Do horses understand the concept of racing?
As a former jockey, I know for a fact that they do. Some enjoy running more than others, however. Some like to win, some just like to run with the pack. Horses are NOT forced to run. Because I had a reputation as a good “gate jockey” I was given some horses to ride that would not leave the starting gate. I was only a good gate jockey when the horses LEFT the gate! I was always ready and balanced over their withers, so that I would not throw off their forward surge. As well, I gave them their head with a loose rein leaving there, in case they stumbled I would not be pulled off and they could recover on their own. (I wrapped my finger in mane to stay with them as they came out.) Also, a looser, longer rein allowed them to really stretch their neck forward leaving the gate. Those horses I was given to “ride” that never left the gate, just never left the gate. The doors would open, and there they would stand. There was nothing I could do about it, and after doing this twice, they got ruled off the racetrack. To make my point, horses run because they want to. As jockeys, we cannot make them run, nor can we get off and push. They do the work, we just try to place them in the best spot throughout the race, keep them out of trouble, and encourage them to run according to their most comfortable style (whether they prefer the lead or coming from behind.) The best horses I rode really enjoyed winning. They knew they were in front. Some liked competition so much, if you got the lead too soon before the wire, they would linger, waiting for another horse to come up so they could look them in the eye and run with them. You had to be careful to keep them close to other horses and just get their nose in front exactly at the wire. Otherwise, if in front alone, they would wait, and cost you the race. Some of these horses were known for “seconditis,” constantly finishing second due to this.
The difference between suicide thoughts and just thinking about the concept?
I was asked "Have you ever thought about suicide, death etc" Of course I have! But what is the difference between suicidal thoughts and thinking about the concept? For instance, a close friend of mine little brother hung himself in his closet.....for the past week or so I've been thinking about death and the way he commited suicide. The thought came across my mind of "Damn, what if I ever committed suicide what would my family do/think!?!?!" Have you ever thought about it or just the concept and outcome?
How many thoughts run through your head in any given minute?
This depends on what you constitute as a ‘thought’.If we are defining it as an INCOMING series of words, then 3 trains of thought would max out most with compound linguistic understanding abilities. To test this would entail listening to 3 people talking at once, and comprehending what they say.If we are defining it as an OUTGOING series of words, then people will find it difficult to write 2 streams of consciousness at once. However with rapidly speeding up, they can write many more thoughts per minute than someone working at a slower rate. However, linear verbage is not necessarily the true essence of the word ‘thought’.Thought is likely more of and impression-ally useful idea (beyond simply observation of an instance). In that case, some people still go one-by-one. However, when we are doing very rapid, entrained activities, we can be using dozens of simultaneous awarenesses - playing with things that, before such learning, required great focus to manage even one or two such awarenesses.That is the marvel of the multi-tiered synapses system that has evolved in the human mind!So for your question, I would say it really it requires definition of what a thought is. If linear verbage, per second, a few thought trains could bud in a second. With great focus, like mapping out an idea, 8–10 pathways could begin to excite impressions of where your idea might go, might evolve.However, when you consider a mentally conjured image, with thousands of objects, non of which come from a memory.. well that makes this hard to define! If each object was a thought, then we would say… thousands of thoughts can surface through impressions in a mere instant.http://CosmicTome.comhttp://RelativeModality.com
Grammar: "Some questions are roaming in my head." Is this a correct sentence?
There's nothing grammatically wrong with that. And there's nothing particularly wrong about using "roaming" if indeed that's a faithful description of the situation, that questions are roaming inside your head.I'm not going to tell you something like:- Oh, you can't use "roaming" there because thoughts don't roam or walk or run or jump. You should instead write "Some interrogative rhetorical conceptualisations are co-occurring in my mind to create a multidirectional psychological latency effect." Is that better or worse? Right? Right.I mean, I've got burning questions going hectic inside my head, and I don't think anyone's going to say that isn't a proper way of how I'm describing my situation.Your questions roam. Mine go hectic. Big deal.
Do you think Beavis from 'Beavis & Butt-head' was created/inspired after Jason Newsted?
How did you come up with the original concept for Beavis and Butt-head? I was trying to draw a guy I went to high school with from memory. I ended up drawing Butt-head's profile. It didn't look like the guy, but it started to look like something else and I just went with it. As for the voice, I had braces in high school and it makes you kind of buck-toothed [he pulls up his lips to demonstrate]. I was a pretty funny-looking kid... still am. When I was doing the voice, I kept in mind the way you talk when you're wearing braces. The wires usually scrape the side of your cheeks — [he mumbles in Butt-head's voice] "Uh, Beavis, that was cooool." Beavis was actually an attempt to draw the same guy.
What does the world look like outside of human perception?
lately this question, and one's stemming from it, has been stuck in my head. what we all agree on as "reality" is all just based on what our brains can pick up on, things we can see/hear/taste/smell/feel. but whose to say that human perception perceives everything and anything? for example our brains only pick up on a very small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the area we can pick up on is called the "visible spectrum", however that doesnt mean that those are the only colors that exist. birds can see ultraviolet light, which is something our brains simply cannot pick up on, so in a sense they can see colors that we cannot even fathom. this can apply to other senses too such as smell and hearing, considering other animals have a much more heightened sense of both. things like that make me think if we are limited in seeing only a small portion of the colors that exist, what else does the human brain not interpret? how much of "reality" are we missing out on? I know this question is obviously unanswerable, and a lot of you will probably just think im crazy, but im merely asking you to think about this idea for yourself and give your input on it.