Neurosophist

My life is my ultimate measure of all value, without it I can not value. My life is terminable, when life is gone, nothing else is possible. To continue valuing, I must endeavor to make my life interminable. So why isn't everyone out there searching for the "fountain of youth"?

Yes, no matter how "hard" you choose not to die, it is a physical impossibility at this point not to. The real question of free will though is "what events can cause a choice?", not whether that choice is definitive of what will actually happen.

This thread is centered more on causality as it relates the human mind than with actions which have no effect. Laws may deter you from thinking in one way or engaging in some behavior, but they do not have the power of determinism to say exactly what you are going to do. To return you to spirit of the thread I ask the question, Can the fact that this smoking law is in effect really stop you from choosing to obey it or not?

Fallacy, if there is no connection, an impossibility, then it would be impossible to predict what percent of the people would share both attributes, except that the maximum amount that could share both would be 10%.

The problem with this and cigarettes and alcohol are generally that they may become uncontrollable much quicker than one would expect, beyond the idea that they are removing you from reality. As a form of recreation they are some of the most expensive ones and in my opinion not entirely worth it except under extreme moderation.

It seems your categories are consistent with most of the mind sets of the individuals involved in religion, however, besides the last one, I can't see a viable place to put most priests. While I'm relatively sure that they feel their institution is one which increases values which are good and that may serve as a good enough reason for them to believe, aren't there those people who honestly come to the conclusion that, outside of values, there is a reason to believe in an "immovable mover" like it or not?

The evidence provided for a mind before brain relationship seems an interesting paradox. Namely, could the first consciousness have come, evolutionarily, before the initial brain structure of a conscious being had evolved? If not, at what point did the consciousness begin to occur before its commensurate action in the brain?

The neurons implanted could, and have been, simply cells which have been immortalized, capable of reproducing themselves outside of the body and without the same provisions against dividing. Neurons can be transplanted in a way very much similar to stem cells, basically as surplus tissue which can be made to cooperate in neural operations. In the past however there have been attempts to add or transplant neural tissue, much like a hard drive between two computers, but this has been mainly unsuccessful at instilling knowledge or memory in different organisms. There does not seem to be any reason why a pastiche thinking organism could not be created given enough neural tissue which was directed in the proper way.

It DOES serve a good purpose, posting the rules of war as they stand informs everyone, those who will and will not violate them, what those rules are. If they have signed them they cannot say that they have not when brought to trial for war crimes, and therefore cannot plead ignorance. This is the basic gist of cosmopolitanism in the short run, that at very least everyone be informed of the rules.

Sorry, I didn't mean you had to provide my example, I misspoke and meant to challenge you (plural) to give me an example of someone who had knowledge of their actions' real effects and still knowingly committed an immoral act, I don't think it's possible. Of course merely having more knowledge about a subject does not necessarily make you a more moral person, but more knowledge does provide more opportunity for moral action because you will be behaving in a way consistent with the way that things really are.

While people are capable of knowing reality people who do bad things do not have a firm grasp on it. People are fully capable of being wrong, being bad however, or evil, would connote that somehow their existence is intrinsically flawed, which I wouldn't concede. Ignorance is the source of wrong acts, however I don't think you can merely constrain any wrong act to an individual, they, if they have a rational mind, had a reason to commit the crime.

If you're going to argue that the infant is a conceptual entity by nature than could you not just as well argue the fetus is conceptual by nature, in both cases you're saying there is a potentiality for conceptual activity but that it hasn't been arrived at yet.

I'm saying that while people often act illogically it is based on their own misunderstanding of the true nature of reality. Holding them accountable is requisite to social functioning. People act based on their knowledge of reality, so while they have some choice in their actions they have a definite diminished capacity simply as shown by the fact that they have committed an immoral deed. I repeat that if one knew the effects of their actions it would be impossible for them to act in a way contrary to reality or their best interests and therefore they would be by definition moral.

That is my point, the cheater's actions come from ignorance as to the failure of their actions, based ultimately on what they feel the true nature of the universe is, namely that its ok for them to break moral codes, for what ever reason, because they need to feed their family, because they're a narcissist, etc. Also my point, people who "choose to ignore the value of knowledge" have inherent misconceptions that the value of knowledge is nil, or think they know what's right so much that other's interpretations don't apply to them, etc. If you could provide an example in which someone was informed of the ultimate effects of their actions, and I mean ultimate as in down to the hurricane their butterfly wings cause halfway around the world, as well as a true moral system, also based on reality, they wouldn't act immorally.

1) Yes, there is no situation, it seems, in which some misunderstanding does not occur, if someone were to cheat in a game, they are simply not knowledgeable of the fact that cheating is wrong, because it invalidates anything their success 2) Absolute knowledge would be either of the former, to have complete knowledge of reality as it is would mean to be omniscient 3) Yes, as with all other situations, their choice, as contrary to what the person who continues to be interested in life as it may be, stems from a misunderstanding of the value of knowledge.

The "hammering" out is my concern, as it seems to be a continual process and can't simply be set down as law but taken on a completely case per case basis. Can there really be some sort of compensation for having defiled someone's rights, describing the preemption as moral and then discovering that the reaction was unwarranted? It seems like a terrible necessary evil and that the individual who was subject to it should have every rational reason to do nearly everything in their power to fight this irrationality, much like roark.

Ugh, my response was eaten it seems, but basically, there is no instance when some one has sufficient evidence to make an irrational choice, but rather some element of misunderstanding of reality lends itself to their incorrect and immoral choice (which in itself has rational causes). I agree that morality and value should be based on the most real evidence we have regarding reality, but if there were absolute knowledge, there would be no "breaches of morality". The person who "doesn't want to know" can sit on a rake for all I care, but they are simply laboring under the misconception that their apathy is warranted, which is the greatest breach of morality possible.

ohhhhhh, such a low blow, attacking biblical denigration of women and inheritance of sin is like... shooting fish in a barrel... with a thermonuclear weapon... with laser guided, infared, fish seeking technology...

Only people informed with regards to military action should make foreign policy, at least in this point in time.

I agree insofar as where threats themselves carry an act of force, such as intimidation and extortion, but the finest of lines must be tread to differentiate what the reality of that threat is and how the objective law was arrived at or else it is only a testament to our ignorance and impunity, and often the freedom which the law unjustly restricts will be rebelled against in worse ways than the threat that it carried [as per prohibition]

Where does the money come for for the abortion in a situation where the Rapist nor the Rapee can directly afford?