I remember eating a Periwinkle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_periwinkle) when I was young. I cannot remember if I liked it.

No, I'm the brain of the party..... or something

5"6. And yes, I like extremes. I'd be really tall or really short.

Good where there is duties to others involved (loyalty in relationships, etc.). Very weak when I have no one to hold me accountable, and when there is no one I would hurt other than myself.

Still working on it - however, I believe loving yourself is the most important; but maintaining an element of constructive self-criticism.

I like the countryside because it's more quaint and quiet, but the people are often dim. I like the city because of it's diversity and attractions, but it's often loud and too fast paced. I'd go for the latter, though.

Sigur Rós

Cannes.

Permanent markers.

Psychological dramas, artsy/quirky dramas and comedies.

Love'em. There's something weird about people that don't like roller coasters.

Moi? Jamais.

Only if a people are being violently oppressed. I don't at all support violent revolution à la Marx. For one simple reason, it's never the end. You think your proletariat revolution is going to create some kind of utopia that will end all oppression, where people will want to work equally hard for each other, where no one will oppose the the most fair of regimes and what to revolt against it? You're sadly mistaken. The end is the beginning is the end is the beginning...

Naive, simplistic and foolish political ideologies attract the naive, simplistic and foolish. Any "ism," be it fascism, communism etc. plays off of a base need to understand the world in generalisable terms, and they are generally founded on aspects of our most base human natures, be it negative ones like prejudice, positive ones like optimism (like in the case of communism). I'd put it down to this - when you think you have everything figured out, it's natural to be passionate about it because everyone is looking for truth. If someone thinks they have it, they're likely going to want to scream it from the rooftops. I don't often think people think they do have it though, they are just screamingly loudly for people to hear them and confirm what they believe. Then there's the fact that if it's an extreme ideology, by definition it's not moderate. Nothing really for moderates (my position) to scream about, other than specific situations, because it's often not consistent because the factors are always different.

Sidenote: I think all 'isms' are naive, simplistic and foolish. They completely ignore human complexity.

I would say this is somewhat of an illogical question. I suppose it depends on how you would define consciousness. Consciousness, in my understanding, is merely awareness (including, mostly importantly, being aware that one is aware). While I do think that consciousness is a byproduct of natural brain processes, it would be hard to argue that we are not aware of ourselves and our surroundings. So the question becomes: is awareness, or awareness of awareness, something that we can be aware of? Or is that awareness an illusion? I do think we are aware that we are aware of things, even if those 'things' are perceived through human faculties (space, time, and individual subjective experience) and not perfectly representative of the outside world beyond our experience (the 'objective universal reality,' if such a thing exists). It still means we are perceiving something subjectively, and from that I would conclude that is a sufficient and necessary condition for consciousness.

In addition, *humans* defined the term consciousness, so it defines part of our reality. Consciousness is how *we* have described the experience of being aware of ourselves, and whatever that entails. So to take this word 'consciousness' out of the realm of human understanding and say it's some sort of illusion, it doesn't matter. It's like saying time and space are an illusion (which they might well be) but it's an erroneous question because all we can ever know about ourselves is measured from our own perspective (that of space, time, consciousness, etc.), thus asking questions about truth outside of our experience are dead ends, since we'll never get there.

So, in answer to the question: No, I would say it's not an illusion.

Caesar, Subway's Sweet onion, and Heinz Salad Cream.

(warning: stoned) I really don't know. An amalgamation of everything. There was never one moment where I thought, this opinion/experience proves free will is a sham. I asked myself one day, and the answer I found myself with was just what made sense to me. I'm sure you have some great "I realised studying CS that the world is run like a computer and the outcomes of algorithms etc." But I got nothing. I just know every time I have asked myself or have been challenged since, I feel the same way.

1. Indian chicken korma
2. Sunday roast
3. Fish & chips
4. Sushi
5. Beans on toast (lol)

I've never really found this to be a meaningful question. Even using the word 'reality,' as you hinted at, begs the question - do we mean some kind of ultimate universal reality outside of our experience (if so, is this definition a meaningful one since it is something we will never have access to) or reality through our given faculties and subjective interpretations. Whether it is 'simulation' via our human faculties collecting incoming data and organising it in a readable form, or by something much larger - matrix style - that controls it and does it for us (this is no more or less in our control) we are constantly living in our own little realities. Thus, no preference. *shrug*

Popcorn