Abstractionreaction

I propose you have a set list of discussion points relating to current economic and political issues. I really doubt that having a discussion of those two suggested topics will move forward any kind of meaningful cognitive progression. I also plan to be in attendance.

Played D&D for roughly 8 years, starting with 2nd edition. I really felt like this was a big let down as far as game play. Now I feel like as was mentioned earlier that the classes are just too close to being the same thing really. The major difference I see is what color of wrapping paper you want on you character . One fantastic aspect I saw was the ability to play online, getting together was always such a pain for me and my groups. I wish I could have 3.5 playable online. And what the heck is up with a wizard NEEDING a wand to do ANY magic. I AM NOT HARRY POTTER! Ahem. Sorry I feel very strongly about casters...

Where can I find this 'debate' your involved in? I'm interested in checking it out.

Well this may not be exactly what you are after but I strongly reccomend getting involved in martial arts. The people you'll surround yourself with are knowledgeable, friendly and positive. You'd be surprised at the collection of information in a group like that.

Well, I don't think that the alternative of facing death nessecitates the choosing of values. I think that values are something you choose to persue for your enjoyment during the duration of your stay in exsistance- be it sixty years, six millenia or the whole of eternity. Values beyond self preservataion are used to enrich ones exsistance, not to sustain it. The part that is not convincing to me is reguarding the immortal indestructable conciousness. Though it has no physical requirements I can't understand why such an entity would not fill its time with a variety of activities.

Well I was definantly regarding indestructable.

As far as I can tell from reading the sections in OPAR and after much consideration I propose there isn't anything that really inhibits one from having values based on their term of existence. If this is so what ramifications would that have on morality?

Congrats james!

Question number two is an area I have been giving some thought too as well recently and I think that intellegence is a persons ability to abstract. By which I should clairify the degree to which they can abstract. We all have a limit to the information we can hold at one time in our frame of consciousness, I contend that being more intellegent allows you to consider more data at one time than someone with less intellegence. Now, I think its appropriate to say that people can abstract different types of information better than others. For example you claim a proficiency with acting where as I am quite natural with martial arts. The question arises now, (assuming I am correct) does the type of data being reguarded effect how one should evaluate a persons ability to abstract?

You havn't stopped entertaining me yet. Thanks again for the laughs, I'll be sure to share.

From what you say above it seems that you are asserting that conscience is an innate quality of man, to be discovered as were stars or physical properties of atoms. The conscience is a set of values accepted by the individual that retains it. The important term here being accepted, as in, chosen. Because this is so the conscience cannot be as you said what gives reason the valuation of good. I feel its important to consider my argument at this level because if I am right it would negate everything after it in the line of logic that you proposed.

So I just watched this movie several days ago and felt prompted enough to take notes as I watched. Aside from the majority of things all ready mentioned(thank you Antonio and Softwarenerd) there was a particular part of the movie that I didn't really understand why it was included until I got to this phrase uttered by a former member of British parliament " Well if you go back it all began with democracy. Before we had the vote, all the power was in the hand of the rich people. If you had money you could get health care, education, look after yourself when you were old, and what democracy did was to give the poor the vote. And it moved power from the marketplace to the police station. From the wallet to the ballot." That right there was very key to me. Not only is it a clear demonstration of a failure to grasp the difference between political and economic power but it is (by his tone) a complete moral sanction. Or perhaps more frighteningly he does recognize such a distinction and regards it as improper to have a free-market system.