband's niece wanted to marry at a young age, but couldn't in Michigan even with her parent's permission. So they went south to marry, maybe Georgia, where she was allowed to marry at her age. They have been together almost 35 years now. There are lots of crimes, but what we were both referring to is the Bill Cosby case. That is Hollywood, not the Senate. I also specifically stated in my OP that: "And now I am watching it again; Senators are toppling one after the other." Although sexual harassment is an issue, it is an old issue that has been around for tens of thousands of years, probably going back to cavemen grabbing potential spouses by the hair and pulling them into their caves. I have no hope of being able to resolve this problem and can only suggest ideas that may make it less problematic. When I stated that Senators were toppling one after the other, I was thinking about the balance of power. Trump tried to kill Obamacare, but did not succeed. He needed it dead so that he could put through his tax cuts for the rich and famous. He only missed it by . . . one vote? Now it looks like he is going to put through the tax cut anyway, which will nibble away at Obamacare, because we will not be able to afford it. So, I am wondering how much of this media glitz on sexual harassment is coincidental, and how much of it is a distraction, like a magician, who says look at this hand, while the other hand is doing the magic. Has there been a power change in the Legislature? Does he now have the votes he wants? I know that Moore, a Republican, did not step down. John Conyers, a very powerful Democrat, did step down -- he was on a lot of Boards and Commissions. Some guy in Arizona stepped down because he asked co-workers to surrogate his and his wife's baby, which is not illegal or immoral. But I do wonder how he got the five million dollars that he promised the woman to be a surrogate -- I didn't think the Senate paid that well. If Senators can be toppled this easily, then it would not take much to get the others in line just by hinting at impropriety. This is what I am worried about. Of course, after this is over, Democrats may well take over the House and Senate, but will Trump really care? Doubt it. So my thoughts are, who is running the country? The Russians and the Me Too media glitz, or "We the people"? The "age of rape" is not a restriction, it is more of a warning. Statistics showed that girls turning into women are most susceptible to rape. Why? Because they have spent all of their time and experience trying to learn how to attract a male, and have had no practice in handling him once attracted. It is like when driving a car, you have to learn to use the accelerator before you can learn to use the brake. This is why laws and cultures generally protect young women -- or Ladies in Training. iNow; Women still feel alone and isolated, because that is the nature of women. You can not "blame" a "victim" unless you are sure it is a "victim" -- that is the problem. You can not assume that the female is the victim, just because she is the female. Men divide up the world and women organize the pieces. Which part of "It has always been that way. It will always be that way." did you miss? Maybe your point was not clear. You spent time talking about the black v white issue, about homosexuals, and about the men v women issue. I took that to mean you were talking about inequality. Please clarify. CharonY; I suspect that it is universal. Even rape kits, if they are processed, don't always help, as they only show that an exchange of fluids has happened and maybe give evidence of "rough" sex. But was it rough consensual sex, or was it rape? People will say, of course it was rape as no one would want that done to them. But then we must consider things like, "50 Shades of Grey". That book, movie, is about an extremely wealthy, very handsome, narcissistic man, who likes to abuse and beat little, brown-haired, blue-eyed women. And there are women in the book who like to participate. You could say that it is only fiction and not a reflection of real life, but I would counter that a lot of women bought that book. Sales skyrocketed, so whether or not women would want that done to them, they certainly liked reading about it. Arguments like this make it very difficult to prosecute a case, so I suspect that is why many are dismissed. If the female were under age, or elderly, or a nun, we would have no problem getting a conviction. If the woman were a prostitute or a lonely woman, who spends too much time in bars, it would be almost impossible to prosecute. Knowing the woman's moral values, or even her relationship to the assailant can sometimes help, but it is still difficult. Prevention has always been the most successful in stopping this problem; Daddies with shotguns and a moral society, but morality took a hit when religion took a hit. Prevention can also put women into little pigeon holes where they are safe, but not necessarily happy. With women joining the work force and going into occupations where they never were before, there are going to be problems. We will have to find a way to work them out. Gee

Tub; Hi. It has been a while since I heard from you. Yes, Tar is absent for a time; I will miss him. Please forgive me for taking so long to respond to you. I wanted to think about your post, and I started a thread in Ethics, so I have been distracted. Of course consciousness has a relationship with intelligence, the problem is defining that relationship. Maybe we should start out by defining intelligence, but there are many different kinds of intelligence, and we don't test for most of them. What we do test for is what a person knows, and/or their ability to find solutions or problem solve -- mostly academic problems. When I was young, I tested very high in IQ tests, not off the charts, but definitely at the top. But does a high IQ guarantee success? No. It does not test for management skills, or people skills, or artistic skills, or many other skills, so I am not sure what intelligence actually means. Probably, the best example of what we consider intelligence came from my 5th grade teacher. She had bits of wisdom posted on her walls, and one of them said, "Greater minds relate to ideas, Average minds relate to events, Lesser minds relate to people." I have found that these divisions are accurate, but does that mean that idea people, or abstract thinkers have "greater minds" or more intelligence? Not sure about that. I have always been an abstract thinker, an idea person, but after a lifetime of experiencing my "intelligence", I know that I can be dumb as a box of rocks in some circumstances. Occasionally, I need some of those "lesser" minds to help clue me in to what is going on. This is probably where we get the 'absent minded professor' idea from -- someone who is brilliantly stupid or stupidly brilliant. (chuckle) What I do know, is that IQ tests are always timed. So when we are talking intelligence, we are talking about how fast a person can take what they know and take what they can surmise and apply it to some problem or situation. So intelligence would come from our interests, our awareness, and probably our experiences. I am not certain what you mean here. What do you mean by "sensitivity"? I also had to look up "supersensible consciousness" as I had no idea what it meant -- but I like it. I have an idea of what you might mean, but am not sure, so I don't want to respond yet. Could you find a way to rephrase your statement? Or if you can't be more clear in this thread, you could send me a PM, and we could discuss it there. Consciousness is not actually divided any more than mind is divided. It is one thing, but it works in various ways. So in the same way that Freud divided mind in order to better understand it, I divided consciousness in order to see how it actually works. Try thinking about it this way; I am a mother and a daughter, a wife and a friend, an enemy and a neighbor, a co-worker and a niece. All of these different aspects of me are still me, but I act differently in relation to different people and circumstances. We know that we can think and feel very differently about the same person or circumstance, so I was trying to find a way to understand how consciousness actually works, or acts -- not what it is. When you talk about attention, you are talking about focus. You can intentionally focus your awareness (consciousness) on a TV program, but you are not really unconscious of your surroundings. If someone yells, "Fire" and you smell smoke, you will react. If you were truly unconscious, you would not react -- you would die. Mostly, I agree with you. I think that conscious life evolved, but it was only conscious of 'need', as in need to continue. At some point, it became conscious of 'other' that was not the self and it developed senses, which helped to define the 'other' and the separateness of the physical self. After developing a brain and senses, life started to be conscious of the mental self, or the ego, which many other species are aware of in my opinion. As humans, what we have done is to become aware of the unconscious, or the Superego. We are not fully aware of it because that would be impossible. It would be like taking a State and reducing it to the size of a pin and expecting a pin to hold all of it -- not possible. But we can access the unconscious on occasion and pull information from it though our dreams, our imaginings, and sometimes our awareness. This is where "Gods", angels and demons, religious ideas, and psychic phenomenon comes from, and it is also part of the reason why I stated that consciousness is vast and complex. Other species are starting to become aware of the unconscious. We know this because we have learned that elephants and some primates will perform small rituals where a valued member of their clan has died. This would be the very beginning of religious ideas; an understanding that death is not the end. I don't know if it is "vital" that we continue to evolve, but expect that it will happen. On the other hand, Einstein recognized "spooky action at a distance", but if I am right, then delving into the unconscious aspect of mind will be more like spooky action up close and personal, so I am not looking forward to it. Gee

Apparently I am limited in the number of + votes that I can give out daily, so some of you will have to wait. But I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who took the time to read this thread and then post a response. Even if I do not always agree with you, your input is valued. Fiveworlds; You make a very good point. There are two reasons why I find this evidence disturbing. The first is that the general public sees women as being "good" and men as being "bad", but business often sees men as being "good" and women as being "bad". The second reason is that when there are problems or misunderstandings, the Courts that handle these problems are Civil Courts -- not criminal Courts. Civil Courts are courts of equity -- fairness. Criminal Courts are courts of law for judging and punishing criminals. Civil and criminal laws have different standards, written right into the laws, for judging the cases. Everyone knows about, "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard in murder cases in criminal law, and it means 95+ percent sure. But there is also "clear and convincing evidence", which is also used in some criminal cases, and it means 75 percent sure. But in Civil law, the standard is almost always "a preponderance of evidence", which means more likely than not, or 50+ percent sure. I pulled the following quote from the Amherst link that you provided: "Since AS [the female] said she withdrew consent at some point during the sexual act, and since Doe couldn’t challenge that recollection, the panel was at least 50.01 percent inclined to believe the accuser’s tale." So even though the article called it "rape", clearly the panel that judged this matter was using the Civil Court's standard for judging this case. Why wasn't it prosecuted as a crime? Was it actually rape, or was it sexual assault? I don't know, as the media does not always make distinctions, or maybe even understand the distinctions. This case makes no sense. If it was an actual crime, it should have been passed off to a prosecutor. Actually, Doe should have AS arrested, now that the evidence is out, and then sue her little butt for messing up his career. (chuckle) Back to my point, in Civil cases there is often little or no physical evidence, just testimony, so it becomes a matter of: Who do you believe? That makes these matters a liar's paradise. Because of their biases, the general public will believe her and the business world will believe him. Hence the problem. Strange; Wouldn't that change, "innocent until proven guilty" to "innocent until accused"? I knew a man who had trouble with police all of his life. It did not matter what the circumstances were, they were sure that he was at fault. One day, when he was in his early 50's, a police officer called him a "deserter". He said, "What do you mean 'deserter'? I have never been in the military." It was at that point that he learned why the police seemed to have it in for him. His record said that he was a deserter, which they did not take kindly to. The truth is that at 17 years of age, he was arrested for desertion. They told him that he was being arrested because he deserted right after basic training. He laughed and said he was never in the service and asked how they thought he had regrown his hair, which was half-way down his back. They arrested him anyway and held him for two days until the MP's came from the local base, took one look at him, and had him released. Apparently an old friend had used his ID to join the service, just in case he wanted to back out. It was a frustrating and humiliating experience, but he thought it was over. He had no idea that he had to "expunge" his record and thought it would just not be there because he was innocent. You have to pay an attorney to expunge your record, at least in Michigan, and many attorneys will not do it. In this day of computers, the record is downloaded and diversified so fast that it is almost impossible to get all of it removed. Unless you have it done almost immediately, there is little point. So only wealthy people, who have attorneys available, have clean records -- or people who have never been accused. Swansont; Do you think it would be helpful if Human Resources were required to pass the complaints on to a neutral party that could keep statistical records? Much like hospitals are required to keep statistics on patient falls, needle pokes, tuberculosis, etc. Then if a trend is discovered, it might be able to instigate an investigation? Or do you think it would just discourage complaints altogether? Phi for All; This made me laugh!! But seriously, have you considered the story of Lot? Lot was the guy, who was fleeing Sodom and Gomorrah. His wife looked back because she missed her evil ways and turned into a pillar of salt, but he made it out with his two virginal daughters. When he found his people, his daughters were both pregnant. He explained this by stating that his daughters loved him so much that they got him drunk and seduced him so as to carry on his line. Bullshit. Whatever the true story is, what struck me was that he had no problem stating that he had had sex with his daughters. This bothered me, so I looked in the Books of Law, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. There are whole lists of women that a man can not have sex with; such as, a sister, a mother, a brother's wife, a mother's sister, etc., it even states what is required if you have sex with a slave and that slave becomes pregnant. But it does not state that you can not have sex with your daughter. It says to "not make a whore of her", but does not forbid sex. So what does that mean? You can have her, but not pass her around? Then you must find someone to marry her? My point is that there seems to be a long history of men being allowed to have a female that is under their domain or control. This is not new and was part of the problem that brought down Freud. His study of women's psychotic episodes and depression brought out the information that many of them had been sexually abused at an early age -- mostly be family members. Publishing his work almost stopped his career, but it exposed the problem and brought out a lot of information that we are using now. Gee

There are some very good and thoughtful responses to my OP, so I guess I am going to have to pass out a lot of + votes. Following are a few thoughts that I would like to share regarding some of those responses. Fiveworlds; Yes. Being the victim can be very powerful, and this power can be abused. Since I retired from law, (I am not a lawyer, but worked in law offices) I saw many examples of people, men and women, portraying themselves as victims, when they were clearly not victims. This is part of the problem, but I don't think it is a part that we can do much about -- people lie. What I am concerned about is why women think of themselves as victims, as some of them truly do. This can set them up to becoming victims in much the same way that we are told that child predators tend to look for lonely and vulnerable children. Predators choose their victims. Sexual harassment is a many layered complex problem with no easy answers. Do women sometimes unknowingly make themselves accessible to harassment? If so, then this is an area where we might be able to do something. For example: A young friend of my daughter's, I think she was 16 or 17 at the time, sat at my kitchen table and asked my advice on "boyfriend" problems. She was an incredibly beautiful girl and believed that boys only wanted her for 'one thing' -- she was developing a reputation. She saw herself as a victim; I thought that she was unknowingly contributing to the problem, but could not find a way to explain it to her. I was floundering. My son, who was in his mid-twenties, saw my problem and sat down at the table with us. He looked at her and said, "People smile." Then he smiled at her, and she smiled back. Then he said, "There are different kinds of smiles", and he turned up the wattage, intensified his gaze, and gave her a smile that had her blushing from her nose to her toes. After viewing her reaction, he said, "That is how you smile at men." She squeaked, "Oh!" and the light came on. Of course, all problems are not this easy, but there is a sexual by-play between men and women of a certain age that is always present or always potentially present. Misreading the cues is a problem, and I think it is a huge problem now because of the rapidly changing relationships between the sexes. I am not trying to excuse bad behavior, or criminal behavior, but thinking that training could at least separate out some of these problems. iNow; I certainly did not notice any ugly women in these issues. What do you think is "driving the momentum"? This statement seems to be more about inequality rather than sexual harassment. Yep. Inequality. The problem with equality is that some people think it means 'same' -- it does not. Men and women will never be the same, and life wouldn't be much fun if they were. Viagra is not going to be taken off the market, so horny old men are going to be around. What we need to do is learn to respect men and women for their differences; appreciate them for their strengths and differences, not try to pretend they are the same. Trying to pretend they are the same is going to make matters worse. There is a reason why "50 Shades of Grey" rocketed to the top of the Best Sellers lists and was made into a movie -- this was not an accident or a coincidence. Swansont; Is it? What law would that be? Federal or State? If it is State law, most likely, then what constitutes sexual harassment in the various States? Is it a Criminal law or a Civil law? Is there a difference? Oh yes. Which part of my statement did you miss with regard to crime? Please review the following quote and point out the "fiction". "I agree that the Weinstein's need to be taken down and that anyone who uses drugs to seduce should wind up in Court, but if there is no actual crime, there should be no allusion to criminal behavior." I talked to my son and my step-son when they were teens. I explained the "age of rape", which is generally 14 to 16 years of age for most women. At two years old, little girls start trying to wrap Daddy around their little fingers, and they keep practicing their "feminine wiles" until they reach their teens and their bodies start looking like a woman's body. At that point they start attracting little boys, the problem is that they have no practice in deterring the little boys, so they can handle it pretty badly. One could say that when she smiles and says, "I love you" it does not mean what you think -- she is not ready to jump in bed with you. My husband used to call them "Ladies in Training" at that age. I talked to my daughters about "date rape" and we discussed various ideas to thwart that problem. My oldest daughter thought that pointing and laughing would deflate the problem quite well, which it might. My youngest said she could stick her finger down her throat because dinner that has come back up for a look/see is not very attractive. We also discussed other more reasonable ideas. We also discussed the intimacy of a sexual relationship, and I explained that afterward, it is much worse than having your best friend betray a secret at school. I talked to all of the children about taking care not to break a tender heart. But I did not talk to them about power brokers or manipulators at work because I did not see the need. Not sure about that. Ashley Judd came out against Weinstein, and she is very much a power broker. There was another women on one of the talk shows, who was some TV personality. She stated that she had problems with her boss repeatedly and could not get him to drop the harassment even though she was married. I remember wondering why she didn't send her husband in to talk to him. Then there was that starlet who claimed that Dustin Hoffman was groping her and that she had evidence. There was a picture of her and Hoffman with his hand on her breast. The problem is that they were both smiling at the camera, and she admitted that he put his hand there just as the picture was shot. The situation is that they were promoting a movie where she played his mistress, and he was still in make-up -- completely bald. So are we talking lecher, or just an actor, who morphs into character when in front of a camera? Have you considered that it may not be "men in power"? That it might also be the superficial society that we live in? Do you really believe that the TV news anchors are the best reporters? Or are they the best reporters that could be had for the money that was offered and that had the correct image for the news broadcast? Let's face it, Jimmy Durante would not have made it in entertainment in this climate -- and what a loss that would have been. Abe Lincoln could never be President now. He may have been brilliant, but he was God awful ugly. He would be lucky to win a seat on a Town Council. Grandma told me that hat pins were a woman's greatest weapon because they were always available. Do you really think that a woman would not use it? This is not a valid comparison. Being burglarized is very much like someone coming into your home and raping you -- a clear crime. What we are discussing is more like a fool, who gets high and walks in a bad part of town with hundred dollar bills hanging out of his pockets. Yes. The police would take a report, but would they try to prosecute? Not likely. Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Because many of the States would not ratify the Constitution because it too easily could become mob rule and individual rights could be disregarded. What is the difference between mob rule and the Court of Public Opinion? Gee

When I was about 12 years old, I was visiting my Grandmother and watching some awards show on TV. She was making dinner. As I watched the TV, a man walked toward the camera with a big smile on his face and two incredibly beautiful, and tall, women on his arms. Innocently, I asked my Grandmother, "Do you think they are his daughters, or his granddaughters?" She looked up and said, "No. They are his escorts." At my blank look, she explained, "His dates." "Eeww", I said, "Why would those women want to date a wrinkled up, bald-headed, old man?" Grandma smiled and said, "Beautiful women will buzz around powerful men like flies on shit. It has always been that way. It will always be that way." Grandma was right. Over my lifetime, the next 55 years, I saw many examples of powerful men and beautiful women together, and throughout history there are examples going back to Helen of Troy, so I was surprised when everyone got upset over the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski debacle. People were more upset about the sex, than they were upset about the idea that our President lied to a Grand Jury. My thought was that the sex was relevant to Bill, Hillary, Monica, and their families -- not me. I did not care who Bill Clinton does, I only cared what he does. Of course, sex does sell news. And now I am watching it again; Senators are toppling one after the other. You could argue that we are cleaning up Washington, but that is a little hard to believe when one of the worst offenders is in charge of Washington. We are getting scanty evidence that has not been scrutinized, innuendo, and gossip about behavior that is only sometimes actually criminal and more often just very bad manners; yet we are destroying careers, families, and lives by judging them in the Court of Public Opinion. Isn't this the same thing that many women complained about? Being judged in the Court of Public Opinion, so they kept quiet? This does not look like a reasonable solution to me. Because I was not born and raised on a farm like Grandma, I have changed my Grandmother's words to something that reflects the same truth, but is a little more palatable: "Power attracts power. It has always been that way. It will always be that way." So what we are talking about is power and it's abuse. But power can come in many forms. I remember a story in the news about a child, who fell into a well. It took about 24 hours to get the baby out, and the news covered it for the whole time. The world stopped and held it's breath while people worked to get the child out and letters to the family came from all over the world. I remember stating, "That is power." When asked why I said so, I responded that if a man had fallen into a well, the first question would have been, "Was he drunk?", and it may not have even made the news. So innocence can be very powerful, but so can beauty as was recently evidenced by the purchase of a painting for almost half a billion dollars. If you have ever been in a room with a bunch of power brokers, the movers and shakers of the world, you will know that you can almost smell the testosterone. It is almost like a locker room after a game or a soldier after a war -- without the sweat. The battle is different, but the power is the same. Do the women in the room respond to all of that testosterone? Of course, it is unavoidable as pheromones don't choose their receivers. So wouldn't that make the women's faces glow a little more, their eyes sparkle a little brighter, they hips sway a little more? Do they know they are doing this, or do they just think that they are enjoying themselves? Some of them probably know, many do not. This could cause a lot of mixed signals between body language and intent. Do we teach our daughters about this? I don't think so, but it occurs to me that women, who come from families of movers and shakers probably know. Let's be honest. Power brokers like the ones in government, Hollywood, and big business acquire their power and maintain their power using manipulation, charm, seduction, domination, intimidation, etc. This is how one gets power and how one holds power. To expect anything different is naïve. I agree that the Weinstein's need to be taken down and that anyone who uses drugs to seduce should wind up in Court, but if there is no actual crime, there should be no allusion to criminal behavior. I think that education and training would benefit both the males and females in this situation, but we really need to talk to our daughters. So do these women use their beauty as a power? Between the hair dying, plucking and waxing, make-up, dieting and exercising, dental repairing and occasional plastic surgery, and the stylish and seductive clothing, I would say, yes they do. So if they are also brokering their power, why are they painted as victims? Why do they think of themselves as victims? These are the questions that I think will help us to find reasonable answers. It occurs to me that after the 1960's women stopped wearing hats, so they no longer needed hat pins. Do you think that a three inch hat pin helped men to keep their hands to themselves? Maybe. Thoughts? Gee

Tar; Did you think I forgot about you? I didn’t, but have been distracted by life, learning about mirror neurons, and enjoying a lovely Thanksgiving. I hope yours was pleasant also. I think that all of the things that you discussed in your post are related to the second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion, but see your point about thought v emotion and will address it. This is one of the reasons why I enjoy talking to you. You are more of a science guy, so you introduce ideas that I know nothing about, yet they are on topic. This tells me that you actually have an understanding of what I am trying to learn and communicate. Prior to this post, the only thing that I knew of that showed actual evidence of consciousness between life forms was pheromones, so this information is good news. From what I could learn in Wiki, mirror neurons are a new discovery and there has not yet been a great deal of testing. There is a great deal of speculation as to their purpose and value and the reason they evolved in the first place. Mostly they are thought to enhance communication between life forms of the same specie through mimicry, empathy, feeling and emotion; so this is very relevant to the second division of consciousness. This testing is supportive of Science’s view that consciousness comes from the brain, isolation is bad for life, and that relationships, communication, is mostly intra-specie. My view of consciousness is a little different, so I see some ideas that may not have been considered by Science. Most importantly, I see consciousness between life forms as already existing, so no enhancement is needed. We don’t need to connect with other life as much as we need to understand the connection that already exists, so what is described as “mimicry” is more like an internal learning experience from my position. Too much of mimicry is inter-specie for it to be actual mimicry. We certainly do not mimic tarantulas or bears, but as I mentioned before, I think in this thread, a man who is frustrated beyond words may raise his fists in the air and shake them around, but so will a bear, or my cat, or a horse with it’s front legs, or a tarantula, or insects, and even birds will flutter their wings -- and all of this is done to show anger and frustration. And it is understood by other species. Another point where our philosophies differ is that I see the need for a regulator. Feeling and emotion can be very powerful; so if as I suspect, feeling and emotion work between life forms, could unknown, or not previously understood, emotion be dangerous? Yes. Too much too quick can cause shock and death. A lesser amount can cause a person to freeze or be stunned, much like a deer caught in headlights. A steady diet of over stimulation by emotion can cause stress which can shorten life or make life unhealthy -- and it does not even matter whether it is good or bad emotion as both can cause stress. So I wonder if mirror neurons evolved as a sort of regulator in the brain; their purpose would be to sort emotion and feeling into understandable knowledge. They could be a protection against bursts of emotion that can damage, and would have to be part of a larger system. There are two reasons why I think they may be a sort of protection; the first is that it is easier to shock innocence than it is to shock experience. We learn to accept shocking things, so we are not born with this knowledge and ability -- it is not in our DNA. The other reason is that a problem has been found with the mirror neurons in schizophrenics. I have long believed that schizophrenia is caused by a lack of ability to sort the different levels of the unconscious aspect of mind. The unconscious works through emotion, and mirror neurons may have the ability to sort emotion into different stratums or levels of the unconscious and into thought. All of the above relate to feeling or emotion, even though thought may be involved. Consider the ‘riot mentality’. Although it starts out as thought, and can be anything from a political issue to a sporting event, eventually emotion takes hold of the crowd, and people find themselves acting in a way that is very much against their natures. It has been thought that pheromones are the root cause of the riot mentality, but mirror neurons may also play a role. Or they may both be part of the same system, or possibly they interrelate. Who knows? But I think that a great deal more must be learned before we can say with any assurance just what regulates crowd behavior. This is a question that I asked myself repeatedly for many years. Thought and emotion are almost the same thing, but there are also differences. It is understood that awareness, feeling, and emotion carry knowledge and thought to us; this is not news. But does the emotion carry thought, or does thought, when there is enough of it moving fast enough, actually make or cause emotion? I think that the ‘complexity’ theories are based on thought actually causing emotion, which is where the 'AI can become conscious' ideas come from. Although I debated this for years, I did not settle on an answer until you explained the clock analogy regarding digital and analog. Years ago, I was corresponding with a Professor at one of the Universities, and he explained that thought can not actually do anything. He stated that thoughts written in a book are just ink and paper, thoughts on a DVD are just plastic, unless you have a reader for the book or a player for the DVD, nothing happens. Thought has no ability to move. We think of thought as having ability because we think, but that does not happen without consciousness. A computer can also think, but that does not happen without electricity. Thought has no power on it's own. I am not even sure how real it is. When Terrel used buckets of sand for digital (thought) and of water for analogue (emotion), I understood the differences, but could not see where the power lay. If you look at a desert or a beach, you can see sand that looks like it is in motion -- the dunes and sandbars -- but it is not moving itself. The movement is produced by wind, water, and/or gravity -- forces. So expecting thought to turn into emotion is a lot like putting milk in your gas tank and expecting it to run the car. It simply does not have the properties necessary for the job. When you explained the ‘clock analogy’, I finally realized that no matter how much digital you use, it will never fill all of the spaces on the analogue clock. Digital can not cause analogue. We can take the real world and film it by producing millions of little pictures that we can then run in a projector, which gives the appearance of analogue -- but it is just a simulation. I suspect that the rational aspect of mind is much the same; in that, we take digital thoughts from analogue emotion -- or you could say the rational conscious mind extracts thought from our senses, awareness, emotions, and the unconscious mind. The rational aspect evolved much later, well after the senses and brain. In terms of evolution, conscious life was here before the rational aspect of mind, so I think that we learned to take ‘pictures’ (thoughts) out of consciousness so that we could understand our reality. This is where solipsism, the dream reality, the holographic universe, and many other theories of consciousness evolve from. So I think that it is important to always bear in mind that thought (digital reality) is not actually consciousness; it is only part of consciousness. The second division, awareness, feeling, and emotion is also part of consciousness -- and it is the power. Gee

Tar; Sharing insights and attempting to find answers to difficult questions is what Philosophy forums are for, so I also wish there were more people interested. When I get an up vote, it means that someone agrees with me, so I start thinking that I am right; but I may not be. When I get a down vote, it means that someone disagrees with me, but I don’t know WHY they disagree. It may be that my information is wrong, or my reasoning and logic are wrong, or they just don’t agree or they dislike my thoughts. So the “click-it squad” is more like an opinion poll that gives no reason for the opinion. This makes it useless in Philosophy because nothing is learned. I am pretty sure that you put the up vote on my post to counter the down vote, which I appreciate. With the two warnings that I already have, a serious accumulation of down votes would shred my reputation to the point where I would lose all credibility. I would have to leave this forum -- as many others have done. Probably, the easiest way to divide them is by what is private and what is shared. Your thoughts, memory, and knowledge are only known to you, and can only be known to me if you choose to share them with me -- this is the first division -- the private division. Your awareness, feelings, and emotions are not private. Awareness works between things, and feelings and emotion are shared physically and materially through your body language and pheromones, and they are shared mentally through your moods, your attitude, and your personality. More than that, they actually work between things, so you can “feel” the atmosphere when you walk into a room where people share an emotion, you can “feel” the life when you walk through a forest, you can “feel” the love or hatred aimed at you from another person. You can recognize it even if they don’t say one word. Even if you are able to know that someone hates you, you will not know why unless they tell you, because their thoughts are private and not known to you. This second division is something that we use every day, but do not question how or why it works the way it does. I think I was reading a novel when I first considered it. I read that a newly wed couple “radiated” joy (emotion). But I have never read that someone “radiated” plans (thoughts). That would be kind of silly. I have also read novels where it was described that “fear rolled off of him in waves”. But I have never read that “calculation rolled off of him in waves”. As that would also be silly. Pick up any novel and you will find examples of how we describe, and think of, feeling and emotion. It is always characterized as being in motion, as working between life forms or things of great beauty or ugliness; such as, “My mind recoiled from the horror.” People don't actually have to move for their minds to "recoil", but we describe it this way. Science may find that there are physical and material reasons that cause these feelings and emotions to be shared, but it does not change the reality that this division of consciousness, this communication, works outside the body and between us. We long ago recognized that emotion (e-motion) came first, so it was the mover and shaker that shook out thought, and this idea is confirmed in evolution -- the rational mind came last. To my mind, emotion is a force, like gravity is a force, so that makes it physical even if it is not material. This is where it becomes difficult to explain. (This is also where the ‘can of worms’ can open through anthropomorphism.) When you talk about focus consciousness emerging, you seem to be talking about something that already exists, or like human consciousness. Do you really believe that the bacteria that inhabited this planet for millions of years had a “focus consciousness” that was anything like ours? I don’t think so. At best, they had a very primal awareness of themselves, their immediate surroundings, and the knowledge of the need to survive -- much like they have today. I don’t think that the force that we call emotion actually had consciousness before it became part of life. I think that becoming life turned it into consciousness by giving it a focus. Also consider that we know that knowledge accumulates, so is there any reason to consider that it did not accumulate in evolution? That much of the knowledge and thought was simply not there at the beginning? I didn’t know what “ghost in the machine” was and had to look it up. (chuckle) I never saw the movie, but learned that this was an argument against Descartes dualism. So I assume that this argument favored monism. I never put much store in either argument. All philosophers, even bad philosophers, know that one needs a valid premise to use for their considerations. I chose mine long ago. As I child, I saw these words written on a building, “We are physical, mental, and spiritual beings”. Since that time, I have checked with Philosophy; and with Religion, Eastern and Western; and with Science. No one disputed the validity of these words, and this idea is thousands of years old, so it is as valid a premise as can be found. I am going with trioism, one part material and two parts intangible. I am not sure what your meaning is here. You could be talking about reincarnation, or maybe the theory that we are in consciousness rather than consciousness being in us, or maybe you are talking about emotion. Not sure. That’s fine. Maybe you could consider that if hormones cause homeostasis within a body, that pheromones can cause it within an ecosystem. Even though pheromones are outside of the body, you could consider that they are within the “body” of the ecosystem. If I remember correctly, you do a lot of work with people, who have addiction problems. Have you ever wondered what addiction actually is? I suspect addiction is caused by a chemical that is introduced to the body and causes a "want", much like hormones and pheromones do. But the "want" is not temporary, so this tells me that the chemical is actually causing a bond. Emotion causes bonding, but emotion also works through chemicals, so I suspect that addiction is an artificial and unnatural bonding caused by chemistry. It would be very difficult to defeat by willpower alone, so I suspect that is why we are using alternative drugs to defeat this bonding. You might want to consider that a hurricane is physical, which would be why it is affected by heat and air. Consider that an ecosystem has boundaries. These boundaries encapsulate what is part of the ecosystem and what is not, much like our bodies separate our consciousness. What makes up the boundaries of an ecosystem? Mountains, large bodies of water, moisture, temperature, maybe electromagnetic forces -- all physical things. So I think that it is reasonable to question whether or not the homeostasis, or the self-balancing nature, of an ecosystem is also affected by physical influences and parameters. Hormones and pheromones are both physical, and they react to or cause a reaction that shows itself in feeling and/or emotion, so how can emotion not also be physical? I don't know that thought is physical and have not yet decided on that. Gee

Tar; If this post were from anyone else, I would not respond to it. But it is from Tar, so I will address this one and your last post at the bottom of this page. I owe you big time for your friendship and your help in this thread, and I know you well enough to know that your mind will continue to churn over ideas that were presented here. Ideas cause questions that lead to more ideas and more questions until you eventually open up that "can of worms" that is the vast complexity of consciousness. When discussing consciousness, I have found that it is necessary to parse out the information because too much truth is like offering a feast to a starving man suffering from malnutrition. He will not be able to digest it, and will throw it all out. It was great to be able to discuss consciousness and show the connection between consciousness and evolution through chemistry, without ruining my reputation or getting into debates with people, who have no idea of what they are talking about -- but insist that they are right. (chuckle) So please consider the following, and let's hope we can keep a lid on the "can". So what we are talking about here is the definition of consciousness, or what it is. Breaking down consciousness into components helped me to understand it better, but there is still a great deal I don't know. What you describe above would fit the definition under the first division of consciousness, which is knowledge, thought, and memory. The "system" you describe has knowledge; if there is a computer, it could be said that there is thought; and there is memory. This fits with most people's definition of consciousness, so when you add the ability to sense, or be aware, it seems like a reasonable facsimile of consciousness. But what about the power? What is the power source of this system's "consciousness"? If you break the circuits or cover the solar panels, what then? If there is no outside power source coming to it, then it loses it's consciousness. Life seems to have it's own power source, and we call that source, consciousness. A person can be alive one minute and dead the next, and what do we take that to mean? They have lost their life, their consciousness, and their power. The second division of consciousness, awareness, feeling, and emotion, seems to be the power source. Awareness acts as a focusing agent almost like a pipeline that feeling and emotion flow through. As stated before, awareness requires focus, and focus requires a point to focus from and a point to focus on, so it requires two points, so it requires matter, time, and space. I don't know if what we call feeling and emotion require physical matter, but suspect that emotion actually is physical. Emotion interacts with our bodies too well for it to not be physical, and I think that all forces are actually physical. I need some physics genius to let me pick their brain, as I don't know nearly enough. I also don't know if emotion requires the pipeline from awareness in order to move, or if it is motion itself and is only directed by the pipeline -- I suspect it is the latter. The reason I state this is because emotion is not like a magnet, as it does not have only one direction. It also causes bonding. Do you remember when you told me the analogy of the clock in order to explain digital v analogue? Afterward I stated that I had the divisions backward. Like the rest of you, I think with the rational aspect of mind -- the digital aspect. My thoughts, memories, and knowledge are all digital. So, since this is my perspective, I automatically designated the digital as the first division, and the analog as the second. Once I understood your analogy, I realized that no matter how many digital dots are put on the clock to mark out time, they will never fill all of the spaces. There will always be room to make more dots because digital can not cause analogue. Thought does not cause emotion; the conscious rational mind did not cause the unconscious mind; matter did not cause energy. Analogue came first and digital was pulled from analogue. Actual consciousness is analogue, so when you take a machine that can know, think, remember, and be aware, and state that it could be conscious, what you are doing is trying to convince me that digital can become analogue. I don't see it, or think it is possible. I remember when the "complexity" theories about consciousness came out, and people were promoting them in various forums. I asked one person, "Just how complex does AI have to be before it can equal the conscious awareness of a blade of grass?" I have company coming now, so I will address your other post -- maybe tomorrow. Gee

Glen Willson; I have been studying truth for a very long time and came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as Ultimate Truth. Every time that I come across the words "Ultimate Truth", I find that someone is trying to sell me something. So what are you trying to sell, Glen?? Gee

Mordred; Welcome to my merry-go-round. Roamer; If you look at the OP, you will see that I find the idea that consciousness and evolution are not connected as very unlikely. A few years ago, I was nosing through the Evolution forum of this site and found threads there where people insisted that consciousness had nothing to do with evolution. I remember thinking at that time that the reason why they thought that was because they had no idea of what consciousness actually is. So I have been considering this idea for a few years. You may also note that most of the first seven pages of this thread are simply trying to convince people that all life is conscious. Even though science and philosophy, both, agree that all life is conscious, it is a little difficult to explain that every cell in our bodies is alive and also conscious. Every cell in our bodies works to maintain itself and to reproduce itself -- these are survival instincts -- which qualifies cells as life. But each cell also works to maintain whatever system that it is part of; such as, blood, tissue, bone, organ, etc., and these systems work to maintain the whole body. So you could reasonably state that cells have a sort of hive mentality. But it is the hormones that cause homeostasis and regulate the systems that help to preserve the body. On a larger scale, every life form in an ecosystem works to maintain itself and to reproduce itself -- these are survival instincts. But each life form also works to maintain it's specie; such as, trees, fish, insects, animals, and these species work to maintain the whole ecosystem. So you could reasonably state that life forms, on a fundamental level, have a sort of hive mentality. It is not hormones, but pheromones, that regulate these species and help to preserve the ecosystem. So all life balances itself, whether you call it homeostasis or self-balancing ecosystems, it has the same effect and works through hormones, pheromones, and survival instincts. Then if you consider Freud's divisions of mind, you will find that the Id holds the 'drives' that motivate us and reflect the same issues as survival instincts. Then if you consider that the Id's 'drives' and survival instincts are all activated by feelings/emotion, you find that there is a connection between hormones, pheromones, and mind that comes together through the second division of consciousness -- awareness, feeling, and emotion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone Hormones have the following effects on the body: stimulation or inhibition of growth wake-sleep cycle and other circadian rhythms mood swings induction or suppression of apoptosis (programmed cell death) activation or inhibition of the immune system regulation of metabolism preparation of the body for mating, fighting, fleeing, and other activity preparation of the body for a new phase of life, such as puberty, parenting, and menopause control of the reproductive cycle hunger cravings A hormone may also regulate the production and release of other hormones. Hormone signals control the internal environment of the body through homeostasis. This is not entirely true. Although most evolution happens rather slowly, sometimes it is very rapid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution This link talks about rapid evolution under Speciation, and in other areas. While nosing through the Evolution forum, I ran across a post that was talking about changes in DNA that caused mutations. (Don't know where, as I have been looking for a week and can not find which thread it was in.) Anyway, since I know very little about evolution, my first thought after reading that post was, "like Thalidomide". For those of you who don't know, or were too young, Thalidomide was a drug used in the mid 1950's. It was very good at relieving nausea and improving appetite, so it was given to a lot of pregnant women for morning sickness with disastrous results. Conservative estimates say that 10,000 babies died from the horrible mutations, other estimates are much higher. Only a small fraction of the babies reached adulthood. You can learn about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide No one is going to call Thalidomide evolution, as it was more tragedy than anything else. But it did teach us a few things: Chemistry can radically alter DNA and it can do it in one short gestation period. So if we are going to discount "God" and magic, it seems to me that the only thing that could have caused the rapid transformations that happened in bursts in evolution, it has to be chemistry that caused it. These rapid transformation were usually preceded by a change in environment, so we are looking for a chemical that would be readily available in all species, would react to the awareness of the new environment and emotions of the life form, and have the capacity to change DNA in a way that would improve the specie's ability to survive. To me, this screams hormones. I don't see what else could possibly do it. We know that hormones can cause emotion; we also know that emotions can cause the production of hormones; it is circular. We know that hormones can substitute for each other and can cause the production of other hormones. We know that hormones can turn off and on switches in DNA. I don't think that reaction itself was "selected for" and suspect that it is a by-product of life. I tend to look at it like I would a magnet. First it is just a rock, then something happens to it that polarizes some electrical something within it, and it becomes a magnet. The second division of consciousness, awareness, feeling, and emotion is a force or collection of forces that activate with life, just like the force of the magnet activates when it becomes a magnet. But this is just my guess, because I really don't understand magnets. Gee

Hikinmike; Welcome to my thread, and welcome to the forum. Well, I have been studying consciousness for five decades, although I did not call it that when I started out. As a teen, I questioned the "God" ideas, and looked to different religions, then in the 1960's, I looked into psychic phenomenon and realized that it had much in common with the religious ideas. After that I looked at ecosystems, homeostasis, the self-balancing nature of Nature, and Psychology, then threw in ideas from Science and Philosophy. Like you, it was not until retirement that I really got to study these ideas and the other ideas from Philosophy. What I found was that there are way too many theories of consciousness, but not one of them explained all of the truths that were in the assorted theories. That was the problem, each theory had some bits of truth that would conflict with other theories with some bits of truth. How is that possible? Conflicting truths can not be true. Over the years, I developed an understanding of consciousness based upon these conflicting truths. I realized that water can cause a fire, as in barn fires, but can also put out a fire; water can be solid, liquid, or gas; water can drown me if there is too much, but I can not live without it. Conflicting truths. As my understanding developed, I realized that consciousness and water seem to share properties -- if one thinks of consciousness as a physical reality in our world. My conclusion was that what we call consciousness is way more complex than we realize, because like water, it can change with temperature, density, and whatever it is mixed with, but each theory was trying to reduce it to a concept that is more easily understood. So I decided that a new approach was necessary. Instead of accepting the "God" ideas, brain ideas, or illusion/dream/holograph ideas, I decided to break down consciousness into it's components to study them individually. This led to the divisions of consciousness, the first being knowledge, thought, and memory, which is the static and private division; and the second being awareness, feeling, and emotion, which is the fluid and shared division. You could think of the first division as being the subject of a sentence and the second as being the verb -- the action, happening, or state of being. Of course, since this is my idea and not known to others, there is going to be a great deal of "definitions, semantics, and phenomena" to dispute. (chuckle) I understand that and have been trying to be patient. As I stated to Roamer, a lot of things are called instincts, that may or may not be actual instincts. But I think that survival instincts are very relevant to evolution; survival instincts are all activated by feeling or emotion, and work through hormones and/or pheromones. It is interesting to note that hormones can turn off and on different aspects of DNA. Interesting. This question has been asked many times and answered by things like Plato's "forms" and "God" ideas, but I avoid it. To answer this question would require me to speculate, as I know of no clear evidence. If I speculate a conclusion, then I am likely to fall into the confirmation bias that others have succumbed to with theories of consciousness. So no thanks. Gee

Tar; Good post. +1 Roamer; You brought up some good points. Some of them were addressed in Tar's post, but others need to be addressed by me, so please consider the following: Agreed. As far as we can tell, the simpler life forms have less conscious awareness than more complex life form, and this awareness seems to advance as life forms advance, and seems to be dependent upon the physical aspects of the life form -- specie. As stated before, awareness seems to be dependent upon physical matter in order to even exist. It must also be considered that all life forms are conscious to some degree, and as far as we know there is no consciousness that exists without life forms -- so the two do seem to be interrelated. This does not necessitate a causal relationship with regard to evolution, but it also does not exclude a causal relationship. More information is needed. Everything that I have ever read about evolution in species states that the evolution caused the specie to advance or improve it's survival ability. This is where I see a connection between consciousness, species, and evolution -- in survival instincts. Instincts is a very controversial subject. I know this because I did a thread on it in another forum and was amazed at all of the different ideas that are called correctly, or incorrectly, instincts. I suspect that you are a science person, as you mentioned some of these ideas in your post, and they should be considered. While working in the Instincts thread, I remember thinking that we need a person with the mental acuity of Einstein, but with the training in Biology, Neurology, Psychology, and Consciousness in order to untangle that mess. For that reason, my thoughts in this thread are mostly related to survival instincts, because it is something that can be verified and known to be somewhat accurate. I am tired now, so I will consider your other comments either tomorrow or the next day. Welcome to the thread. Gee