Im shure the time delay is an indicator if an action is more or less concious.javascript: void(0)

Trained and often repeated actions: automized. (or instinctive)
Newel, potentially dangerous or important actions: concious (they get thought over more)
Until this actions receives enough training to be done automatically.

For example, reading a newspaper upside down takes longer (rotating the image mentally) But if you learned to read it like this,
or trained it long, you can read the newspaper flawlessly fast this way.

Or in your explanation, the soul (conscious decision i call it) can overrule
the instinctive action, if one values that.
Even when you are born as an impulsive brute, you could control it.
If you dont, then you obviously dont value it high enough,
thats where the punishment (rightfully) steps in.

I think the tourett syndrome is one, where the person is not willingly able
to suppress instinctive quick reactions, even if they want.
Thats why they swear easily or make sudden moves.
I think if you could supress this inhibitory function in a normal person, he would
act the same.
But thats a rare condition, an not an adopted excuse for some psychopath killing people.

The time delay was just my personal hypothesis
You should go through the test protocol in detail
I would be surprised if a nobel price did not take in consideration such a simple explanation
As far as I remember there is no evidence, based on celebral activity, that the decision comes first and the action comes later as you would expect
It seems that it is the other way round

Automatism are an other matter

A guy can repress his killing instincts simply due to the fact that his killing instincts are not that strong
It is not necessary to evoke the free will

Of course a murder must be punished by human beings but just to protect the other people
I wonder why God should send him to hell
First God createe Hitler, Gengis Khan etc then He punish them

According to my relion teacher the explanationis more or less, is
Well ,based on their istinct they should murder 10 milion people but they killed only one milion so, ok go to heaven
Ridicolous
We are only machines, as simple as that

Yes, for a species still being (virtually or theoretically) immortal there's probably no evolutionary benefit to dying off more quickly. There's either enough natural selection to take away enough individuals from the gene pool for a steady rate of evolution or there is very little evolution going on to begin with, perhaps because of some kind of isolation.

It's usually wrong to look at the dying aspect of individuals as some kind of trait for an entire species that's supposed to be inevitable. Evolution itself is never some kind of goal in itself.

If a species is able to reproduce many offspring that in their turn can reproduce quite quickly, dying more quickly becomes beneficial to evolution, but only because the new individuals do not have to compete with the older generations as strongly when it comes to the food supply.

On a cellular level, death easily makes far more sense. In order to renew or 'fix' things, you will usually need a mechanic that is able to remove damaged cells. Cells that are able to live forever in their turn will constantly be renewed or the actual structures will become ever weaker.

I'd assume the origin of mortality actually lies in the ability to repair ourselves on a cellular level.

That depends on whether or not you consider this to be a bad thing. One of the advantages of reacting before becoming aware of the action itself, is that in an evolutionary sense it can be the different between survival and extinction.

It might be less apparent nowadays, but anyone who's ever dodged a car almost hitting them, will be very glad indeed that evolution has made us react before realizing what we were going to do.

This doesn't mean we can not freely decide what to do though. But one should wonder, what's the point? If you decide to consciously ignore fight or flight-reflexes, it will probably just kill you.

[quote/]
One of the advantages of reacting before becoming aware of the action ... [/quote]

I was not talking about inpulsive reaction
I was talking about intentional actions

You are told :

"push a button when you like "

Our brain has been mapped

A ) Some area of our brain become active when we take a decision or better when we suppose to take a decision

B) Some area become active when we move a finger

You would expect that area "A" are enabled a fraction of time before area "B"

The other way round

It seems that human being do not take decisions , they only
become aware that a certain decision has been taken

Btw in an other thread I quoted the book "Who's in charge ?"
It confirm exactly such assumption

It seems that the heart is much more than a "pump" and eclipses the brain.



Full link to pdf
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Heart,%20Mind%20and%20Spirit%20%20Mohamed%20Salem.pdf

I find it all so fascinating to learn and discuss things, everyday is usually a learning experience, so i try not to exclude anything i come across. I'm wired "very curious" and try very hard to understand others thoughts, experiences and discoveries.

Well I dont know that guy but it seems to me a charlatan ( no offense of course )
Aristotile believed that heart was the center of coscience but thousand years have elapsed

Look at the references he uses to come to this conclusion. It is by no means his own idea and work.
We should know by now, that just because something is projected by the "official" academia, does not make it the only theories, or right for that matter, i find it interesting to also pursue those who have been barred or excluded from academia, and that way get a bigger picture than the officially projected one.
//
To me the heart is the soul and has always been that. Even our languages reflect that. "He's got no heart", "hard hearted", "heart broken", "captured my heart" etc.
But i respect others opinion and theories, for out of all the theories at some time we get a theorem.

Sorry, hanent read the whole topic, but I do hope this guy gets his funding:
http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html

I think the question isnt "Will immortality ever happen?", but more like "When will immortality happen?"...

Probably not in our lifetime, but the chance is better than zero.

http://www.gizmag.com/aging-reveresed-mitochondria/30209/