Is eternal suffering pointless?

[pocaracas]

You are not getting the question.

We agree that the human brain relies on electron flows between neurons to product thought. But on what physics principle allows for that.

How do flows of electrons product analytic though. Electron flows are either deterministic ( they follow preset paths, or known alterable paths). This is how integrated circuits work.
As I mentioned, for any given set of (name removed by moderator)uts, a known output occurs.

The other means is random, following quantum probabilities

Neither are analytical. For deterministic flows, every thought would be known in advance. Again like an integrated circuit.

For random flows of electrons, every flow would be completely random, and not even a thought at all.

Not only can electron flows not account for analytic thought, it cannot allow for free will

Oh… sorry about getting the question wrong…

As to your question, Aloysium already addressed how the “electrical impulse” travels along axons and how they then influence what happens at the connection to other neurons… so… yeah… it’s physical.

I disagree with him on the 100% spiritual part… I reckon that the set of millions and millions of neurons in our brains, each connected in some specific way to countless other neurons must account for all our mind-related experiences, from simple sensory perception to memory storage and retrieval, to imagination… and, of course, decision making.
Free will, appears to be nothing more than an illusion.

Tell me, having lived what you have lived, knowing what you knew then, seeing what I wrote back there… do you think you would have done something different than the reply you did write and post?
I’m not asking if it was possible… certainly, it was… but would you not have done exactly the same, given the exact same setting? (not the same setting, in repeat mode, but back then, when you decided to post that) Do you think you’d choose to act differently? Or would you have done exactly as you did do?

How exactly analytical thought surfaces, I know not.
Would I be able to know how M$ Windows(R) works, just by probing at all the billions of transistor operations inside a normal PC processor? Could I tell Firefox apart from the rest?
Certainly, it must be possible… computers were made from the bottom up by human engineers. But, were we to not have access to that information, like most of us lay folk, would we be able to, just by probing the processor and memory and motherboard circuitry, would we be able to tell how Windows works?

 

[tonyrey]

Are you desiring to assert that there was a reason behind the fact that the material that formed the planet Earth also allowed for the formation of living entities and, eventually, of a few that could be aware of themselves? An ulterior motive? A mindful intent?

Please answer the questions:

1. Did mindless molecules become aware of themselves for no reason whatsoever?
2. Is there any evidence that such an event has occurred on other planets?

Labels are great for conveying complex ideas in a compact format.
e.g. yogurt; relativity.

Labels are not explanations.

“guess” is the key word! As the result of an unspecified factor a random collection of atomic particles happened to become aware of themselves and other atomic particles, an event that has never been observed in the entire history of the universe. Until such evidence is produced it remains a gratuitous hypothesis based on the discredited metaphysical theory of logical positivism which overlooked the fact that our primary datum and sole certainty is our mental activity which enables us to infer from our perceptions that physical objects exist.

And this mental activity is directly connected to brain activity.

There is no evidence that mental activity is always connected to brain activity nor that it depends on brain activity. Hypnosis is an example of how mental activity influences brain activity.

As for that “the result of an unspecified factor a random collection of atomic particles happened to become aware of themselves and other atomic particles”, you’re trying to shift any and all burden, by trying to have a model for everything.

The onus is on you to explain how a random collection of atomic particles happened to become aware of themselves and other atomic particles because you have dogmatically asserted that “the set of millions and millions of neurons in our brains, each connected in some specific way to countless other neurons must account for all our mind-related experiences, from simple sensory perception to memory storage and retrieval, to imagination…”

Evolution accounts for how biological entities have been seen to develop over time. That leap to “collection of atomic particles” resides in another field of study, another level of detail which is not required for the theory of evolution to operate.
Of course, those particles need to be there and behave as they do, but they’re a given for biology. You don’t need to track each and every single particle… that’s impossible, in practice, and would bring no great insight into the problem.

The issue is how atomic particles **initiated **the process of development. What happened subsequently is irrelevant - and also a banned topic.**What caused the increase in complexity at the outset?
**

Sarcasm?.. pff you started it, with your hinting that random particles just magically come into a body and become sentient and capable of abstract thinking…

Since you have given no explanation the origin of rational activity must be either magical or miraculous. Otherwise it is an appeal to ignorance.

Who imbues a particular life form with value?
I value my own life. I value the lives of the members of my family and friends.
I value many other life forms, but not as much.
I devalue life that feeds off my own, like mosquitoes.

Is there some measure of “life value” that is not the one I attribute?

The issue is not whether** we** value life but whether life is intrinsically valuable. If not then human rights are merely human conventions and can be disregarded with impunity…

My personality is great… I just find it tiresome to read ignorant things, over and over and over…

You have failed to explain why the statement “As the result of an unspecified factor a random collection of atomic particles happened to become aware of themselves and other atomic particles, an event that has never been observed in the entire history of the universe.” is fallacious. Is it true or false?

I’m saying something does NOT lead to something else and that’s a non sequitur?!?

The non sequitur is your conclusion “just because humans have mastered the abstract thought niche, it doesn’t mean they’re the only ones there, and it doesn’t mean that aren’t other niches to exploit”. Nothing I have stated leads to that conclusion.

If that is the case why does the human race pose the greatest threat to the survival of all life on this planet?

You’re showing your ignorance, again…

So a nuclear holocaust wouldn’t demonstrate the falsity of the hypothesis that “Abstract thinking is nothing but a survival tool”? The mere fact that countless people have committed suicide shows it doesn’t make sense quite apart from the fact that you have not explained whether concepts like “truth” and “purpose” are meaningless or whether they refer to intangible realities.

“Chance… a word borne out of human ignorance… how fitting you should propose it…” is a clear example of “a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.” - wikipedia

“passing through” is distinct from “existing in”: a vacuum is space void of matter. To be precise it is “quantum vacuum zero-point energy”…

Your statement “the set of millions and millions of neurons in our brains, each connected in some specific way to countless other neurons must account for all our mind-related experiences, from simple sensory perception to memory storage and retrieval, to imagination…” is clear evidence that you believe in logical positivism, the discredited hypothesis that everything can be verified by sense experience even though it is obvious that the verifiability principle itself cannot be verified by sense experience!

 

[pocaracas]

oh boy…

Please answer the questions:

1. Did mindless molecules become aware of themselves for no reason whatsoever?
2. Is there any evidence that such an event has occurred on other planets?

1. Short answer: yes. Answer with a question, DUH! What sort of reason would you expect there to be? Reasons require a reasoning being, all reasoning beings we are aware of have existed after self-awareness became available to Earth animals, so… it’s not possible for there to be a reason for them to become aware.
2. Short answer: No. Answer with a question: Do you know how far away is the nearest star? The nearest extra-solar planet? Do have any idea of how long it would take to get there with present-day tech?

Labels are not explanations.

Labels of theories are.

There is no evidence that mental activity is always connected to brain activity nor that it depends on brain activity. Hypnosis is an example of how mental activity influences brain activity.

Oh really? Now it’s your turn to provide some evidence of mental activity that’s not connected to brain activity.
Hypnosis is what?! Care to develop that sentence as I’m not sure what you mean by it…

The onus is on you to explain how a random collection of atomic particles happened to become aware of themselves and other atomic particles because you have dogmatically asserted that “the set of millions and millions of neurons in our brains, each connected in some specific way to countless other neurons must account for all our mind-related experiences, from simple sensory perception to memory storage and retrieval, to imagination…”

Perhaps it is…
But, if you offer an alternative methodology, the onus for that methodology will fall on you… take care.

Considering all we know about human physiology, and how all the parts work and how the brain coordinates some of it… and how damaged brains consistently influence the mental processes… and how the introduction of chemicals also influence mental processes… and how the introduction of electro-magnetic fields (strong ones - 5 Tesla) also influence mental processes… I fail to see what else, if not the brain, “accounts for mind-related experiences”.
Feel free to share your version…

The issue is how atomic particles **initiated **the process of development. What happened subsequently is irrelevant - and also a banned topic.What caused the increase in complexity at the outset?

I wasn’t there… as far as I know, no one was there. We may never come to know.
Several hypothesis have been brought forth by scientists working in the field… many haven’t pulled through the minimum… some managed to create the required components…
Even if one of those hypothesis does come to show how, from simple elements, one can accomplish a rudimentary self-replicating carbon based molecule… it will not be proof of how it really happened, some 3 billion years ago.

Considering what we know about star formation and planet formation, and how life is definitely found on this planet, then, at some stage, life must have cropped up. How exactly? We may never know. But it did. And natural processes seem to be all that’s required for it.
Would you like to propose some unnatural process? Do you think that proposition should be taken seriously?

Since you have given no explanation the origin of rational activity must be either magical or miraculous. Otherwise it is an appeal to ignorance.

So… if I can’t explain what causes X, then it’s either caused by a miracle, magic, or the fact that I mentioned Y is an appeal to ignorance. congratz.

The issue is not whether** we** value life but whether life is intrinsically valuable. If not then human rights are merely human conventions and can be disregarded with impunity…

Buhahahaha.
Go ahead, then. Disregard them and try to come out of it with your impunity.

Are you sure you’re not a creationist? You’re starting to sound like these two liveleak.com/view?i=9ce_1390488740&comments=1.

You have failed to explain why the statement “As the result of an unspecified factor a random collection of atomic particles happened to become aware of themselves and other atomic particles, an event that has never been observed in the entire history of the universe.” is fallacious. Is it true or false?

Already mentioned this upstairs…

The non sequitur is your conclusion “just because humans have mastered the abstract thought niche, it doesn’t mean they’re the only ones there, and it doesn’t mean that aren’t other niches to exploit”. Nothing I have stated leads to that conclusion.

Yeah… you’re still not using it right… but whatever…
[contd.]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

So a nuclear holocaust wouldn’t demonstrate the falsity of the hypothesis that “Abstract thinking is nothing but a survival tool”? The mere fact that countless people have committed suicide shows it doesn’t make sense quite apart from the fact that you have not explained whether concepts like “truth” and “purpose” are meaningless or whether they refer to intangible realities.

A nuclear holocaust would be a stupid use of the thinking brain…
Many survival strategies have worked quite well for some animals… only to come and bite them in the *** some time later…
It’s called “evolution”… not all species make it… and, sometimes, it’s their own survival mechanisms that go haywire.

About suicides, the loss of single individuals is no reason to endanger the whole mechanism of survival of the species. We’re talking on two different levels, here… try to keep up.

Why should I explain concepts like “truth” and “purpose”?
Actually, I’ve written quite extensively on “truth” a few weeks ago, on this forum… somewhere on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=966727
About purpose… what’s there to say? You make your own purpose… or have it made for you by others… religion is a typical quick way of having purpose made by others. Not really looking forward to delving more into it on this thread… do start a new one for that, and PM me the link, if you are so inclined.

“passing through” is distinct from “existing in”: a vacuum is space void of matter. To be precise it is “quantum vacuum zero-point energy”…

What is matter?
What is the Higgs Field?
What is a field?
What is the gravitational field?

Both of these fields are present inside the vaccum box.

Reality is a bit weirder than we like to think.

Your statement “the set of millions and millions of neurons in our brains, each connected in some specific way to countless other neurons must account for all our mind-related experiences, from simple sensory perception to memory storage and retrieval, to imagination…” is clear evidence that you believe in logical positivism, the discredited hypothesis that everything can be verified by sense experience even though it is obvious that the verifiability principle itself cannot be verified by sense experience!

Now here’s a real non-sequitur!
A failure to acknowledge the presence of emerging properties…
Let’s try to keep it simple: is a wave a “real thing”? Or is only the water real and the wave is an emergent property of water molecules behaving in a certain collective fashion?

Could our thoughts, our abstract thoughts, be an emergent property of the brain components acting collectively?
Current technology is certainly unable to discern it, (like the example I gave Brendan of the computer) but is there any reason to think it’s not so?

 

[Brendan]

Oh… sorry about getting the question wrong…

As to your question, Aloysium already addressed how the “electrical impulse” travels along axons and how they then influence what happens at the connection to other neurons… so… yeah… it’s physical.

Yes, but how can it be abstract. Electron flows, like through a circuit, are deterministic. They go where through the path of least resistance over a predetermined course.

Influenced HOW, by other predermined flows of electrons.

I disagree with him on the 100% spiritual part… I reckon that the set of millions and millions of neurons in our brains, each connected in some specific way to countless other neurons must account for all our mind-related experiences, from simple sensory perception to memory storage and retrieval, to imagination… and, of course, decision making.

While there are physical processes for electrons to store information, there is no way from them to draw an abstract conclusion. No amount of complexity ( and as an FYI, your average home computer already has an order of magnitude more gates than a human brain, about 10^15 v 10^14 in the human brain.

But yet they remain incapable of abstract thought, or even the illusion of free will ( if it is an illusion at all)

Why?

 

[pocaracas]

Yes, but how can it be abstract. Electron flows, like through a circuit, are deterministic. They go where through the path of least resistance over a predetermined course.

Influenced HOW, by other predermined flows of electrons.

While there are physical processes for electrons to store information, there is no way from them to draw an abstract conclusion. No amount of complexity ( and as an FYI, your average home computer already has an order of magnitude more gates than a human brain, about 10^15 v 10^14 in the human brain.

But yet they remain incapable of abstract thought, or even the illusion of free will ( if it is an illusion at all)

Why?

Perhaps because a transistor gate is not a neuron…

I don’t know how. I just can’t find any mechanism that doesn’t use the brain wiring… what else is there?!

But computers can do some pretty neat things, right now… technology.org/2015/05/25/scientists-teach-robot-to-learn-new-skills-via-trial-and-error/

 

[arte]

Well, perhaps the turning away from Gods love only makes one more set in his hatred, and the longer he is there, the more he hates.

But if people were to **actually feel ** God’s love in the afterlife by experiencing the beatific vision, they would not find God’s love odious. It is not a case of people finding God’s love odious in this life; they just do not feel God’s love at all.

We can always hope that all these souls of horrible people go to purgatory, where they can be cleansed of their horrible sins.

If people with one mortal sin on their soul go to hell, it is very likely that the vast majority of these people are not “horrible” people. I completely agree with purgatory. I believe it is one of the best teachings put forward by the Church but I would go one step further and say that all souls go there to be “refined” until clean. ** As I said earlier: It’s a win win for God and the souls.**

 

[arte]

The caps are to get to the point of something rehashed. Oh right sure presumption yes right… oh yes that’s right I so worried too like this noahide… :extrahappy::coffeeread::newidea::grouphug::kiss4you:

Prmerger is 100% correct. This is a forum for debate so you will have people with differing views which is the whole point of a forum. We are here to learn from each other.

 

[Bradski]

While there are physical processes for electrons to store information, there is no way from them to draw an abstract conclusion.

If you agree that there is storage (memory), then you are on your way to intelligence. For what else is intelligence except coming to the correct conclusion. Getting the right answer. And it could be that the right answers to everything are already there…we just need more information to access it.

The light bulb moment that feels so wonderful when it happens doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It doesn’t happen without having all (or nearly all) the information to bring about the moment. It simply happens unconsciously. The brain accesses the memory (all, or nearly all the information available) and joins the dots. The neutrons keep firing in random patterns until the line produced by those dots leads to the obvious answer.

Random electron activity (not even Tony’s dumb molecules) and some storage, which is the simplest part of the process, evolutionary pressure plus time and you’d be hard pressed to argue against some sort of intelligence emerging.

They say that one definition of stupidity is doing the same thing time and time again and getting a bad result, yet continue to keep doing it. That’s lack of storage. No memory of the bad result to prevent you trying again.

Intelligence is just having the available memory to make decisions that will benefit yourself. To class oneself as intelligent requires self awareness. Tougher question to answer. Maybe just a loop somewhere in the system.

Either way, not a miracle.

 

[Protestor]

Man this has gone way off topic. Is there any way of bringing it back? Ill be back Sunday or Monday. Good luck

 

[Abba]

Man this has gone way off topic. Is there any way of bringing it back? Ill be back Sunday or Monday. Good luck

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Weeellllll, I could come back with my sheep and goats.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But, I still have much work to do. I am enjoying reading the thread. But, please, please, don’t forget my sheep and goats.

 

[Aloysium]

But if people were to **actually feel ** God’s love in the afterlife by experiencing the beatific vision, they would not find God’s love odious. It is not a case of people finding God’s love odious in this life; they just do not feel God’s love at all. . .

How can they feel love if they do not love. Seriously, we are all loved; the Beatific Vision as far as I understand involves participation in love eternal. It is not a taking but a receiving in the giving.

 

[tonyrey]

If you agree that there is storage (memory), then you are on your way to intelligence. For what else is intelligence except coming to the correct conclusion. Getting the right answer. And it could be that the right answers to everything are already there…we just need more information to access it.

The light bulb moment that feels so wonderful when it happens doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It doesn’t happen without having all (or nearly all) the information to bring about the moment. It simply happens unconsciously. The brain accesses the memory (all, or nearly all the information available) and joins the dots. The neutrons keep firing in random patterns until the line produced by those dots leads to the obvious answer.

Random electron activity (not even Tony’s dumb molecules) and some storage, which is the simplest part of the process, evolutionary pressure plus time and you’d be hard pressed to argue against some sort of intelligence emerging.

They say that one definition of stupidity is doing the same thing time and time again and getting a bad result, yet continue to keep doing it. That’s lack of storage. No memory of the bad result to prevent you trying again.

Intelligence is just having the available memory to make decisions that will benefit yourself. To class oneself as intelligent requires self awareness. Tougher question to answer. Maybe just a loop somewhere in the system.

Either way, not a miracle.

There is one item you have overlooked: insight…

 

[Bradski]

There is one item you have overlooked: insight…

Well, I’m glad you believe I have all the others covered.

But I guess by insight you mean as in: ‘Ah, NOW I get it’. As the dictionary definition has it: ‘The ability to discern the true nature of a situation’. Same thing as the light bulb moment.

You can’t have a light bulb moment if you don’t have all the bites of information already in storage. Neither can you have the ability to discern the true nature of a situation if you posses no facts. If you have all the facts (or a good deal of them, enough to be able to fill in any missing information), you still don’t necessarily have a light bulb moment or insight into the situation until all the ducks line up.

You can shuffle the bits in memory about at random, or you can try to discern a pattern. Or you can let the subconscious do the shuffling for you.

Either way, it’s just a simple matter of retrieval. Nothing miraculous about it.

 

[Bradski]

Are you desiring to assert that there was a reason behind the fact that the material that formed the planet Earth also allowed for the formation of living entities and, eventually, of a few that could be aware of themselves? An ulterior motive? A mindful intent?

Well, he could be right. But at some cost to God’s omnipotence.

So mindless molecules just became aware of themselves for no reason whatsoever?

This is Tony’s Standard Question, Poca. It comes up so often if should be known as TSQ so it would save us all some typing time.

Tony is a Creationist. Not in the sense of morons such as Ken Hamm, but a Creationist nevertheless. He believes that intelligence was Created when it is simply part of the natural order of things, like evolution.

Most reasonable Catholics do not reject evolution. They accept it as fact and reconcile it with their faith by accepting that God set up nature in such a way so that it would happen as a matter of course. Similarly, most reasonable Catholics do not believe the world started a few thousand years ago. They accept the generally accepted version of a Big Bang and again reconcile this with their faith by accepting that God was the instigator. I have no problems with either view. After all, I may be wrong and they may be right. But at least we agree on the process. The natural process by which we all are here right now. We agree on the evidence.

Tony’s component parts were formed from the elements that form this planet. And the planet was formed by an accretion of dust, which was formed by the explosion of a star, which itself was formed by…well, you get the picture. Every part of Tony can be traced back to the Big Bang. It’s the longest family tree in existence. And each step was entirely natural (originally caused by God, if you insist).

But Tony wants another moment to bring in God. After billions of years and an infinity of galaxies and solar systems and planets, all part of the natural scheme of things, Tony wants God to step in at one specific instance on this particular piece of rock and declare: ‘OK, this has reached the point when I can start life’. And off we go.

Tony will accept all the infinitesimal, incremental steps that go from the start of everything to his sitting at home reading this. But his mind cannot accept that the natural processes that have produced literally everything couldn’t have reached this point without God having to have to put down His coffee, roll up his sleeves and get this whole life business started. As if He couldn’t have included that in the Master Plan in the first instance.

It sounds like Tony believes that God started something which ended up with literally everything, but He couldn’t quite cover all bases. He couldn’t just let it run its course. He couldn’t pre-programme Life. He couldn’t make it part of the natural process. He had to step in again, when conditions were right, and He had to fine tune it a little to make it work. He couldn’t do it from the outset.

I think you sell God short, Tony.

 

[pocaracas]

This is Tony’s Standard Question, Poca. It comes up so often if should be known as TSQ so it would save us all some typing time.

Tony is a Creationist. Not in the sense of morons such as Ken Hamm, but a Creationist nevertheless. He believes that intelligence was Created when it is simply part of the natural order of things, like evolution.

I see… thank you for clearing that up. I thought I was addressing a standard catholic.

But Tony wants another moment to bring in God. After billions of years and an infinity of galaxies and solar systems and planets, all part of the natural scheme of things, Tony wants God to step in at one specific instance on this particular piece of rock and declare: ‘OK, this has reached the point when I can start life’. And off we go.

I see… a sort of god of the gaps, huh?

So… trying to get back on topic… if God is only present in the gaps, can death be considered the ultimate unknown?

 

[Abba]

you still don’t necessarily have a light bulb moment or insight into the situation until all the ducks line up.

You are pretending to know how many ducks, which type, etc… are needed to have a light bulb moment (or enlightenment from the Holy Spirit). You are coming from a position of ignorance not knowledge. So, you don’t know, you are trying to figure things out (obtain knowledge) from a position of ignorance.

The ducks you think are needed are obviously not the ones God desires or requires for a person to be enlightened.

+++

One thing that has not been addressed is God’s justice and the important role it plays with hell. It makes me think of ying and yang and the idea of universal harmony. If the light of the Good and Love is diminished it needs to be compensated some how. It is the reason Jesus suffered and died - to atone for our sins - to make amends.

Bradski, you mentioned a ‘system’, well, apply the design of a system to hell. There is a design/a system which leads souls to hell. Its very much like the photosynthesis of the trees etc… and the processes that we see in nature. Well, there are processes in the spiritual realm. But, we cannot pretend to understand them all and how it all works, although we do know a lot about them.

 

[Bradski]

You are pretending to know how many ducks, which type, etc… are needed to have a light bulb moment (or enlightenment from the Holy Spirit). You are coming from a position of ignorance not knowledge. So, you don’t know, you are trying to figure things out (obtain knowledge) from a position of ignorance.

The ducks you think are needed are obviously not the ones God desires or requires for a person to be enlightened.

I have no idea how many ducks and what type anyone needs for insight. By definition. Otherwise I’d be omniscient. So yes, I am coming from a position of ignorance. And yes, I am trying to figure things out. Aren’t we all…?

But you do need them, otherwise…no insight. And they are simply stored information. You just don’t know, in most cases, that you have them.

Simple…

 

[tonyrey]

Well, he could be right. But at some cost to God’s omnipotence.
This is Tony’s Standard Question, Poca. It comes up so often if should be known as TSQ so it would save us all some typing time.

Tony is a Creationist. Not in the sense of morons such as Ken Hamm, but a Creationist nevertheless. He believes that intelligence was Created when it is simply part of the natural order of things, like evolution.

False! I believe rationality is a fundamental aspect of reality - without which none of your opinions and convulsions would be possible…

Most reasonable Catholics do not reject evolution. They accept it as fact and reconcile it with their faith by accepting that God set up nature in such a way so that it would happen as a matter of course. Similarly, most reasonable Catholics do not believe the world started a few thousand years ago. They accept the generally accepted version of a Big Bang and again reconcile this with their faith by accepting that God was the instigator. I have no problems with either view. After all, I may be wrong and they may be right. But at least we agree on the process. The natural process by which we all are here right now. We agree on the evidence.

Tony’s component parts were formed from the elements that form this planet. And the planet was formed by an accretion of dust, which was formed by the explosion of a star, which itself was formed by…well, you get the picture. Every part of Tony can be traced back to the Big Bang. It’s the longest family tree in existence. And each step was entirely natural (originally caused by God, if you insist).

According to Brad his component parts were formed from the elements that form this planet by sheer chance for no reason or purpose whatsoever. So after billions of years and an infinity of galaxies and solar systems and planets, all part of the natural scheme of things, Brad wants the Blind Goddess to step in at one specific instance on this particular piece of rock and declare: ‘OK, this has reached the point when I can start life’. And off we go.

Brad will accept all the infinitesimal, incremental steps that go from the start of everything to his sitting at home reading this. But his mind cannot accept that the natural processes that have produced literally everything couldn’t have reached this point without the Blind Goddess having to have to put down Her glass of wine, put on her makeup and get this whole life business started. As if She couldn’t have included Her sequence of accidents in the first place! It should have commenced at the outset but due to some inexplicable quirk of fate it was postponed for billions of years…

It sounds like Tony believes that God started something which ended up with literally everything, but He couldn’t quite cover all bases. He couldn’t just let it run its course. He couldn’t pre-programme Life. He couldn’t make it part of the natural process. He had to step in again, when conditions were right, and He had to fine tune it a little to make it work. He couldn’t do it from the outset.

Brad really believes nothing started something which ended up with everything, but it couldn’t explain anything! It couldn’t just it run its natural course and produce chaos. It couldn’t programme Life. It couldn’t make it part of the natural process. It had to invoke an immense number of random events far beyond the laws of probability to make it work. It couldn’t really achieve anything at all but it satisfies Brad’s preconceived conclusion that ultimately nothing makes sense (including his conclusion of course and everything is valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

I think you sell God short, Tony.

I know you don’t buy God, Brad. You reject Him in favour of your lover: the Blind Goddess. May she satisfy all your hopes and desires - although she has a habit of eventually disappointing even her most ardent slaves. After all, she isn’t out of her mind> She doesn’t even have a mind to lose and is totally inconsistent, irrational and undependable. In other words a losing bet… but you’re deeply in love and cannot imagine life without her. She is your be-all and end-all, the summit of your ambitions and the final outcome of your existence in the darkness of eternity from whence you have come and to which you will return without having achieved anything whatsoever except in your imagination - which doesn’t really exist but is simply a fortuitous concourse of atoms summed up in one simple word: absurdity!

 

[tonyrey]

Well, I’m glad you believe I have all the others covered.

But I guess by insight you mean as in: ‘Ah, NOW I get it’. As the dictionary definition has it: ‘The ability to discern the true nature of a situation’. Same thing as the light bulb moment.

You can’t have a light bulb moment if you don’t have all the bites of information already in storage. Neither can you have the ability to discern the true nature of a situation if you posses no facts. If you have all the facts (or a good deal of them, enough to be able to fill in any missing information), you still don’t necessarily have a light bulb moment or insight into the situation until all the ducks line up.

You can shuffle the bits in memory about at random, or you can try to discern a pattern. Or you can let the subconscious do the shuffling for you.

Either way, it’s just a simple matter of retrieval. Nothing miraculous about it.

In “your” scheme of things “you” don’t even exist. It’s a fiction that doesn’t correspond to brute reality which is composed solely of quanta of energy. The shuffling occurs without any homo ex machina. “can” and “trying” are illusions. Things just happen for no reason. Absurdity is the name of the game!