When I was a child, I wanted to know what forever was. I would sit and concentrate -- think and think and THINK -- until finally I felt what may have been a glimpse into something infinite. It was jarring, intense, and pretty incredible. What WAS that? Have other people had this experience?

Is there a correlation between intelligence and morality? I can imagine an intelligent person giving a sophisticated analysis to a complex moral question before acting as warranted by his/her analysis. On the other hand, I can imagine a person of lesser intelligence acting in a moral and caring manner without much reflection, because he or she has been raised to be kind and considerate, and because kindness and consideration have always been part of the person's personality. Conversely, it is pretty easy to see examples of immoral behavior from both more intelligent and less intelligent people as well. It seems logical that intelligence would confer a greater ability to be moral, but everyday life does not seem to show any firm correlation between the two.

Why do we, psychologically/philosophically speaking, put such an emphasis on things being "real"? What got me thinking about this question is the nature of our memories - while I can certainly recall some "half-memories" which probably never actually happened or even simply fabricate some, why do we place less value on these memories than "true" ones, even though they could theoretically have the effect on us?

If everything that physically exists is indeed the result of primordial coincidence, is there any way of statistically measuring the chances that human beings (in our present state of development and after hundreds of thousands of years of evolution) would be able to comprehend the origin and nature of the universe? In other words, when I think about the organic lump of brain in my head understanding the universe, or anything at all, it seems absurdly unlikely. That lump of tissue seems to me more like a pancreas than than a super-computer, and I have a hard time understanding how organic tissue is able to reach conclusions about the universe or existence.

Some twelve step groups advocate taking the right actions to lead to the right thinking, "right" being defined as non-addictive behavior. The phrase is "Fake it until you make it." Is there a philosophical comment on that process, as opposed to the idea of thinking your way into the desired behavior?

Does language shape our understanding of what we call reality (or, maybe, our perceptions of reality), or does reality shape our language? Is there, significantly, a German world, a French world and an English world, each of them different from one another in important or trivial ways?

I am going under anesthesia in about a month. Once it is administered and I am unconscious, how do I know that the person who wakes up will be me and not a doppelganger with my memories? In other words, how do I know my stream of consciousness will continue after a period of unconsciousness instead of a distinct stream of consciousness starting for the first time?

Does writing a book or making a film render a hard copy of (part of) one's mind outside the brain? Are these two products as close as one can get to making one's mind accessible to others?

What happens to thoughts once they are acknowledged? I.e. where do thoughts go once they have surfaced in the mind?

Are there good philosophical reasons for taking drugs? Michel Foucault, Aldous Huxley and Sam Harris are examples of people who have experimented with drugs for creative purposes and in order to gain insight. Given that one is destined to live their entire life in sobriety (which is just one state of consciousness), do they have an inherent right to experience other consciousnesses which completely alter their understanding of reality? In this sense, can people who have not taken drugs but criticize them, be considered ignorant in that they have no experience of drugs?