--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: <snip> > As a refutation of an idea of an infinite intelligence at > work, I present this guy's body. An obvious result of our > brain's evolution where his recently added rational > thinking processes telling him to push away from the desk > and jog around the building he works in occasionally has > been trumped by the lower brain's attractions to high fat > high sugar food in excess of his activity. So instead of > dropping down and doing say 10 pushups every half hour, he > has been compelled to download Twinkies and chips washed > down by gallons of Mountain Dew which tricks the brain > into believing it is nourishing like a ripe fruit would be > if it was that sweet, hijacking his amigdalla and > hippocampus into compelling him through dopamine rewards, > beyond all reason, to continue a lifestyle that is killing > him. And all of this with the perverse kicker that he > "knows better"!
I think this is a red herring. It's a refutation of infinite intelligence only if you define "intelligence" as the ability to sustain life as long as possible. If intelligence were in fact infinite, we wouldn't be in a position to say what specific things are intelligent and which aren't, because *our* intelligence is limited. > Finite intelligence seems to cover the presentation for me. The presentation was made by a being of finite intelligence. How could it be otherwise? How does that rule out that Intelligence (as distinct from individual intelligence) is infinite? > But that doesn't mean I didn't love it just as much. If > the underlying case being made is that life is amazing and > beyond our conscious comprehension, I am all in! If it's beyond our conscious comprehension, that means it could be a function of finite *or* infinite intelligence, and we ourselves are incapable of knowing which it is.
