Ok so this can quickly become very complicated.

Traditionally, the dominant religions tend to suggest a conscious entity called God imparted it into some clay with its innate magic.

Modern interpretation suggests that living things that can sense things in their surroundings will do better than ones that can't. If you can't see or hear a bear approaching, you are more likely to be eaten, and the same holds true for your own food, shelter, and baby-making.

All that sensation is useless without a response to what is causing the sensation. So the ability to move towards food or away from a threat is important too. So these faculties tend to start with simple rules and build in complexity over time, bit by bit, depending on how helpful it is to survival. Memory of locations helps too - you can find likely places food will exist, and find your nest after leaving it to find food for your babies.

Centralising and organising all these sensations and reactions so you can connect cause and effect is probably the start of consciousness. It will become an increasingly complex system of sensations, filtering and consequential behaviours within an expanding mental map of the surroundings built from the memory of sensations.

Having a mental resource/memory means you can learn what causes specific effects in your surroundings, including your own movements and decisions. This is the basic form of self awareness - me as an interior mind Vs the world. This is an advanced form of consciousness.

This can happen if you can sense things, respond to things, remember things. It can become more complex if your sensory system can detect activity in other parts of its own senses to moderate/inhibit/emphasise your responses. You don't want to listen to your blood and heart all the time, you don't want to spend all the effort on controlling your breathing unless you need to.

This sensation of sensation, and the inhibition of sensations, is the mix of consciousness and unconsciousness that makes everybody who they are.

There are known physical things, like punches to the heqd and anaesthesia, that can halt consciousness. You can't see without eyes and you can't think without a brain, which is why brain damage and dementia can make people confused and change personality. It's also why we can do surgery and people don't feel it.

>That’s a matter of funding, there is no reason we couldn’t fund it enough to get rid of all waits.

Yes there is. A country only has so much money, and they have to decide how to spend it. Canada has a population of 39 million and it has as many MRI machines in the entire country as there are in the state of Tennessee with a population of 7 million.

Do you think that Canada would like to have as many MRI machines per capita as Tennessee? Sure they would! Why do they not? They cannot afford it.

Canadian healthcare does triage based on need, but they also triage based upon availability of resources. Hip replacements generally impact older people, and in some Canadian provinces the wait time for hip replacement is greater than 80 weeks. Statistically speaking that means there are people dying before they can get the hip replacement.

[removed]

The question of where consciousness comes from is one of the biggest mysteries of neuroscience and philosophy. While there is still no definitive answer, there are several theories and hypotheses that attempt to explain the origins of consciousness.

One hypothesis is that consciousness arises from complex computations that are performed by the brain. This view is known as the information integration theory, which suggests that consciousness arises when information is integrated across different regions of the brain in a coordinated manner.

Another theory suggests that consciousness emerges from the interactions between neurons in the brain. According to this view, consciousness is an emergent property of complex neural networks, which produce self-organizing patterns of activity that give rise to subjective experience.

There is also a growing body of research that suggests that consciousness may be closely linked to the ability of the brain to predict and model the world around us. This view suggests that the brain creates a model of the world and uses this model to predict future events, which in turn gives rise to conscious experience.

Ultimately, the question of where consciousness comes from is still an open one, and researchers and philosophers continue to explore this fascinating and mysterious phenomenon.

Sorry i don't understand the question?

How can you train for anything then? How do people play for any sports when training is not for real?

You need to learn how to handle your equipment, cooperate with others, and what tactics you should use. You need to learn that before real combat because if you do not know how to do it when you are not afraid you will for certain not know that when you are afraid.

If you do something it is second nature to you then you have a better chance to do it if you are afraid because you do not need to think about that. If you have learned to drive a car compared to how it was the first time you were in it compared to when you know how to drive. If you were in a car chase or another high-stress situation would you be better now than when you started to drive? The answer is you are better when you can use the equipment without thinking about it and the reduced amount of thinking you can do can be for the larger stuff like where should you turn not thinking about how to apply the gas, break, and turn the steering wheels.

Military war games are primarily what you call large-scale exercises they can be just on paper or with just communication between units commander and not everyone out on the fire, The can be with everyone out there too. It is not what individuals do in combat that is the most important but coordination and movement and cooperation between units.

How do you handle moments of there is a limited number of roads? How you maintain vehicles in the field, will break down even in training. How do you make sure units get fuel, ammunition, and anything else you need? Is the communication system working and a forward observer can get artillery support?

How do you coordinate so multiple units attack at the same time and maneuver to support each other?

Making sure everything that is not just individual soldiers fighting is extremely important. If your tanks do not get the fuel they quiclty end up as stationary metal boxes that do not have any electrical power and the only way to fire the gun is to manually crank it around. The ballistic computer and thermal sight will no longer work. The practical effect of a tank with no fuel is as if the tank was not there or destroyed.

It is a cooperation between units and logistics that you train in war games not primarily how individual soldiers do the fighting, that is something they should already know.

When you train troops both on the small and large scale you can use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integrated_laser_engagement_system or a similar system to simulate compart by fire lasers that vests on individual soldiers or system on vehicles detect. So you can get "killed" and it out of the fight temporarily.

People like to win and fake combat like that will be stressful even if you are not risking your life. Play paintball, Laser tag, or something similar and you will notice stress and the will not to be hit even if it is all just a game.

If you and your fellow soldiers can do what you should do first with no opponent and then with an opponent that does not kill you for real but take you out of the fight you have a lot better chance of doing that for real compared if you did not training.

When there's a move to defend the police, there's also an understanding that the internal culture and workings of the police are corrupt.

Given how the police protect its membership, how can we guarantee that money given to them will actually go to retraining and better standards of service? Do you contract a new teaching force, and a new internal investigations group to ensure compliance with the new framework?

That would be super adversarial, and I suspect rather dangerous.

In addition, sometimes cops as they are now are just the wrong tool. A mental health worker is actually more useful in many cases rather than a police officer.

Easier to defund and rebuild.

> I'm not sure I'd say it's so polarized. ONLY gives and ONLY takes. It's pretty extreme. Life is complicated, and I'm sure it doesn't always exist in extremes. I guess I'm saying I think it's more of a spectrum.

Because of this part of your comment, I'm not sure whether you see what aspects makes a relation a codependency. I'll try to explain it a bit more.

A dependency is clear: If you need help, you are dependent. Someone can give it to you. Maybe you don't have work and need food.That (indeed) is a spectrum: some people need more than others. If you need a lot and someone gives a lot, that can still be a regular dependency. No problem at all!

However, some people's selfworth is massively based on helping or being there for others. Even so much so that they will - intentionally or unintentionally - keep others down in order to be there for them. If the helper needs the dependent to remain dependent, they become codependent.

This causes a problem for the original dependent: If they stay dependent (e.g. have no job, need to live with someone else) they will remain unempowered and insecure. Which sucks. But if they grow out of their dependency (e.g. get a job, get their own place) their helper may be very disappointed or may even grow resentfull and angry with them.

> So, to go off of that, I think that it's possible for a culture to influence how codependency is percieved/judged/understood, etc. Like they may view the spectrum differently compared to individualistic societies...

I guess some societies could be more or less postivie about codependencies but the definition is quite the same for all cultures.

> But I do understand what you mean about the imbalance within relationships with codependency

It is not the imbalance itself. It is someones unwillingness to change another persons life for the better because it means they themselves would lose their purpose. Hence unnecesarily perpetuating the original dependee's reliance on them.

The true, short answer that ELI5 won't actually let you give is "nobody knows".

Consciousness is a mystery, we don't even know what it actually is let alone how it works. It's one of the areas that is still open to a multitude of spiritual interpretations. And if it is merely an emergent phenomena of bio-electric interactions between brain cells, which is what one might be tempted to think scientifically, then I think this leads to a big question of what other interactions could also give rise to some form of consciousness (albeit an experience that we may not even recognise as consciousness yet).

And to what degree do the electrical interactions in computers give rise to a form of consciousness? Again, it may not be a human-level, free-will having, life-enjoying experience, but when you look at very simple creatures driven mostly by instinct and not decision making, I think it's silly to suggest they aren't conscious, yet I also think their experience of their conscious existence is probably extremely dissimilar to our own. Go several steps down that rung and maybe you get to computers and I wonder where the concept of "consciousness" ceases to exist, if indeed it ever does at all.

Does it apply to gravitational interactions? Nuclear interactions? Does any of this even really matter?

The best sound bite I've heard for this one is that consciousness is a story the brain tells about itself. The idea is that what we experience as consciousness is a feedback loop of the brain producing and receiving its own stimulus. In addition to processing actual sensory input, out brains are also adept at creating signals which it can then process as if those signals were sensory input. What you eventually get is a constant hum of brain activity in which the brain is describing its own state

Another way to think about it is that your consciousness is like an operating system of a computer. It handles a lot of things, most things the user would be aware of, but there's a lot more computation going on than just in the operating system.

For instance, there is a certain kind of blindness where the eyes are functional, but the consciousness sees black. When told to look at pictures of people, subjects were able to guess how trustworthy someone appeared to like 70% accuracy, iirc, implying that some of the brain was still able to process the image, even if the conscious mind didn't know why.

Wasn't a time when people belived that life arised from a misterios life force imbued into inaninanimate matmatter ?

then modern biology was born dispelldispelling that notion with the realization that life is an emergent result of chemical processess and that complex life is a composite of simpler units

we were asking the wrong question, looking at the wrong perspective, now we know it doest mke sense there never was a misterious magic life force

The second pill only costs a dollar to make, the first one cost 1 billion...

Oh yes, I switched them up. Lemme fix that.

I would say to love people to the point where you want them bad enough to make room for them in your life.

I never found the word "need" a healthy word when it comes to a relationship between two people.

The water boils off and the blood solids can burn

I believe that the cost of the Iraq war was 1.1 trillion.

You're right it won't. The short answer is that adding velocity together is an approximation that only works for low speeds. It doesn't work when you get near the speed of light.

This link explains better than I can https://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/adding_vels.html

[removed]

I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly.
Do you want to know why training (for anything) works?
That's pretty easy. Simple example: Weapons.
Training how to use them means you can use them in a real battle/war.
That gives you a really good advantage compared to not being able to use a gun.

Another way to rephrase the above answer is, "we simply don't know for real", and that upens up another pretty relevant topic nowadays:

IF it's just somehow the complexity of the brain, how far simpler before it stops being true, or how complex can we make a machine before it becomes conscious?

[deleted]

I totally agree. I don't think any cop is signing up to spend half their time trying to manage the social issue of how we treat our homeless without being given proper education and inadequate training in the matter because no one else will do it. But that's what they are doing, because no one else will. So they will be more than happy to have things like that be transitioned to a better service. Im sure the term defund has a negative connotation in their circles, but that could be attributed to fear of being downsized (job loss), concern that this transition wouldn't be done right (because when, with a judicial system as fractured and varied as that of the USA is anything done right on a large scale) and they'll die because of it, believing that defund means remove funds in order to start the new programs - not start the new programs then scale back.

Like Afghanistan would have been a multiple generation operation if we truly wanted woman to keep their newfound rights, the defund movement will be as well. I don't think anyone has the appetite or attention for that in today's society - which is why I don't think it will happen.

>That contradiction between what you think is real and what is actually real

This one sentence explains me perfectly.

Kurzgesagt has a good video about this, worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6u0VBqNBQ8

Basically, it argues, if I remember correctly, that there is no special ingredient apart from evolution pressure + time and if you consider that in a serious way you can see how consciousness can an emergent feature in some species.