“and who doesn't see why any wealth should trickle down to the lower classes.”

So trickle down theory works then? I agree.

He’s playing politics. Is it working? Probably. He is not going to care about voters he knows he will never persuade.

ah, I think I get it. You are speculating that such installations will not have been done and that you speculate as to why. That’s fine. We all speculate.

I just happen to speculate the otherwise. No biggie.

Un-hackable is not possible. If someone can create a system where remote control can happen from anywhere on the planet someone will find a way to take over control soon enough.
I think the authorities realized this and decided not to install them — Sir2u

I don’t see where your response relates to my post. Would you direct me to where it may relate?

Although it may not be true.

“This “me” also incorporates within it “others” when they enter into any particular experience”

This maybe why certain age old philosophy has regarded one’s enemy as merely a reflection of an aspect of oneself.

Therefore this also maybe why particular wisdoms speak of understanding, and that there really is no “other” and that there is only “one”, or something like that.

But, regardless of old wisdom culture rhetoric, too me it is plain and obvious based on direct experience of what is arising and with the confronting knowledge “I” can never be a separate thing to what is perceived generally in any moment.

And we can only really be what is perceived. So the body we thought was “me” is merely only one of the objects that is perceived. Therefore “me” is every object, thought, noise, smell, pain, etc, that has arose.

This “me” also incorporates within it “others” when they enter into any particular experience.

Perception, therefore, arises in Consciosness.

I expect some initial confusion which is not about dimness.

The reason for confusion is that I am interpreting used words in a different way, but there is no real choice other than to do this because it is more problematic to invent a new language.

The human brain perceives something we call “life” in a particular way.

Life, as we perceive it, is not life as other creatures or plants “see” it. Even individual human brains are having different perceptions of what is supposed to be the same thing (synesthesia or even as subtle as a different mental focus).

It’s perception is everything being experienced in any moment, whether it be pain in a foot, a heartbeat, the warmth of the sun, a voice, the space defined as a room, thoughts, etc, etc.

Also, therefore, the entire body which we assume to be me or you is as much a merely perceived thing as a voice heard or the warmth of the sun felt.

So what I interpret “Consciousness” to be the invisible void within which everything arises.

So even what we see to be the universe, such as stars, planets and whatever the space is in between, is merely a perception unique to the human brain and which also merely ARISES within Consciousness.

You or I as the merely perceived thing - the merely PERCEIVED identity, just one of countless things that are experienced as arising in Consciousness, is only a product of thinking itself.

As such, the thought “me” is just a habit of mind.

(I’m not alluding to any distinction of 2 things, brain and mind. I’ve used “habit of mind” as a figure of speech. Habitual thinking or persistent and consistent thought, perhaps).

A pass on what? You want me to continue to point out errors for you to explain away? — Sapientia

That’s usually how a discussion works. You contribute an analysis of something, which you apparently define as an error, and I offer my analysis on the something you have defined as such.

So that’s a pass then?

July 31, 2018

MH370 OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT: USELESS PIECE OF DOCUMENTATION.

While reading the 495 page Malaysia FINAL REPORT, AD researchers believe they have found their SMOKING GUN or Achilles Heel. On pages 94 and 95 in section 1.6.10 the truth is contradicted:

“1.6.10 Boeing Patent on Remote Control Take-over of Aircraft

There have been speculations that MH370 could have been taken over control remotely in order to foil a hijack attempt. Some of these speculations have mentioned a US patent that Boeing filed for in February 2003 and received (US 7,142,971 B2) in November 2006 for a system that, once activated, would remove all controls from pilots and automatically fly and land the aircraft at a predetermined location. According to the patent, existing preventative measures such as bullet-proof doors and the carriage of air marshals on board may have vulnerabilities. The flight crew could decide to open a lockable bullet-proof cockpit door [refer to Section 1.6.8, para. 4)] and air marshals, if used, might be over-powered. In light of the potential that unauthorised persons might be able to access the flight controls of an aircraft, the inventors conceived of a technique to avoid this risk by removing any form of human decision process that may be influenced by the circumstances of the situation, including threats or violence on-board. The ‘uninterruptible’ autopilot envisioned by the patent could be activated, either by pilots, on-board sensors or remotely via radio or satellite links by the airline or government agencies if there were attempts to forcibly gain control of the cockpit. This system once activated would disallow pilot inputs and prevent anyone on-board from interrupting the automatic take-over. Thus, the personnel on-board could not be forced into carrying out the demands of any unauthorised person(s).”


AND YET:

Saturday 3 March 2007

“Boeing insiders say the new anti-hijack kit could be fitted to airliners all over the world, including those in the UK, within the next three years.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/new-autopilot-will-make-another-911-impossible-7239651.html

Time is more fundamental than motion. Time is simply one of the properties of objects of experience. Time does not imply motion. Just because there is time does not mean there is motion. You need change, i.e. difference between points in time, in order to speak of motion. And not any kind of change but change in position. — Magnus Anderson

“Points” in time imply things/events separate from ongoing and unfolding motion.

Everything is always moving.

Nothing is still.

“Points”, in time, can only really be aspects of experience highlighted in memory. It would be like travelling down a road that one has nearly everyday and on one particular day you run over a cat.

That cat event gets remembered and becomes a “point in time”, while most of the rest of the journey becomes vague due to familiarity.

I don't see an answer to my question in all of that. Errors? Yes, no, or don't know — Sapientia

You point out the error and I will analyse.

Other than that, errors are what is to be expected when one encounters hurdles and opposition.

No. I am changed by my experiences. But I am not wholly defined by them, just as I am not wholly defined by consciousness. I have many parts. Memory and consciousness are two of them. My body is another vital part, as our minds are embodied, not independently existent. My nonconscious mind is another part. It does most of the work. It does much of what we like to think of as conscious processes, but are not. I think reducing us to mere experience is something of an insult. We have many failings and shortcomings, but we are more than just accumulated and remembered events. — Pattern-chaser

Consciousness and brain needs to be defined. “Brain”, which is process, is the room “you” are in. The universe perceived is essentially “the brain”.

This “room” or “universe” can be referred to, therefore, as “consciousness” within which things arise.

Experience arises within consciousness.

The “human brain” processes life, whatever that electrical form is, into particular imagery and sensations as though an aperture.

The “aperture” generated imagery/sensation processor of a slug will not be the same universe as perceived by the “human-brain aperture”.

LIFE is a perception on a possibly infinite spectrum upon which human consciousness occupies a sliver.

That “sliver” is “the room” or the “universe” of our perception. The universe we perceive is Consciousness.

“Consciousness” is not the visible skull area.

The physical skull and body is merely an animated object which arises as an experience within Consciousness which we generally habitually and falsely regard as ourselves.

However, our selves are actually the whole entire experience that arises within “the room/universe of our perception”. Or rather, Consciousness.

And even this appearance only seems so because things happen outside of your consciousness, and you seem, perhaps, to be forgetting that this is so — Pattern-chaser

Nothing happens, that you remember/experiences, outside of consciousness.

Again, whatever arises in consciousness is me, but I am not limited to that. Your view here would seem to reflect that odd understanding that some people have, they 'they' are just their consciousness, and that their nonconscious minds, and their doings, are something foreign, something distinct from themselves. Maybe even their bodies are included too. :chin: Not so. You are all of you, not just some of the parts. Even your gut bacteria, which has its own DNA, not yours, contributes to 'you' and 'your' identity. You are a community. Some parts of that community are 'you' (in the sense that they carry your DNA) and some are not. And some parts of your mind are conscious, and some are not. All of them, in combination, are 'you'. — Pattern-chaser

Everything you have identified can be classified under “Experience”.

One would not be aware of “DNA” if it as a subject did not arise within the experience which is you.

I don’t see ourselves as “their or my consciousness”. I see consciousness as what we arise within.

On memory and history, memories arise within consciousness. Memorise, therefore history, are thoughts - which is experience - which is you.

“You”, therefore, is far more fluid that we tend to think (unless our thinking is somewhat stagnant).

You are fluid in that as an experience changes and shifts, so you also do because you are that.

What defines an event? You have made event sound as though everything came to a stop between periods of “duration”.

Time, as I see it, is a method of measuring motion. Motion does not cease.

“Events” are really just points of a duration which impress more so upon memory.

Six replies? A single reply would've sufficed. So, do you acknowledge any of the political errors I raised as political errors, or are you still in denial? I don't expect Superman. That's just silly. Like others, I was just curious about the length you're willing to go to in order to avoid admitting to error — Sapientia

I have defined what an “error” is more than once. It is expected when one tries to do something. Greater wins over smaller losses are obviously a reasonable measure of success. Wins on things of greater importance over losses on things of lesser importance also is a reasonable measure of success.


There is also the common strategy of pushing for something greater than you were prepared to accept in order for there to be a possibility of gaining more than you would have taken. Same strategy is used on the floor of an auction.

Even to a media audience one has to be prepared to be mocked while keeping one’s victories private - a victory such as that achieved as demonstrated by the “auction floor” analogy.

Not seeing these factors is being simplistic.

Thought follows as a consequence of arising circumstance. Whether that be a prior thought, an act, or a dream.

Is it not so?

Cause and effect does not necessarily negate one's ability to choose what sorts of influence one wants — creativesoul

It will always SEEM like a choice. That is the trick.

Also it is not clear if Clinton herself played any direct role in hiring Steele, although later use of the dossier under her knowledge and direction might constitute a violation — prothero

Ah, which included hiring Russians, by the way.

It was sarcasm. — Sapientia

I didn’t want to immediately assume you were being a knob.

And please stop with the red herrings. They are not a valid argument. This isn't about Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama. Whether or not they have similarly appeared weak is irrelevant to whether or not Trump has appeared weak. This is about Donald Trump — Sapientia

Trump should not be weak towards those who make up all the Russia BS.

Check how the Browder inspired Magnitsky Act was a fraud.

https://youtu.be/njzZcdoLP6c

Human lives, peace, and stability are much more important than whether or not a president will appear weak for not sticking to his word or following opinion with action. Trump knowingly endangered lives and the stability of the region effected. He cost lives by going ahead with it. It is better that Obama exercised restraint, even if it made him look weak — Sapientia

Better to appear weak and be weak? Ok, got that. A contrast to Superman now. This is getting to be about schizophrenia.

Ha! That's the best you can come up with? I refer you, for example, to what The Economist has said about it. I quoted an article earlier on in this discussion — Sapientia

Everyone speculates.

Yes, failed. He has failed to implement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”, as he said during the 2016 presidential campaign. He also had failures along the road which lead to the Supreme Court's narrow ruling (5 - 4) on the final version of his executive order, which is not the Muslim ban he spoke of during his campaign. His first executive order failed and was reversed and he then had to revoke and replace the original. — Sapientia

Normal, however, that every president attempts to impose an election edict and processes work against them.

If one doesn’t ever try then that same one never does anything. Might as well stay in bed.

Sounds like you expect Superman to come along.

I don't need to provide a list, and I shouldn't have to explain to you the kind of things which are normally considered to be political errors during a presidential term. Use your head. A failure to meet a goal, a strategy that backfires, an action which lowers your approval rating, or harms your chances of reelection, or damages your reputation or the reputation of your party, or damages key international relations, or harms the economy, or loses you public support, or results in widespread condemnation, and so on, and so fort — Sapientia

So, a description of apparently normal “errors”. Sounds like every presidency.

Nonconscious processes that are triggered by internal and/or external stimuli. Voluntarily thoughts can also trigger involuntary thoughts. — numberjohnny5

Cause and effect.

To reflect, plan, make decisions, etc. I do it mainly by concentrating or focusing on specific aims or goals, e.g. I want to modify my CV, so I will have to think about what aspects of my current CV need updating. — numberjohnny5

This still suggests cause and effect. A thought generates the next.

So you don't believe in free will then? — numberjohnny5

Correct.

There will always be uneasy universal race relations because too many individual persons identify themselves as a particular race or particular mixes of race.

It is all just typical, everyday, common garden variety, narcissism.

Race identification of others and oneself is a product of being a bit dumb, frankly. "Dumb" in the sense of emotional immaturity.

Politicians, corporations, and anyone trying to sell or push anything, will use race to divide up people into factions (or emphasize this "dumb" tendency). The style of politics that use race is a pretense designed to represent virtue.

Obama achieved zero for positive race relations although his zero result was his personal achievement.

(Missed numbering it)

2a. Do "you", as the thinker, generate an involuntary thought?

Personally I think that all thinking is involuntary - that they are induced within cause and effect.

I think the idea of involuntary vs voluntary arises because some thoughts seem to be far more spontaneous - as if from nowhere, and not, therefore, necessarily following a remembered thread.

(repeat to include numbers for last three)

5. If "you" the thinker does NOT generate an involuntary thought, does it still not remain that an involuntary thought is still being regarded as a "thought"?

6. If an "involuntary thought" is thereby a result of thinking then what or who is the thinker of it?

7. Is the thinker of an "involuntary thought" you (the "thinker" of thoughts)?

1. So do "you", as the thinker, voluntarily generate a thought?

2. If so, how and why do you do this?

Do "you", as the thinker, generate an involuntary thought?

3. If so, how and why?

4. If not, what DOES generate an involuntary thought within "you", the thinker?

If "you" the thinker does NOT generate an involuntary thought, does it still not remain that an involuntary thought is still being regarded as a "thought"?

If an "involuntary thought" is thereby a result of thinking then what or who is the thinker of it?

Is the thinker of an "involuntary thought" you (the "thinker" of thoughts)?

The Right To Free Speech is the Right To Lie — Agustino

Who is it or what is it that determines a lie has been spoken?

The speaker may just have made an error, possibly based on rumor from another source.

Free speech, a right to express what may turn out not to be true, is a better platform for that same speaker, and others, to possibly find out what is true.

Not really.

You have said Trump makes mistakes. I said it is likely.

You want me to comment on every mistake you conceive him to have made without specifying each mistake.

If you cannot list then maybe it is difficult for you to find. I am sure I have disagreed with you on many things about Trump going back over weeks so many things may have already been covered.

I shall paraphrase this conversation for you.

1. You suggested I think Trump never makes a mistake.


2. I said it is likely he does.

3. You want me to list them.

4. It isn’t my job to compose a list FOR YOU and then for me to comment on them.

4. I say it is reasonable that you identify a mistake you perceive so that I can comment.

5. I am open to comment upon a mistake YOU identify.

I think I am being fair and reasonable.