> So, how wrong am I? How am I wrong? Mark (and squad), Hey, welcome aboard! I'm laughing because you sound like I sometimes think... 'Show me where I am wrong or agree and be done with this!' To start, I completely agree that the MOQ (or any philosphy) must allow for choice or free will. It is just too intuitive. It follows that morality lies not within the intellect, but within the realm of choice -- given the intellect. I would, however, like to nitpick one fundamental point... > We should no longer look at free will as the "doctrine that man makes choices independent of the atoms of his body." Instead, we should say that free will is an analog to, a measure of, Dynamic-ness. The same concerns Descartes had with mind being separate from body come to my mind when I think of the MOQ. I think man makes choice independent of experienced value -- his dynamic and static experiences. It is only the _effects_ that makes his choices feel dynamic to others. You can not directly observe someone else's consciousness/choices/preferences. There can only be inference. Yet, value is known directly. There is a mind/value dualism problem that needs explaining. I would like to go into this much deeper. Let me know your thoughts... RJS MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
