That is not a question for philosophy, but for science - unbeknownst to most philosophers, the divination of reality has been passed on to science (for around 400 years now).

What a philosopher would ask is a question that science will never address, but desperately needs an answer to (so it will not be so easily commandeered by mindless megalomaniacs), a question that we all need an adequate answer to, the Greatest of the Great Questions of Life: that of "Why Bother?"

Without an adequate answer to that Greatest of the Great Questions of Life (for you must admit, you must answer that question before you even begin to address the others), all will crumble in uncertainty. (I have the answer, by the way) (and no - it is not a smart-ass answer. so don't go there).

To save myself from having to respond later, the answer is "Because consciousness is a good thing" (think of the alternative). This answer, by the way, also reveals the Ultimate Value of Life - Higher Consciousness (which humans have, but do not adequately use yet), which gives us the Ultimate Goal of Life (securing the Ultimate Value, naturally). In our case, it would be 'securing higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe". Now that we have an Ultimate Goal, we have the Ultimate Arbiter in determining good from evil (their being goal-driven), and with that ability, we can build worthwhile individual lives (with a clue) and relevant civilizations (finally).

The problem is weak philosophy - that is, subjective values. This leaves us in a hazy, nebulous, and clueless state, where the best we can do is live 'good but clueless lives' - not even knowing what 'good' is exactly.

I've answered all the Great Questions of Life adequately - my answers being based on current verified knowledge and our best models of reality (since my philosophy addresses broader survival), and I've even identified the REAL Greatest of the Great Questions of Life: "Why Bother?" (admit it - you must answer that question before you even begin to address the now 'lesser' questions - and note that science will never address that question - which means philosophy is still relevant (tell that to Stephen Hawking).

Answering this Greatest of the Great Questions of Life just happened to be the Ultimate Value of Life: Higher consciousness (of which humans are the current sole owners of (on Earth), though in a very primitive state). So to put the Greatest Answer into a sentence, the answer to "Why bother?" is "because consciousness is a good thing" (consider the alternative).

Now we have the Ultimate Value of Life, which has an associated Ultimate Goal - to secure the Ultimate Value (which currently happens to be unsecured). So in our case, the Ultimate Goal would be worded, "to secure higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe".

Now that we have an Ultimate Goal, we have an Ultimate Arbitrator in distinguishing good from evil (their being goal-driven), which gives us a solid foundation for building worthwhile lives (with a clue) and relevant civilizations (finally).

So now, when you are asked, "Why are you doing that?" "What is it you want?" "What are your motives?" You can put on a philosopher's hat and stand tall and say, "To secure higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe" (and you can add "thou fool!" just for impact).

The other "Great Questions of Life"? They have been answered by science in the form of verified knowledge (which is still largely ignored in favor of one's own uninformed imagination and social needs).
"Why are we here?" Verified Knowledge: "All evidence says there is no purpose. This is the universe that we have just awakened to. It is up to us to do with our awakening what we will."
"How did we come to exist?" Verified Knowledge: "All evidence points to pure chance in a chaos system of inanimate matter and energy."
"What is the meaning of life?" Verified Knowledge: "We make our own meaning, and if it is anything less than securing higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe, than you are a fool, a knave, or both, and your philosophy is death."
"Is there a God?" Verified Knowledge: "All evidence says 'no, and that all religions have been exposed as make-believe."
"Is there life after death?" Verified Knowledge: "All evidence says 'no', and further, it would be prudent to assume 'no' - that we have to work for it. Consider if we 'believed' that it existed and it did not, and we did not work for it, then we would be signing our death warrant.
"In the beginning, how did matter and energy come out of nothingness, i.e. how did 'something' come from 'nothing'?" This is a question for science, and it has not been answered yet. Philosophically I've answered it as follows: Infinity and eternity do not exist in the physical world, for anything that 'exists' needs 'bounds', and they are both 'boundless' - hence they are only words for 'nothingness'. Infinity is the nothingness in which everything exists, and eternity is the changelessness in which everything changes. The best we can do is define and broaden our time and space bounds in nothingness and changelessness (infinity and eternity), and hope that one day it intersects with other enlightened beings. Also, given infinity, 'everything' cannot exist (there being ever-more space for ever-more 'things' to exist in); and given eternity, 'eternal life' is rendered impossible (there being no end to stop and look back and say, 'Finally, I've lived forever!").
To finally address how 'something' came from 'nothing' - it can't, so the issue must be that there is something fundamentally wrong with our concepts of 'nothing' and 'something'... (and I suspect that infinity and eternity have something to do with it, but I of course can't be certain - it is a mere possibility to be further investigated).

ON ACCURATE EXPERIENCE
This has been investigated by science many times over (in psychology) - and the verdict is in - little of what we experience is an actual reflection of the whole that is being experienced, so our personal experiences are nearly wholly mistaken. Further, our senses are far from perfect - they CAN fail to 'sense' what is right before us - because we often 'fill-in' what we are sensing with what we 'expect' to be there (based on experience), which may not reflect what is actually there, hence our 'misperception'.

ON GOOD/BAD EXPERIENCE
As for experiences being bad or good - that all depends on the perspective that you acquired. Example: If you grew up in a mansion, anything less than that will seem horrible to you, and you will probably commit suicide if you ended up in anything less. If you grew up in a shack, then anything better than that will seem like a mansion to you, and you happiness in life will be pretty much guaranteed, since everything you encounter will most likely be better than your shack.

They are all tools - you can use them as sugar to help the medicine go down (whether you medicine is snake oil or not), or you can use them for color to maintain attention (though not understanding - analogies are distracting), or you can use them to obfuscate (for whatever devious purpose - keeping mindless followers in the dark).

Your videos were incomprehensible, but I did look-up the obscure terms, and found them in religious contexts - meaning your intent is probably to 'spread the word' through colorful analogy, like orators did 2000 years ago,and whether 'the word' itself is true or the preposterous imaginings of primitive minds, and where you will then be recognized as a 'fine orator' (by whomever you need to impress).

There is nothing wrong with it, and it is actually 'prudent' (from a survival standpoint) to assume that there is no afterlife - meaning it is something that we have to achieve on our own (the prudent course of action).

I say 'prudent' because if we 'believe' that there is already an afterlife, and there isn't, then we are signing our own death warrant.

Now here is further thought for you - consider 'us', who are most likely fated to 'die' (with no afterlife), and then consider future consciousness that have 'defeated death' (perhaps they discovered that the sun's radiation was the cause, and moving away from such radiation sources was the answer).

Now they will have no need of an 'after' life, since they are not guaranteed to die (but they will have to perpetually be on guard against unforeseen threats), but we are already dead, dying hoping for an afterlife. Now, if we worked toward securing higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe, and it was secured, then it is possible that a future, more advance higher consciousness will be able to 'recreate us' - giving us 'new hope' for an 'afterlife' - but on a practical, technological plane, and not a purely make-believe one given to us by primitive minds who knew no better - not having the vast amount of verified knowledge that we now have (but which is largely ignored).

Back then, 'conquest' was to be taken literally - everyone was in 'conquest mode', which, needless to say, was a wrong (and primitive) mode of thinking. Kings though it their 'duty' to conquer and seek the associated 'glory'.

Descartes was referring to understanding nature, which included understanding how we 'worked', which would enable us to live beyond the limits of nature - that is, to live forever, or at least "secure our consciousness against a harsh and deadly universe" (how i like to phrase it).

The video responses would have been interesting to compare, but there was only one. Any response would have had one shed a little light on one's own personality and views/values/philosophy.

For the Jung/Cannibal test, there are two answers the the question "What kind of God are you and why do you come to our land?"

My answer was, "Come with me and your questions will be answered." This would not only save you from being cooked, but it would benefit them.

For the Freud/Coma test, and the instruction, "Say something traumatic to the person in a coma", that depends on what kind of person is in a coma. The first 'type' of person that came to my mind was a vain and petty female, so I said, "Your hair is a mess and badly needs shampooing" which would be traumatic to such a person.

As for self-analysis based on my responses, my Jung response reflects my desire to communicate my new philosophy of survival for higher consciousness to the world (me being in 'instructor' mode). My Freud response is more hazy - it probably reflects my still searching for my first true love, and my continued frustrations with a general mental paradigm driven by pettiness and vanity.

"cynical" was the word you were looking for...

Let's go on verified knowledge (and throw speculation out the window) and what the resulting current evidence says:

The universe is a chaos system - everything that exists has come together by pure chance. Our universe is powered by the 'molecular storm' - which is like dust kicked-up by the Big Bang, which is still looking for a place to rest (on physicist said that life was 'electrons looking for a place to rest', referring to the 'molecular storm') (but he did not address 'emergence' of higher systems).

So the 'emergence' of higher systems came about by pure chance. There is another 'higher force' involved - that of molecular self-assembly (consider the snowflake) - meaning that we 'came together' through the force of molecular self-assembly, partly powered by the molecular storm, which is the underlying force behind biochemistry and cell functions.

Cells are an interesting issue - theory has it that the began as lipid vacuoles - the phenomenon where lipids spontaneously form 'bubbles' (which then became cell membranes). These 'bubbles' offered an 'internal environment' where the probability of the molecular interactions required for 'life' (for self-sustaining molecular machines - all created by chance, remember) increased, hence increasing the probability of self-perpetuation (which could not happen in an open pond - everything would disperse).

Through the forces of molecular self-assembly and chance, larger 'life-forms' occurred, and, by chance, some conglomerations of molecules, and later microbes and cells, chanced upon emergent functions which were successful at self-sustaining themselves (like a bureaucracy), which is what we are.

On the brain - initially there was no brain - all output reactions to sensory inputs were hard-wired. We still have them - they bypass our brains for the sake of speed - we call them 'instincts'. By chance, or by environmental pressures now, the first nascent 'brain' occurred, which offered more flexibility in responses, which proved to be useful in finding nutrients, and in survival.

Why do we have 'superior' brains over the rest of nature? No one knows, but chance environment played a role. Fish stuck to the sea, for example, and the theory is that with a more limited sense range, they had to rely more on quick instinct to avoid predators/find prey. One land, one could 'see' and 'sense' farther, allowing more time for 'contemplation', and hence more flexibility - meaning unpredictability, which contributed to survival (avoiding the guesses of predators).

Perhaps humans had a lot of idle time on their hands, and their minds began to wander away from purely animal concerns. Today, we can proactively seek-out as-yet undiscovered threats/benefits to life, and proactively develop/implement solutions in advance or as soon as possible - before an event occurs, and for the benefit of all of life.

CONCLUSION
We are here by chance. This is the universe that we have just awakened to. With what we know now, we must work toward perpetuating life (in hopes that some future higher consciousness will be able to 'recreate us' (with technology), addressing our 'life after death' and 'eternal life' hopes (though eternity renders 'eternal life' impossible - the best we can do is continue to exist - forever - and barring any unforeseen circumstances, which, given infinity, will always exist (meaning infinity prevents us from ever knowing 'everything' - meaning all threats to life).

ON NON-REDUCTIVE PHYSICALISM
Non-reductive physicalism is wrong - claiming that thoughts cannot be reduced to physical world processes. Without your biological platform operating in the physical world, you will have no thoughts (and you will not exist). This may change with technology, but it is still reductive.

On a related note (the underlying assumption of non-reduction), just because a phenomenon is currently beyond our understanding (which is understandable - since we have 'just awakened' to the universe), it does not mean the phenomenon (in this case the thought-biology connection) does not exist. To claim that thoughts do not need our biological platforms simply because we cannot figure it all out is doing just that - claiming a connection does not exist 'just because' it is still beyond our understanding.

ON THE DUALISM
Therefore, since one philosophical school of thinking is wrong, that negates the dualism.

ON STRONG EMERGENCE
Strong Emergentism reflects reality - where a new higher system is created by smaller parts. A car engine is a good mechanical example - the overall function is different than the function of any of its component parts. The liver is a good biological example. It performs a higher function that any of its component parts (cells) do individually - in other words it takes a team effort.

I've found Strong Emergence in human societies (shush - it is a new insight of mine) - where human institutions take on a life of their own - becoming self-sustaining and performing societal functions beyond any one of its component humans (we refer to the worst of them as 'self-serving bureaucracies').

A few observations to share:

1.) Logical thinking in ancient Greek times grew out of an industry - to train paying clients on how to argue their cases in court.

2.) Logical thinking was not the only kind of thinking going on - there was also Rhetoric - which is all about persuading people (whether you speak the truth or not) (and it includes things like body language and emotion), and which was taught by Sophists (hence the phrase 'twisted sophism' when confronted by a deceitful and erroneous propositions) (though they actually taught a lot of things, getting a somewhat bad rap). Today rhetoric is taught to unscrupulous used car salesmen and trial lawyers, hence its continued lowlife image.

3.) There are fallacious forms of modus ponens (which you pointed out).

4.) Other terms for modus ponens would be 'Rules of Thumb' or 'Generalizations' or 'Likely Probabilities' or 'Not hard-and-fast laws of nature'.

Not everything has been articulated yet - and the most voluminous of those 'things' are 'potentially-useful perspectives' (which you alone may have just discovered, but others have not, and it is up to you to 'put it into words').

Why put it into words? Why, to share you insights and discoveries with the whole world! Without words, you might be able to communicate your new perspective to the person next to you with mere body language, but that is not as good as communicating it to the entire world (which may need it).

As for those 'hazy feelings' - what they really are are your new senses of reality - an aspect that you have faintly sensed - which may be common to others but new for you.

As for actually putting your hazy notions into clarifying words - it takes practice, and timing - you have to catch most insights as the occur - they are fleeting and you will near-instantly forget them in the noise and distractions of life - meaning you have to record them - in the best words that you can - as soon as you can - and my current method is a pen and notebook (I have about 20 pocket notebooks filled with potentially-useful perspectives that I still need to type into the computer and then post online).

A warning here - don't get all 'mystical' about it - stick with reality. You can imagine things, but know that it is most likely sheer make-believe. You can spend time, money, and energy testing them, if you think they are worth further investigation. but don't go playing the IS GAME - where you claim your speculations are correct without tests and verifications (unless your purpose is deception and fleecing people out of their money, like a celebrity guru).

I like one of mine: "The universe is pointless - I'd just like to make that point."

THE ANSWER IS QUITE SIMPLE (but it was difficult to arrive at):

Reality is that which will annihilate you, whether your mind acknowledges its existence or not.

Wittgenstein pointed out that 'speaking' was 'action'. This may be obvious to us, but maybe the paradigm of his time failed to see that, and he needed to point it out (hence he made a noble attempt at elevating the deplorable mental state of his era).

What Wittgenstein failed to fathom was the role of words - the are mere tools to convey MENTAL IMAGES, which are the underlying goal.

Now consider all the situations where you do not need words - for example when showing someone a task - you can just say, "Now pay attention" and nothing further. Words may 'just get in the way' in this situation.

Words serve as a great 'archive' for communications - whether you are communication action instructions or ideas (possibilities); and even with 'instruction' you must, lacking accompanying pictures, form mental images of what the words are trying to convey.

An associated problem with words are 'emotions' - if you wish to suggest an emotion toward an object or issue (such as when the media is trying to subliminally brainwash you), you need to 'know the culture' - i.e. know which words convey which emotions for that culture.

So with words, you are really trying to convey mental images and emotions, which are the real issues. The term "Language Games" merely addresses (at best) the exploration of the effectiveness of words, which we may or may not need, based on the situation and the message to be conveyed.

Vengeance only serves yourself, justice serves society.

I'm not an anti-realist in any sense (whatever you meant by it - you did not define it), though there is value in 'being unreal' - it contributing to 'diversity' which is a critical factor in broader survival in a deadly universe (where people walking around in mental fantasies may be the ones who 'survive'). Here I want to bring you (and the world) up to speed on 'good and evil' (and what better place than in a philosophy forum - grass-roots dissemination has its peculiar satisfaction).


ON GOOD AND EVIL

Good and evil are goal-driven. Whatever your goal is, you will define good and evil by it (others may not agree).

Now we get to the deplorable state of philosophy (which is in the toilet). It has offered no Ultimate Objective Value in life - it is still in a wishy-washy, mentally limp-wristed, hazy and nebulous state of affairs, claiming that it can do no better than Subjectivism. That is pathetic, and it is why you asked, "Do you think you are above good and evil?" which would never be asked by an enlightened mind (don't feel bad, we still swim in a sea of philosophical stupidity).

Enter me.

Here is the first Ultimate Objective Value for mankind (I've identified three Objective Values, in descending order): Higher Consciousness (currently embodied in humans). (the other two are, in descending order, 'consciousness' (the level of current animals) and 'non-conscious life' (vegetation and microbes) - their value being based on the assumption that they too can attain higher consciousness status (via biological evolution, or by our interdiction).

Why is an Ultimate Objective (universal) (core) (ultimate) Value so important? (need I ask?) - because it gives us an associated Ultimate Goal of Life (which, in general terms, is to secure the Ultimate Value of Life; and in our specific case, it is to "secure higher consciousness against a harsh and deadly universe").

Now that we have an Ultimate Goal in Life, we can clearly and quickly determine good from evil (both being goal-defined, and we have identified the Ultimate Goal, hence we now have the Ultimate Arbitrator).

So now you can clearly see why saying 'I am above good and evil' is a clueless and foolish statement (born of a clueless and foolish past) (my philosophy is for future minds - I've given-up on my contemporaries).

Pop culture is still all about 'glory' and 'identity'. The difference is in style - the next generation finds a style that it can call its own, but the 'glory' is still there - mainly in the form of media sensationalizing and attention.

Note that most of the world views 'pop' culture as childish, not knowing that we cling to it throughout our lives as a (futile) means to cheat aging...! (as we try to be perpetual fourteen year olds)....

Culturally, woman are still coming into their own, so philosophy is still on the horizon for them. One step at a time. Today business, science, and politics, tomorrow, philosophy (specifically answering the Greatest of the Great Questions of LIfe: that of "Why bother?") (though I've already answered it) (because consciousness is a good thing) (consider the alternative), and we can be Mr. Mom's in the meantime - teaching our preschoolers calculus - it may be the preferred arrangement...

THE PROBLEM IS IN INADEQUATE DEFINITIONS

Utilitarianism made the same mistake that Aristotle did - deeming 'happiness' as an 'end-goal' in life, when it is not - it is a potentially suicidal value (and it has been for the last 2500 years).

A better 'end-goal' would pertain to broader survival (which will inherently bring happiness). In our case, given the universe that we have 'just awakened to', the 'end-goal' actually involves 'work' (which will bring happiness - so Utilitarianism and Aristotle both failed to adequately define 'happiness' rendering both of their views and conclusions vague and nebulous - in other words, weak and useless).

What is this 'work' that will, if not bring happiness, then will bring a justified feeling of satisfaction? It is this: the endeavor to secure higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe.

The current problem lies in the failure to adequately define 'happiness', where most people have the erroneous notion that it is indulging in useless, hedonistic activities, or worse - in inducing envy (which leads to all kinds of evils, war not among the least).

\
IN THE END BOTH METAPHYSICS ARE MAKE-BELIEVE
At best, both metaphysics, as sheer speculations (if pure imaginative make-believe or if based on data), offer 'possibilities' that may or may not rate further investigation.

That said, the make-believe and/or speculations will be different, reflecting the particular senses that they were based on. In the case of sound, all explanations would be cast in 'pressure waves'.

As far as 'divining reality' from sheer speculation, you can test it in the physical world. If it is beyond testing, then it is something to keep in mind as a possibility - especially when 'peering into the unknown' as I like to phrase it (though with hearing, your 'peering' would be 'listening' for the unknown - and all technology would be designed around hearing. Note that 'hearing' will do you no good as far as discovering threats from the vacuum of space - for example in the case of an impending killer asteroid, you would not know it until you heard it - meaning it had already entered the earth's atmosphere, which gives you only a split-second to react, which would be too late for your survival...

and this leads us to a key issue with 'senses' - it would be wise to always search for 'new senses' (and we have gained many through science and technology - in just a few hundred years we have gained senses (and physical/mental abilities) far beyond what mere biology has given us over the past several billion years).

So, being stimulated to think further along a parallel path, the two major questions are 1.) What new 'sense' will be discovered next? and, (far more important) 2.) What senses do we still need to secure higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe?

In the first case Bob's oversight was his responsibility, and the extra expenses were caused by him, hence he should bear the costs of his actions.

In the second case Alex was wrong to let Bob drive his vehicle when it was so low on oil without informing Bob. If Alex did not know, and if Alex did not know the extent of Bob's familiarity with motors, then that was Alex's own negligence on both accounts, and Bob should not have to pay for Alex's negligence on either account.

So in both cases it comes down to whose actions were the ROOT CAUSE of the results in question. In both cases, the root causes were negligence - Bob's in the first case and Alex's in the second.

CONSIDER YOUR ERRONEOUS EXAMPLE

You gave the 'lion in the rustling bush' as an example of a 'fallacy', which is a fallacy in itself - for you would not know if your guess was a fallacy or not until you were eaten or not, so you could not use 'fallacy' as a 'tool'. What your guess was in that situation was a PROBABILITY, which you COULD use as a tool.

FALLACY AS A TOOL

Yes, you can use fallacy as a tool - for causing action (or motivation). As such, even when false, it may lead to a desired outcome (and this is what you were questioning).

No - he fell into the lexiconic mental rabbit hole of his time - what he really addressed was 'communication' - he offered no adequate life-guiding philosophy based on an ultimate objective value - which the world still needs (and which I've developed, just to note it).

In his defense, he did address what still needed philosophical exploration during his time, and he did make a noble effort to elevate the deplorable mental states of his time.

YOU CAN GO BY YOUR SENSES

You will know that you are awake when you know your senses are sensing the physical world. You will have to test it, but hopefully not against something in the real world that may annihilate you during the test (like standing in the path of an oncoming high-speed train). Try walking into a wall, that should suffice as a 'sense test' (you 'see' the wall, but is it 'really there'? Then you test it.).

AN ISSUE FOR SCIENCE

What ADHD is physically is a matter for science to pursue (you cannot 'speculate reality', your speculations only offer new possibilities that may or may not be worth further investigation (depending on all the investigation that has already been done).

AN ISSUE FOR PHILOSOPHY

Now, once we know what ADHD is physically (for it is still under question as to whether it exists or not - it could be a pharmaceutical industry ruse to sell pills based on the erroneous theories/conclusion of uninformed/lazy/over-imaginative psychologists), THEN philosophy can step in to determine the value of ADHD as a TOOL (rather than as a defacto affliction).

So you are right in pondering its potential worth (as a tool).

I am the first to reply because your statement is incomprehensible (but let me try again... one moment please...)

I believe you are contemplating the 'usefulness' of illusions. The answer is illusions can be used as a useful tool.

Example: One 'use' is 'self-motivation' - which is the way successful entrepreneurs may use them. Another use is deception, for example being used to debilitate entrepreneurial competitors.

Now we get to survival, and here illusions are not a good tool to try and survive with, reality being endowed with so many 'teeth' and 'sharp edges' (where it is better to go about with a good grasp on reality).

The defining difference between a physical-world zombie (the 'Normal Zombie') as opposed to a mere mental image of a zombie - the 'P-Zombie') is...

(ready?)

A real-world zombie can physically annihilate you.

I use this phrase when people wonder if 'reality' is 'really out there', where I respond with, "Reality is that which will annihilate you, whether you believe it is out there or not."

TRUST IS A TOOL

There are several practical uses for trust as a tool:
1.) In Discovery and Experimentation; for example, a.) whether the trusted person is truthful or not; b.) whether the person is competent or not; and c.) whether being trustworthy is the best way to go or not (and given the need for diversity toward broader survival, it will not always be, diversity being what it is); and
2.) As a General Social Tool - to be used at will or not. Note that, as a tool, trust is neither inherently good or bad, it is how the tool is used that determines whether it was used for good or bad (and what is 'good or bad' is determined by higher philosophy, which mankind does not have yet). Enter Me. (but that is another topic).

It is Unenlightened Speculation

Consider 'enlightenment' - it will have identified a universal value (common to all enlightened beings), which is 'higher consciousness', and it will have an adequate grasp of reality, realizing that life is not eternal, which begets an enlightened goal - that of securing higher consciousness against a deadly universe (which keeps alive the possibility of a future higher consciousness 'resurrecting' us (hence 'life after death' and 'eternal life') (though 'eternal life' is rendered impossible given eternity, so we are left with a 'Great Struggle') (a 'continuous struggle' to exist). It will have identified the key factors in the survival of higher consciousness - diversity, dispersal, and sheer numbers (what microbes have used), and extended reason, proaction, and technology (what humans (higher consciousness) have introduced).

So any reasoning from such a 'blob' will either be enlightened (recognizing the value of the survival of higher consciousness - and we are obligated to argue for it - let the dead argue for non-consciousness), or not. It will realize that the 'biological platform' (or non-biological platform) is trivial compared higher consciousness (though such platforms contribute to diversity - a critical component of broader survival).

In other words, all 'enlightened minds' will 'think the same' at the highest level - that is, they will all recognize the same Ultimate Value in life, hence the same Ultimate Goal (to secure the ultimate value), and where the Ultimate Goal gives all enlightened minds the same basis for clearly distinguishing good from evil, which offers a solid foundation for building worthwhile lives and relevant civilizations (no matter what the conscious platform - human or blob). So the common link is final, ultimate enlightenment, begetting the same goal, and realizing the value of the other (toward diversity, dispersal, sheer numbers, extended reason, proaction (discovering/solving threats to life BEFORE they act), and technology). If it tries to attack you or exterminate you or enslave you, then it is not enlightened, which is why I say "Pursue peace, it is a noble goal, but be armed to the teeth just in case...".



Note that animals have reason. Consider the ball hidden in one of three cups game, where the game master quickly scrambles the three cups and you must guess which of the three cups the ball is under. A goldfish can keep track of the hand motions and point out the right cup every time (see YouTube, under 'animal intelligence' I believe, I can't remember specifically). This is not 'blind instinct', it originated from reason (at least the first time, for after that, it could become 'automatic' - without the need for further reason, and erroneously appear as instinct).

There is growing evidence, as animal studies continue, that animals can conceive of death through social experience and learning. Elephants cry actual tears, for example, when a member of their herd dies (and they even 'give it a proper burial'), and more amazingly, they can pick out the member's tusk from a pile of tusks, and ruminate over it.

What these studies increasingly show is that animals are a lot more intelligent than we give them credit for (for example a fish outperformed a chimp and a four year old human on a certain intelligence task - so the 'intelligence' line is blurring. Note that animals can't speak, but they can understand many spoken words, so speaking is not a sole measure of intelligence.

They have central brains, like us, so not all of their actions are 'pure instinct' (reactions that do not require central processing - i.e. those that preceded the development of the brain, and which, as a consequence, are still 'quicker' reactions than reactions that have passed through the brain for consideration).

Animals definitely have fear, but on their conscious level, it is far more a mechanical (instinctive) (unconscious) self-preservation mode - that is, one that bypasses the brain, and it is far less a fear of 'death' (as a concept) then of 'impending pain' (which could be based on experience - remember the Dodo's inexperience with mindlessly-cruel humans, and the apparently inability to learn from observation).

Etymology is critical in communication, so it not only applies to philosophy, but to any verbal communication. If two people do not have the same definitions of words, then the words will be a poor vehicle for communication. For example, if one person calls a hammer a nail and a nail a hammer, and you ask that person for a hammer, you will receive a nail, and your verbal communication will have failed your intent. Better to use body language in that case!

ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE UNENLIGHTENED

Your entire body of thought (terms included) is only applicable to the unenlightened - that is, to those who have not yet identified an Objective Value, which humanity has not sufficiently done yet (though I've sufficiently identified three).

In a subjective haze, then your body of thought here can be given consideration. With an Objective Value (a universal value or a core value or an ultimate value in life), then your body of thought (and all of your terms) are rendered trivial, misguided, blind, futile, and a big waste of time and energy.

Consider the Ultimate Value of Life - Higher Consciousness (I'll consider it for you): Given the overwhelming evidence, higher consciousness (that capable of extended reasoning and proactive action based solely on that) (which humans currently embody) 'evolved' from mere consciousness (the level of current animals), which 'evolved' from non-conscious life, such as vegetation and microbes (life with no central brain). So now we have the three Objective Values of Life - Higher Consciousness (in whatever species attains it), mere Consciousness (the level of animals - which can attain Higher Consciousness), and ditto for currently Non-Conscious Life (vegetation and microbes, from which we theoretically started as).

Now, thinking further (which I have done), what come with a value? A 'goal' comes with a value - i.e. securing that value. Here, the 'goal' (the Ultimate Goal of Life) is to secure higher consciousness against a harsh and deadly universe. Note that from this goal you can now clearly distinguish good from evil (their being goal-driven), and with this ability you can now build worthwhile individual lives and relevant civilizations (finally).

Now you can go back and consider all that you have presented with the new ability of giving it proper value - i.e. what value does it all have with respect to achieving the Ultimate Goal in Life - securing higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe.

Just to note, another issue is "Why bother?" which happens to be the Greatest of the Great Questions of Life (and one which science will never address - hence the relevance of philosophy and Stephen Hawking's error in stating that 'Philosophy is Dead' (it is just in the toilet right now).

So have I arrived at the Answer to the Greatest of the Great Questions of Life (as well as the Answers to all the Lesser Great Questions of Life (such as "Why are we here?" "What is our purpose in life?" etc. etc. lame lame) (in comparison to the Greatest Question). Yes, I have. I only have room for the Answer to the Greatest of the Great Questions of Life, which is (should I give it away for free... hmmm... why not - it needs to be disseminated...) "Because consciousness is a good thing". (consider the alternative). Note that higher consciousness takes priority, the assumptions being that it increases the odds of broader survival in a deadly universe, and that there is no guarantee, in a chaotic universe, that any other species on earth will attain it.

YOUR PREMISE LACKS AND ADEQUATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
By 'adequate', I mean based on the vast amount of existing verified knowledge that we now have. Here is an adequate classification system, based on levels of intelligence:

Higher Consciousness: Currently, on earth, this is embodied in only humans, who have the capacity for extended reasoning, which is required for 'moral' judgements. This is the only level of consciousness capable of proactive action based on extended reason. The line is blurred between species, since there is a variety of extended reasoning capacities.

Mere Consciousness: This refers to multi-cellular animals that have a central processing capacity (a 'brain') with which to 'consider' (in a limited capacity) sensory inputs and to 'consider' reactionary responses. This consciousness is only capable of 'reactionary' action.

(remember, I am merely presenting a 'useful tool of perspective' with which to consider reality - whether or how much it actually reflects reality is besides the point - the key factor is its 'usefulness').

Non-Conscious Life: This includes vegetation and microbes (entities without central brains, which react chemically or locally (driven by internal microbes or local cellular reactions) to their surroundings).

Working from this classification system, then the answer is 'no' - nature is not immoral - since it does not have the extended reasoning to make moral judgements.

Now, just for the record, humans do not have the capacity to make clear moral judgements either, philosophy still being mired in a 'subjective' state, where every decision can be counter-argued. The best humans can currently do is 'live a good but clueless life', and being clueless, being 'good' is by blind chance, and still rendered uncertain (enter my new philosophical system, which I cannot present here - there being diagrams involved for ease of communication).

The Wrong Assumption
Your statement assumes that 'natural death' is a punishment for a crime, which is a wrong assumption, given all the evidence (that recognizes 'death' as a part of the chaos system that is the universe. Note that we may someday overcome death (for example if it is merely caused by radiation from our proximity to the sun). Your assumption also assumes a conscious 'punisher' making a conscious decision, of which there is no evidence, given the vast amount of verified knowledge we now have (so much so that to continue to argue with it is mere foolishness with regards to our continued survival).

The Wrong Starting Point

You are beginning with the wrong mindframe. You should have the perspective of "Data vs. Theory". If there is no data, then any theory is just as viable as the next (and the theorists shouldn't argue with one another - as they still do - not being aware of my premise). In a special case, there may be a lot of good date (verified knowledge), but YOU may be completely unaware of it, and you will be creating simulations that have already been explored and have been deemed unreal (though entertaining).

The Value in Creating Uninformed Simulations

The only value in creating uninformed (meaning lacking an adequate awareness of existing verified knowledge) simulations is in the exercise of your imagination. Why is such exercise important? Because it is a critical phase in science - the phase where you are considering possibilities (which is the phase that precedes selecting which possibilities to spend time, expense, and energy investigating further).

You cannot solve it, but nature might solve it through chaos - meaning that eventually one stack of grass (I've heard the donkey and two carrots) will drift closer, thereby stimulating a decision (one way or the other, for the ass may prefer the further stack of grass on pure principle).

Liberals pride themselves on being critical of others, so what they should do now turn their critical eye on themselves (especially the media).

From what I've seen, the Left is now imploding into vacuums of increasingly extreme delusions and spin, and the only persons listening are 'the choir' (referring to the old phrase that "they are preaching to the choir" - in this case meaning people who are already predispositioned to embrace such delusions and spin, such as social parasites, con-artists, those with delusions of power (such as running a Socialist State), and those seeking self-glorification and self-aggrandizement (and primal security) by giving away other people's wealth (just to give liberals a critical eye).

THE PROPER VIEW
I would rather look at past (and present) philosophers as those who made noble attempts to elevate the deplorable mental states of their times. If I had to pick one, I'd pick a current philosopher, such as Daniel Dennett, who perhaps 'rode to prominence' on media's need for sensationalism (they needed someone to sensationalize, and he was a good fit). In his partial defense, however, he does embody what a current (and future) philosopher should be - i.e. one who pursues philosophical answers to the Big Questions of Life (and the biggest, I have independently discovered, is "Why Bother?"), and one who realized that, in identifying an Ultimate Objective Value with which to base a life-guiding philosophy on (which we do not have in adequate form yet - hence continued vanity, hate, war, aimlessness, depression, and suicide, to name a few) (enter me), one must be familiar with all branches of science (which is our sole source of verified knowledge). He is familiar with many relevant branches of science, but he has done nothing with that knowledge yet (enter me again, with my mental sleeves rolled-up).

Transcendence is Still Pure Make-Believe
Since it is pure make-believe, you can say anything you want about it, and any 'argument' is rendered futile, or, at best, is reduced to agreements on the definitions of terms (words), where you then create an agreed-upon fantasy world.

Why did Medieval Christians Propose 'Transcendence'?
Because they lacked VERIFIED KNOWLEDGE, so they had to make guesses using their imagination, which was primitive owing to a lack of verified knowledge, which has long exposed (many times over) the notion of 'transcendence' as pure make-believe (that is, as good as any wild notion that your imagination can conjure-up, such as a Carrot God). In light of the vast amount of verified knowledge that we now have (but which is still largely ignored), it can be stated that 'transcendence' is the preposterous notion of primitive minds.

Transcendence in Technical Terms
As a technical proposal, however, it cannot be completely ruled-out (given infinity, which prevents us from 'knowing everything', hence leaving room for any possibility, however preposterous). The question then becomes whether it is worth further investigation. As it stands, given the 100% negative results of all investigations to date, it is not worth spending another second or penny on, but it is worth keeping the possibility in the back of your mind (as a 'tool of perspective', or what I like to call a 'Potentially-Useful Perspective') when peering into the unknown and considering possibilities to further investigate.