I don't see a need for optimism or pessimism, as both seem to be rooted in ego and attachment. Neither lens changes reality. Replace those ideas with acceptance, and willingness to change, and I think you will find you suffer far less, no matter what the stimulus or event.

What leads me to believe we exist in a simulated reality is the improbability that irreducible particles (quarks) behave in intelligent ways, with no component parts to allow that sort of high level functioning. They need to be instructed to behave a certain way, by some sort of programming language, developed by some higher level entity, and powered by an as of yet undetectable ethereal force. The creating entities and the force they are using are of course currently beyond comprehension.

The Five Levels of Attachment deal with this nicely, I think, with respect to attachment to things, people, ideas, and even identity/ego. Zero attachment is difficult to achieve, because some of it is biologically driven (e.g. bond between parent and child). As much as you strive to artificially detach from the world and life, your biological needs will cause at least some discomfort, if not misery, and you will be giving up on many of the positives. Zero attachment with regard to identity/ego is likely achievable - once you are able to observe the attachment you've built up throughout your lifetime - but not necessarily desirable, with regard to the experience of pleasure and peace/contentment. The author suggests that there is a healthy level of attachment, where you view your life and identity more as a work of art, rather than a set of absolute beliefs and ideas. This allows you to form softer attachments that are more malleable and flowing, open to change. Accepting your human biological attachments and emotions will limit (or even eliminate, if you stop seeing grief and other 'negative' emotions as bad things, with all of the negative self-talk attached) the amount of suffering in your life.

And an unlikely world...

there's no need to try to define them beyond our perspective — BrianW

Tell that to the quarks that somehow keep my brain together! haha

Seriously though, I think the desire to know, or at least form a belief, comes from the depressed part of my mind, that silently hopes there is more to life than we perceive, or that the end of my existence would be only that, because the world only exists as a product of my consciousness (kind of like an escape clause if life ever becomes unbearable again). Thankfully, I have been pretty much free of any significant depressed feelings for a few years now, and I am quite hopeful that I will never return to the depths of severe depression.

By 'seemingly intelligent', I mean organized behavior that results in the creation of a complex structure or entity. Particles sticking together or bouncing off of each other = not intelligent. Particles combining and forming life and consciousness = seemingly intelligent!

But what makes the quark join with other quarks and start doing seemingly intelligent things? (Sorry if I'm missing your point, but I'm really going to need more concrete examples for each of your concepts to understand...)

I may have to explain further. — eodnhoj7

Yep. I'm missing how this links to the behavior of irreducible particles...

Can you dumb it down, or give a practical example?

@Relativist From what I gather, your responses do nothing to explain the intelligent behavior taking place... Not that I expect someone to be able to provide an irrefutable response; just that I would like to consider the most likely alernatives.

Maybe even other forces whose interplay generates a host of interactive phenomena — BrianW

But it's the degree of complexity being accomplished by these particles that astounds me. I could understand lesser phenomena, such as giving off light or heat, but to assemble and create a living thing with a conscious mind... that is a far far bigger stretch of the imagination. Seems to me it would be next to impossible for this to happen in a purely physical reality. Which leads me back to my life being a perceived reality, or it involving manipulation of the physical by as of yet undetected forces. I'm not sure which of those scenarios is more likely...

I can understand an irreducible particle having something like gravitational force, but not instructions... because being irreducible means that there are no component parts, leaving nowhere for the information to be stored.

Even quarks have inherent characteristics which, as far as are known, determine how they organize into various configurations. — BrianW

Having characteristics is one thing... being able to organize and combine into atomic particles, which in turn somehow organize into increasingly complex structures/entities, is quite another! Which leads me to posit that since internal programming doesn't seem possible within a particle with no component parts, that the guidance has to be external. But what form could that guidance take? Seems it would have to be non-physical, or at least imperceptible, if science hasn't discovered it yet... haha

The alternative is perhaps that there really is no physical reality, only what my consciousness (wherever or however it may reside or exist) perceives. This leads me to lend credibility to the theory that consciousness may be creating reality, and that everything we find only exists to explain what we've gone looking for; that is, the macro-reality existed prior to the micro-reality... and that the universe is finite, in the sense that it is limited to what we have perceived.

At this point, I believe it is quarks that are considered to be irreducible.

It is fairly easy for me to accept particles organizing in some manner according to some internal/external force. For example, an internal attractive force that causes particles to group together in the shape of a sphere would not be utterly surprising. But for those particles to then combine, form orderly, purposeful structures, and begin to perform complex actions... that is what I find difficult to fathom.

Sort of... To me, a particle/object/structure/entity that exhibits organized/intelligent behavior either has to have internal components driving the action, or an intelligent external force guiding it (or both). For example, for a plant to grow, its cells need to act in an intelligent way. For a bus to follow its route, it requires an intelligent driver. When it comes to irreducible particles, there can be no internal drivers, and while it may be acted upon by external forces (e.g. gravity), how could such external forces cause the particles to organize and act in complex and intelligent ways?

For example, a plant is composed of cells. It is the actions of the cells that determine how the plant will develop. If a particle is irreducible, it has no separate components that could possibly combine to drive or influence its behavior. It would be easier to believe that it is being directed by some force external to the particle.

It's not that the behaviour of compound bodies isn't amazing; it's just that it has to happen first at the level of the irreducible particles, which lack any component parts. Without component parts, it is hard to imagine how they could behave in a manner anything other than random and disorganized - bouncing or sticking, but not organizing into complex, intelligent forms.

generally too bound to their subjective sense of self, without the ability to detach from their humanity when doing the argument — Christoffer

I agree. Accepting determinism is difficult because it lessens the sense of self we strive so hard to create and sustain.

Maybe the problem is that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive... at least as they are seeming to be defined in this discussion... autonomous ability to choose exists at least from the perspective of the self, even though everything feeding that choice has followed a chain of events over which the chooser had no input. Wait, maybe I'm saying they are mutually exclusive... :razz:

Beliefs are deterministic, and I did not freely choose most of the beliefs I have. Preferences, also never deliberately put together, are also deterministic. Habits are deterministic. — Bitter Crank

I agree. To the people who promote free will, I would keep asking 'Why?' like my determined 2-year-old does. I think they would quickly determine that behind every will, there was a preceding way...

Even with freedom to choose between alternative courses of action, you still had no control over the inputs that created you (that would be quite paradoxical). So there's an ability to make choices, but all based on whatever inputs went into the mix. Even seemingly random thoughts and choices only arise and are available because the inputs formed you and shaped your mind and personality.

Also, the road to recovery from depression is usually a very winding one, where it sometimes feels like you're right back where you started. Especially early on in the process, if something triggers a depressed mental/emotional state, it can feel like you've made absolutely no progress. However, over the long term, the negative reactions typically become less frequent and less intense. The trouble with depressive episodes is that when they do come on, it often feels like it will never go away. But over time, every time you resurface intact, your strength and confidence builds.

That being said, CBT in isolation will not necessarily work for everyone (some forms of mental/emotional trauma may be too severe), and definitely not at a pace that most would find palatable. That's why it's useful to combine CBT with things like medication and rTMS, especially when dealing with someone in the midst of deep depression. The effort required to fully engage in CBT can be difficult to muster when you don't really feel like being alive.

I think that's a little different than what Posty was saying...

I can't just decide to believe in Jesus. I have to first be convinced of his existence.
However, I can decide to engage in CBT to exercise my brain, just like I can decide to lift weights to exercise my muscles. I don't have to believe in CBT or lifting weights for them to work.

As far as 'disidentification' goes, CBT and mindfulness practices played the biggest roles in that for me. Having been depressed for so long, the associated narratives became quite ingrained, but I learned to stop seeing them as significant when they arose - kind of just observing them without attaching meaning to them or identifying with them as being part of 'me'.

I've been pretty stable for about 4 years now, following decades of depression. Medication has played its part, and so has CBT and rTMS. Despite the mental and emotional training I've done, there are still certain triggers that will send me into a mini depressive episode. Thankfully, though very uncomfortable, the effect is very temporary now, and seems to lessen with every occurrence.

There's also a lot to be said for treating your body and mind right, as hard as that can be when you lack motivation. Proper sleep, a decent diet, plenty of exercise, healthy relationships, fairly regular sex (if you can get it haha), and healthy distractions/hobbies go a long way toward improving your chances of maintaining a more positive or at least more neutral state of mind.

This is why the mind requires human interaction to achieve this state of peace you are referring to. In my experience meaning can only be found in our relations with other humans. — Gord

That's definitely part of the formula I live by now. Maintaining and cultivating relationships definitely contribute to big picture, along with sleep, exercise, and diet.

If, on the other hand, you seek out artificial sources that manage those emotional responses, you are not directed to the source or reasons why you are having them in the first place and are simply prolonging the problem by ignoring it. — TimeLine

Yes, it is all too easy to slip into negative coping mechanisms, which only serve to distract and prolong or add to suffering.

@Marcus de Brun

Thanks for your kind words. I don't mind sharing with the forum. There may be others who benefit from the discussion.

I am indeed in a better place these days. I've been pretty stable for the past 3 years, consult my doctor regularly, adhere to my prescribed medication, and undergo rTMS (repetitive trans-cranial magnetic stimulation). I also have a spouse, mother, and boss who are very supportive.

I must admit I've been tested over the past several months, with my ex-wife trying to relocate my two girls (11 and almost 10) to a city 6 hours away. However, my mood has held up surprisingly well.

I would appreciate any further wisdom you are able to provide!

I never thought I'd say this, but... I kind of miss 'Rich'. Anyone know why he got banned?

it can't have a top or a bottom because then it could be reduced even smaller to the top part and the bottom part — Purple Pond

Aren't quarks irreducible? From what I recall, when one attempts to subdivide a quark, the combined matter and energy result in the creation of two quarks exactly alike the one you are attempting to split.

One should live their life to the best of their ability and then have faith through their actions and belief in the Kingdom of God — Count Radetzky von Radetz

I guess I should amend my formula to include + God divided by 0...

what sort of calculation do we implicitly make when we say that life is worth living and that death should be avoided — Purple Pond

If Times of Contentment + Times of Joy X 5 > Times of Temporary Pain/100 + Expected Times of Prolonged Suffering/10, Then Continue Living!

Two scenarios seem plausible to me.

1) Reality is created by consciousness, and will therefore always exist. The form is not likely to change. Either reality will adapt so that consciousness continues to exist, or at the end of a life, consciousness enters a period of sleep before awakening to a new reality.

2) We live in a simulated reality, and are tuned in to our bodies by our creators. In this case, either the simulation ends with our body's death, or we are reassigned to a new body, with no retention of our previous assignment.

I like Donald Trump because he is my favourite debunker, as he always identifies Fake News.

An ex-wife is like a ____________ for _____________.

It's hard not to compare the behavior of quarks and such to the bits and bytes in the computers we program. — CasKev

Speaking of which, it is unimaginable to me how a computer functions, based only on electricity travelling through circuits, turning little switches on and off. (The number of circuits and complex logic required for a simple calculator to function is mind-boggling on its own.) That billions of circuits could be constructed and compressed to such a microscopic level seems completely absurd. The more I consider such things, the more I feel like I'm living in a simulated reality that operates according to unfathomable laws.

@TimeLine @Agustino

Both approaches have yielded some benefit for me. The success of each likely depends on your personality type. Being a very logically-minded person, I found CBT provided the greater benefit. Having an understanding of the why behind my thought and feelings helped me get a grip on the negative self-talk. For me, meditation on its own was a way to relax and forget about life for a while, but didn't help me address my core beliefs. That being said, the mindfulness you develop during meditation is quite helpful when it comes to CBT. Awareness of thought becomes much keener; identifying/stopping/refuting the irrational thought processes becomes a lot easier.

@Bitter Crank

In an earlier post, you were helpful in getting me past the existential angst I was having with regard to the lack of objective meaning and purpose in life.

Lately, I seem to be caught up and affected by the absurdity of how things work, especially in the subatomic and universal realms. It has led me to researching a lot about possible explanations, but I've come up (of course) feeling like I am no closer to the truth of how and why things really exist.

Any thoughts or advice on this?

I think I agree that a child born with no senses, would not be conscious. So sensory input is required at some point, to provide information for the brain to be conscious of. — Tyler

Theoretically, if you kept this child alive via intravenous, consciousness would likely still arise, though it would remain completely empty. When awake, I think there would be some sort of awareness of existence, kind of like the state of 'empty mind' one achieves when meditating.

As for memory, certainly some form of memory is required for a human being to properly function, but even if you removed all forms of memory, you would still have a consciousness capable of observing sensory input, even though the ability to interpret it may be lacking.

I'd say it's most likely that someone set the initial variables, and then let the program run.