Hi Sotiris, nice post. It was Shopenhauer who stated, "As a reliable compass for orienting yourself in life nothing is more useful than to accustom yourself to regarding this world as a place of atonement, a sort of penal colony. When you have done this you will order your expectations of life according to the nature of things and no longer regard the calamities, sufferings, torments, and miseries of life as something irregular and not to be expected but will find them entirely in order, well knowing that each of us is here being punished for his existence and each in his own particular way."
Regarding our purpose being to provide God (or whatever you want to call our creator) with information - yes! And is there anything wrong with that? Consciousness arises out of our limited, personal individualism, our subjectivity, which of course as God is the unity of opposites, the coincidentia oppositorum, he is mostly an unconscious being and he needs our perspectives for his own growth. At least that explanation would give meaning and purpose to our existence, unlike the blown out nihilistic secular materialism we live in now. Carl Jung argues that this is our purpose in his "Answer to Job".
Regarding breeding for micro-biological changes, including massive personality changes, that part is pretty easy. Of course macro-biological changes is a whole different question. Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev developed a domesticated fox in only forty years, as discussed here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-10000-year-explosion-rapid-selection
How many times would God self sacrifice himself? Talk about an indiferent creator. The plurality of Bostron's quickie is the very offense of the matrix he is stuck in. Stay put. Don't let go of chasing white bunnies. Wonder is all there is.
The rest of us have it figured it out, in humility and in trust, we have managed to be hidden. Colossians 3:2-3.
Thank you for your comment. If I understand correctly, you disagree with my premise. I understand, as I also come from a religious upbringing. I am curious... Which do you find worse; someone who does not believe in the existence of a divine creator, or someone who believes in an indifferent divine creator?
I dissagree with endless wonder and chasing bunnies.
I find worse those who believe in an indiferent creator. They most likely will do nothing to understand that the creator had to sacrifice himself to save you.
The idea of Bostrom's simulation reality is nothing but denial of self. A repetition, contributing to wonder. As such, the mind entertains it and never finds the exit to this, which sits in plain sight.
We are what we believe. Believing in a simulation we chase our own tales. Stuck in a matrix but proud enough to further this idea. Why? Because the mind is entertained by it. Making it such the profit of the theory.
Mind in the bag.
I'd rather be purchased by God's sacrifice, who died once, and promised salvation. This is verifiable in this physical reality by the very acknowledgements the mind perceives in living by this code.
Well, I am one of those who believe in the probability of an indifferent creator. I am sorry you find me worse. I have done this debate numerous times in the past but there is no point. The point is belief. We choose what to believe.
Hi Sotiris, nice post. It was Shopenhauer who stated, "As a reliable compass for orienting yourself in life nothing is more useful than to accustom yourself to regarding this world as a place of atonement, a sort of penal colony. When you have done this you will order your expectations of life according to the nature of things and no longer regard the calamities, sufferings, torments, and miseries of life as something irregular and not to be expected but will find them entirely in order, well knowing that each of us is here being punished for his existence and each in his own particular way."
Regarding our purpose being to provide God (or whatever you want to call our creator) with information - yes! And is there anything wrong with that? Consciousness arises out of our limited, personal individualism, our subjectivity, which of course as God is the unity of opposites, the coincidentia oppositorum, he is mostly an unconscious being and he needs our perspectives for his own growth. At least that explanation would give meaning and purpose to our existence, unlike the blown out nihilistic secular materialism we live in now. Carl Jung argues that this is our purpose in his "Answer to Job".
Regarding breeding for micro-biological changes, including massive personality changes, that part is pretty easy. Of course macro-biological changes is a whole different question. Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev developed a domesticated fox in only forty years, as discussed here: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-10000-year-explosion-rapid-selection
This is quite an insightful comment. You've given me plenty of reading material. Thank you.
Interesting. Very Lovecraftian, actually, as far as your theory of a mostly indifferent greater being/creator goes, but more coherently explained.
"Evolution doesn’t explain the emergence of life."
There you've hit the nail on the head: that's the weakest point of evolution theory.
Interesting, and thank you. I've never had my worked characterized as Lovecraftian.
How many times would God self sacrifice himself? Talk about an indiferent creator. The plurality of Bostron's quickie is the very offense of the matrix he is stuck in. Stay put. Don't let go of chasing white bunnies. Wonder is all there is.
The rest of us have it figured it out, in humility and in trust, we have managed to be hidden. Colossians 3:2-3.
Thank you for your comment. If I understand correctly, you disagree with my premise. I understand, as I also come from a religious upbringing. I am curious... Which do you find worse; someone who does not believe in the existence of a divine creator, or someone who believes in an indifferent divine creator?
I dissagree with endless wonder and chasing bunnies.
I find worse those who believe in an indiferent creator. They most likely will do nothing to understand that the creator had to sacrifice himself to save you.
The idea of Bostrom's simulation reality is nothing but denial of self. A repetition, contributing to wonder. As such, the mind entertains it and never finds the exit to this, which sits in plain sight.
We are what we believe. Believing in a simulation we chase our own tales. Stuck in a matrix but proud enough to further this idea. Why? Because the mind is entertained by it. Making it such the profit of the theory.
Mind in the bag.
I'd rather be purchased by God's sacrifice, who died once, and promised salvation. This is verifiable in this physical reality by the very acknowledgements the mind perceives in living by this code.
Well, I am one of those who believe in the probability of an indifferent creator. I am sorry you find me worse. I have done this debate numerous times in the past but there is no point. The point is belief. We choose what to believe.
This is just a possibility:
https://substack.com/profile/100124894-steven-berger/note/c-46163955
And then, there's this:
https://substack.com/profile/100124894-steven-berger/note/c-47571940