Well not really debatable because it's almost impossible to know anything of a potential something so much greater than yourself or the universe. Could a brain cell ever understand a brain? It will always come down to trust, whatever path you take.
It looks like I've been beaten on having the more depressing Real Life post. I hope you manage to get what you can from the good things in life and maybe more importantly, create some to give to others. What can I say? I believe that if you trust God he will make it all right in the end and that he really does want to work everything for your good, whether your doubtful and confused or not. I think he loved us so much that he allowed us to break the world, so that we could be us and have a meaningful choice than just be a puppet, no matter how much the things we do are wrong and hurt.
But this is something to find in life and I'm not really going to part any meaning with words, it's you who has the freedom and everything you do in life you can always and will always have to work to your choices and ideas.
I wish you all the best and I hope your story is a loving one, however it's written
@ Kuruni You're right it is debatable,but for the sake of this review which writes life like it's a book,well someone had to author it. And if the humans are characters,some higher power has to be the author.
@Tomwithnonumbers Actually I'll admit I did have to exaggerate my more cynical beliefs a little bit. But really how else are you supposed to factor in The Holocaust, why people like Thomas Hobbes ended up like they are,or why so many people commit suicide? I do actually believe in choice and free will,I just also believe that God knows us even better than we know ourselves to the point that in this context he'll write what we do. We're not puppets at all,I'm sorry I gave you that impression.
And besides I did say that all tropes were played,and since some tropes are positive and played straight,it can't be all horrible
I believe all that,but it's still a case of Earn Your Happy Ending and the ending is up in heaven,and since whether that part happens or not is debatable,I've focused on Earth which is like a successful video game console has more crap in its library than good,but its the good we keep going for,and its also debatable what is good and isn't.But since everyone else took the video game route,I wanted to make it more like a book.
It's like you couldn't decide whether to be funny or preachy and ended up failing at both.
@Tomwithnonumbers "Well not really debatable because it's almost impossible to know anything of a potential something so much greater than yourself or the universe. Could a brain cell ever understand a brain? It will always come down to trust, whatever path you take. "
1. Define "greater than yourself or the universe". Terms like this are too vague to be useful. 2. Come up with an actual logical reason why you can't understand something "greater than yourself", whatever that means, without poor analogies.
Whoa whoa whoa are you talkin' to me?
If you were trying to find any humor or anvils in this,then of course I failed,that was never my intention and you failed to realize that this is more of an exaggeration of my cynical viewpoints.
If this is about God as the author,well someone has to be and I'm not gonna go through this shpeel about how it's debatable who the author is,that would simply make it harder to make this review clear.
If you're not talkin' to me,make that clear.
Yes, it was directed to you. No one else besides Tomwithnonumbers was preachy at all, and if I was addressing him with that statement, I'd have included the "@Tomwithnumbers" first.
"Exaggeration of cynical viewpoints" = You were trying to be funny, unless you can give me some other reason you'd exaggerate your cynical viewpoints. It's not very good as philosophy, it's not very good as preaching, and it's not very good as humor.
From what I can tell, you seem to have written this review to preach, but ended up derailing yourself while rambling in your own thoughts. Better luck next time, I guess.
If you think this is preaching,then every review on this whole site is meant to preach. Get a grip already,it's simply an opinion!
Generally when a reviewer has a downer opinion of anything,they tend to Accentuate The Negative and compress bigger ideas into something smaller,and really that's all I did.
Oh why do I try,it'd be easier to explain this to a brick wall,believe what you will of this
Typically, a reviewer who reviews real life is joking, not preaching. This review is like, half-joking and half-preaching.
Alright,alright since that seemed reasonable enough,I'll bite.
Of course I'm joking a little bit,any review worth beans does that,that's part of what makes Accentuate The Negative work,and maybe a little preachy,but most defined opinions are. It's still at the end of the day my opinions exaggerated for entertainments sake and expression.
It's still not centered on either first and foremost,to say otherwise is ironically enough taking the whole thing too seriously.
A little preachy? The first sentence of your review has you trying to make an argument for the existence of God, and the last sentence has some sort of philosophical statement about God. Even Christians on this site who review the Bible aren't that preachy.
Fine,fine I'm not getting rid of the author part,I needed a certain creator to keep it flowing and not waste time on who it is,so I used a higher power most people believe in (Christians,Jews,Muslims,Ba'hai's all take up a larger amount of the world than the other religions),it's not personal at all in this case.
But I can do one last thing to make it a bit more clear that anvil dropping is not the point. Anything after that and,well forget it. Believe what you will
And now enough is enough,I've got better forum threads to respond to and this is going nowhere anyway, because like I said before a brick wall would be easier to explain this to
...And you just somehow made the review worse with the editing. What exactly was the point of this review anyways? You say you wanted to write about real life with God as the author. Usually, something like this would be for comedy, and if not, it would be for preaching. Since you claim neither is the case, what was the point here?
Brick walls don't argue back. People do. I suggest you get used to it.
Experience shows that the Earth is not the total Crapsack World as described. It is a Crapsack World in some regions but it is not a total hellhole as described. Realy? Idealism is of naive? You need to open your eyes and understand that there be fruit on the tree. Understand as oppose of being a Nietzsche Wannabe like this.
I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.
Hi my life doesn't suck so the world in general doesn't suck.
Sorry, but no.
^Who was is a speech to? I my notes then I need to inform thee that I was not using my life as a basis for my argument but noting the simple joys people feel in live that makes it worth lifing. Could you note with caution before making uneducated persumtions.
I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.
Uhh, "it's crapsack but some regions aren't like that." Implies that you shouldn't think the world sucks because some places on earth don't suck, and you're most likely living in one of those places.
And if you want to nitpick at what people say, the OP didn't say it was a total crapsack world anyways (4th paragraph).
By the way, Idealism isn't to pretend the world overall doesn't suck. That would be optimism. Idealism tries to make it a better place.
@Eveil
Imagine you are a dot on a piece of paper and your entire world is that piece of paper. Since it's your world your thought constraints are two dimensional. Say there a line across the paper between you and another dot. It's only reasonable for you to then assume that there is no way to reach the other dot. A higher dimensional being would however know that you can just move around the line.
Or imagine you are a neuron in a brain. The brains thinking is formed by the actions and reactions of ridiculous amounts of neurons and is the sum of all these. So your full extent of thinking (including you thinking about you thinking) are only a very tiny part of the overall thinking process. If you could fully comprehend the overall thinking process then the total thinking process would be the full thinking process plus the thinking process of all the other neurons which is a contradiction, therefore in this scenario it's impossible for the neuron to fully comprehend the brain.
So lets generalise. Lets define a higher being (than us so we'll include aliens in this) as a being with a more complex thinking process. (Complex is an important definition here because if there was a larger brain but could be generalised more effectively then it would be comprehensible by smaller beings) So by definition the being has more variable and less scalable thinking process and so can't be fitted into something which is smaller and less variable. That conclusion isn't even a lemma.
This is actually quite interesting stuff, because if you think about it, a large part of our brain is already filled with stuff governing who we are and how we act, so our brain has quite a bit less comprehension capability than the total number of ways of arranging and connecting our brain cells. So are we capable of fulling understanding lesser beings than us?
(Incidentally fully understanding is defined as knowing how something will react in all possible scenarios, should have included that higher)
Yes of course, if we take the simplest being, which would be a digital switch that flips with any interactions, we can understand how that reacts in every situation.
But how much of a lesser being can we fully understand? Lets take a bee? Do we have enough brain space to know exactly how a bee will react in all circumstances?
The other interesting question is, if we create a computer that is more complex than we are and is fully capable of understanding a bee, then we can type in any possible circumstance and have an answer to how the bee reacts but we don't know the thought process behind that answer. Can that count as fully understanding?
I'm sorry I've got a bit off subject by the whole idea of consciousness and thinking is completely fascinating, don't you think so? Another question would be, is a neuron able to recognise the sentience of the brain (presumably no but take that more as a generalisation instead of talking specifically about brains and neurons) and if not, does that mean that any more complex system of interactions than a brain (like say, the brain plus all the inputs, outputs in your body plus all the things that trigger them) are sentient and would we be able to recognise it as sentient even if it was
Except neurons can't understand comprehend things less complex than themselves either.
I don't think understanding something has anything to do with complexity. Just whether or not the thing doing the understanding is capable of using basic logic and reasoning. We may never be able to think the same way as a more complex brain, but we can understand it given enough observation and time.
Oh, and for your bee/computer question: Do you consider writing down all the knowledge you need about bees on a piece of paper and looking at it whenever you need to so you can predict how the bee will react as cheating?
"Or imagine you are a neuron in a brain. The brains thinking is formed by the actions and reactions of ridiculous amounts of neurons and is the sum of all these. So your full extent of thinking (including you thinking about you thinking) are only a very tiny part of the overall thinking process. If you could fully comprehend the overall thinking process then the total thinking process would be the full thinking process plus the thinking process of all the other neurons which is a contradiction, therefore in this scenario it's impossible for the neuron to fully comprehend the brain"
Sorry to quote this at such length, but I needed the whole argument here to highlight what little relation it bears to what I call English. Perhaps introducing the concept of consciousness, as opposed to merely thinking, would help. Or perhaps the problem is not in how it's written, but in the mistaken notion that neurons themselves somehow think. I don't know.
"Except neurons can't understand comprehend things less complex than themselves either"
Neurons can't understand or comprehend anything whatsoever.
"Another question would be, is a neuron able to recognise the sentience of the brain"
What is with you and neurons? They're just cells! They don't recognize. They sit there and undergo certain simple chemical and electrical processes.
Leave a Comment:
An Unpredictable Crap Sack World,set at School, that only God can end
Real Life might be the least predictable thing in existence,even how it started is a mystery. So much so that the reclusive creator is widely debated about,some who say he doesn't exist.For this review lets just call him/it/her God for simplicity sake.
So far "God" has written in Loads And Loads Of Characters,and played with all tropes imaginable.Not only that but he wrote up his characters making other characters to fit their ideals,because like characters written in a book they don't know what will be next or what to do with what they have. And he seems to really keep track of everything going on while he's at it.
Unfortunately he decided to make all his characters endure horrible stress,and while some were up to it, others were not.Either way most of these characters were either of the naive Wide Eyed Idealist fold or outright bastards with very few characters (myself included) who live to do right by others. Though everybody grows through their mistakes for better or worse,which of course makes it a big round school house.This can cause these constantly developing characters to suffer Aesop Amnesia,become The Smart Guy,or most likely as the Nazis were,become Manipulative Bastards that are monsters. And unlike most media,everyone with no exceptions is Killed Off For Real and they don't know when.
But that wouldn't be so horrible really,I mean the characters could take matters into their own hands and kill themselves, some which do.It's just that there are still too many good things (such as the finite romances and chocolate) and many characters try for redemption so as to end up in Heaven,so no character [myself included] can tell what will happen next. And most characters are so adventurous that they wanna know what's next,no matter how horrible,and how likely they'll be used.
In short,it's a Crap Sack World with very little to live for,and yet people do,for the fun stuff there still is [like all the in-story media like Harry Potter] and the adventure of facing the next day set ahead for learning
Eventually though Real Life will cease,but only a select few will get Word Of God (This could still apply to anyone) for when
Grade: N/A