GENIUS FORUMS

I know this topic might be abrasive to readers. I ask you to suspend your bias if you have it and can identify it. My viewpoint is open-ended which I will try to explain. I certainly take for granted the power of reason to bring clarity to my understanding of reality. It serves me far better than my emotions have. To make a fair analysis of the role of emotions in my life vs reason, I would have to start by saying that emotions have got me into a lot of trouble. Especially, and perhaps mostly, emotions that arose from egotistical desire and by this I mean the desire for sustained and fulfilled existence. However, when it came to life circumstances that involved gut feelings about calculative decisions my emotions generally served me well. As an example, I might gaze at a large body of information and get an intuitive feel about it, this was often quite accurate, so long as it didn't involve my own existence. If I examine the basis of reason closely, I can 'see' the same basic mechanism. Its not that my rationality is based in observation of anything other than a feeling. That feeling takes a similar form to the gut feeling however it has become increasingly more accute. There are stronger feelings of certainty, unbreakable certainty. This in itself is a pretty strong emotion and on the face of it, drives my behavior almost completely.

Would it be fair to say then that reason is emotional? Yes I think it would, but it is not entirely equal to the emotions that arise from egoism. Therefor it is reasonable to make a distinction between the feelings and generally to call one reason and the other emotions. However, by doing so we might be confusing ourselves that reason and emotions are in-fact completely separate. There is significant evidence within the scientific community to suggest that the two are interrelated. Without getting into much detail, it seems to me that what we consider our emotional system is a goal-direct fuzzy reason, in the same way gut feelings would work except directed towards egotism. All emotions to do with egotism and not reason tend to be fuzzy, reason appears to be more concrete, and perhaps could be considered a more concentrated and specifically directed emotion. An emotion occuring specifically between two sets of data in a conceptual space. There is the potential for egotism to interfere with this occurance as another set of data.

At the end of my analysis I've asked myself if maybe the perception of emotion itself is inadequate. Perhaps neither the faculty of reason nor the emotions can simulate the creative force of reality. I suppose, I should have stated what this pertains to before hand, but my modus operendi is; don't worry about the application just figure out what's true. The application here is sympathizing with cause and effect, with the creative force, causality. Its not conceptualizing it, but a visceral experience. The end result I think is that both emotions and reason have their place in living under various circumstances and in particular manners, and perhaps empathizing with reality itself is not even possible. Maybe our mirror neurons are not equiped to simulate the experience of reality itself or perhaps reality has no experience outside of egotism. Yet, as we may often speak of others as being barely conscious or having yet to awaken, so might the reality beyond us be in a barely conscious state of which there is no egotistical perception. There are lines of reasoning and observation which has led me to the hypothesis that consciousness and causality are interrelated and cannot realistically be separated from each other. The solution to the mind-body problem for neurophilosophers is to recognize that consciousness arises from the transfer of identity in a causally integrated system and thus fundamentally consciousness is a basic feature of reality itself, a feature bound to everything that happens. Neurophilosophers ask themselves what it is like to be a bat, and I now wonder what it is like to be a light switch. As close as I've come is a few times I was in a barely conscious state awoken from sleep mid-cycle and fell back to sleep after a few seconds. Or is it that because the transfer of energy is constant the effect never actually stops occuring, it just changes quality? I suppose in this case as well there could be no individualistic perception without a causally integrated ego.

How close can we come to a purely non-dual state and still exist?

Put down the Thomas Metzinger, mate. It's doing you no good. ;)

Interesting post, Animus - thanks for that.

I was fully with you in the first two paragraphs. Upon thinking about it and without even consulting science I've come to the private conclusion that rational thought necessarily involves emotional processes: the "feeling of being right" and such-like. Intuition is so fundamental to reasoning, and intuition is fundamentally about feeling.

The final paragraph was a little more challenging, but I think I have something of the gist of your meaning after a second reading. Even after a second reading, though, some of your phrases puzzled me, and I'm not quite sure what you're getting at - e.g. "empathizing with reality", and "simulate the experience of reality".

Unfortunately I don't think that you have a completely original and demonstrable solution to the mind-body problem, but then again I doubt that you'd claim to have one either. You seem to be suggesting some form of pan-psychic phenomenon, whereby consciousness is inherent in causal processes, perhaps to the degree of complexity of the causal process? I'm not entirely clear on the underlying mechanism that you're suggesting - I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the transfer of identity in a causally integrated system": transfer from what, to what, and to which identity are you referring?

Edit: by the way, this strikes me as entirely appropriate for the main forum - not sure why you posted it in Worldly Matters.

Animus,

I see what you are getting at, and I believe that intuition is something entirely different than egotistic or deluded thinking.

intuition springs from a whole question or a whole observation that requires further attention. Awareness of something starts off as the master and leads into an intelligent direction.

On the other than hand, egotistic thinking springs from irrational emotions that ultimately control cognition. The thought is a slave to the crude emotions that are the result of egotistic desires, fears, and so on.

Animus wrote:Perhaps neither the faculty of reason nor the emotions can simulate the creative force of reality.

I think you are just drawing imaginary boundaries and creating imaginary problems for yourself. The faculty of reason has no boundaries, nor do the emotions. You are treating them as independent things, when they are not.

Maybe our mirror neurons are not equiped to simulate the experience of reality itself or perhaps reality has no experience outside of egotism.

Are you saying here that all experience is egotism and there is no such thing as an egoless experience?

Also, you've been using the word reality repeatedly through your OP, but I think it would help us readers if you defined it.

Yet, as we may often speak of others as being barely conscious or having yet to awaken, so might the reality beyond us be in a barely conscious state of which there is no egotistical perception.

The reality beyond us could mean just about anything. Until you're more specific, it's impossible, at least for me, to determine what you're getting at.

There are lines of reasoning and observation which has led me to the hypothesis that consciousness and causality are interrelated and cannot realistically be separated from each other. The solution to the mind-body problem for neurophilosophers is to recognize that consciousness arises from the transfer of identity in a causally integrated system and thus fundamentally consciousness is a basic feature of reality itself, a feature bound to everything that happens. Neurophilosophers ask themselves what it is like to be a bat, and I now wonder what it is like to be a light switch.

But a light switch is made out of compounds and atoms. Does every single atom of a the light switch experience consciousness? And if so, then it isn't the light switch that's conscious is it? But hold on... atoms are made up of smaller particles, so maybe it's those smaller particles that experience consciousness? But aren't those particles made up of something smaller?

You know, there is absolutely no reason to conclude there is an experience happening in the light switch, or in atoms, or any particle, because, unlike our brains, inert matter is clearly not organized to process information. We have every reason to think that the brain produces consciousness through a complicated process involving senses and storage of memory. We have NO reason at all to think inert matter does the same.

Hmm...

Well, it might be helpful if I gave Gerald Edelman or Giulion Tononi again as a reference. Some of my thinking follows from their dynamic core theory of how exactly the brain becomes conscious. I'm not disputing that the brain is required for the rich experience of being someone existing within a world of experience, rather there is a mechanism by which this occurs. It emerges from the causally integrative dynamics of the brain, but its basic feature is part of the transfer and integration of information and not exclusively a brain.

Thus the argument goes something like a light switch would be conscious of two states On and Off if it had a conscious self-model and a sense of being some one experiencing those two states, which of course it doesn't. Never the less, the theory leaves the potential of machines and other specifically designed systems to be conscious in the way we conceive of consciousness. And I wonder if we aren't limiting ourselves to that definition of consciousness. I like the "Law of Identity" in relating to the fact of causality and this has led me to wonder if a causal process, which is physically the transfer of energy or metamorphisis of energy, cannot just as easily be put in terms of changing identity. We may begin with an atom that interacts with something else and splits the atom causing it to no longer be an atom, but separated into pieces with different trajectories and spins, the atom no longer exists, as if its identity has given way to the identity of the two sub-particles, realizing that those two sub-particles were their all along we can move our description of the identity of the sub-particles and ignore the appearance of an atom, but at every step of the way we will be met with the same problem of what the sub-particles are made up of. Finally, in the case of the behavior of the atom itself, its often adequate to simply speak of it as an atom and treat it as having an identity of that of an atom, rather than discussing it in its infintesimally small pieces. Those pieces assume the identity of an atom and play that role quite well.

Ataraxia wrote: Put down the Thomas Metzinger, mate. It's doing you no good. ;)

You may have a point there, but I don't limit myself to neurophilosophy, I study a lot of different lines of reasoning, and my reasoning here is not exclusively derived from Metzinger. However, Metzinger's conceptual models are some of the best for conceptually bridging the gap between the mind and brain. I trust you've made yourself familiar with his concepts.

One of the remarkable capacities of the masculine mind is its ability to compartmentalize and isolate its mental processes. This is how, for example, male pilots are able to deal with extreme pressure situations without their emotions swamping them. Their rational faculties are able to function normally, in isolation from the panic around them.

Similarly, the entire edifice of mathematics is a testament to male compartmentalization. Principles are recognized and accepted on the basis of pure logic, not on what "feels right".

In women, it is very different. Their minds lack that ability to compartmentalize and, consequently, they are unable to seperate their rationality from their emotions. As a result, their emotions and feelings are constantly infusing their intellectual musings. So it should be no surprise that the core benchmark of truth, for them, is what "feels right".

If any of you guys imagine that the wise understanding of truth operates in the same fashion, then you don't have a clue. You should never accept something as being true based on your feelings. You need to have far higher standards than that. Something should only be accepted as true if your reasoning mind determines that all possible alternatives are self-contradictory in nature.

It is essentially no different to recognizing a mathematical truth, such as 1+1=2. No feelings are required to make this determination. Just a thorough intellectual understanding of the concepts involved.

This is not to say that gut-feelings and intuitions don't have a role to play. They can help the mind make new, previously-unseen connections. They can open up whole new horizons or provide new light on old ruminations. They are a form of reasoning on the run, as it were. They enable the mind to achieve in one swooping movement what the ordinary reasoning process would take over many, many steps, if at all.

Animus wrote:I know this topic might be abrasive to readers. I ask you to suspend your bias if you have it and can identify it. My viewpoint is open-ended which I will try to explain. I certainly take for granted the power of reason to bring clarity to my understanding of reality. It serves me far better than my emotions have. To make a fair analysis of the role of emotions in my life vs reason, I would have to start by saying that emotions have got me into a lot of trouble. Especially, and perhaps mostly, emotions that arose from egotistical desire and by this I mean the desire for sustained and fulfilled existence. However, when it came to life circumstances that involved gut feelings about calculative decisions my emotions generally served me well. As an example, I might gaze at a large body of information and get an intuitive feel about it, this was often quite accurate, so long as it didn't involve my own existence. If I examine the basis of reason closely, I can 'see' the same basic mechanism. Its not that my rationality is based in observation of anything other than a feeling. That feeling takes a similar form to the gut feeling however it has become increasingly more accute. There are stronger feelings of certainty, unbreakable certainty. This in itself is a pretty strong emotion and on the face of it, drives my behavior almost completely.

If you examine the matter more carefully, I think you'll find that what constitutes a "gut-feeling" are instances of previous determinations of truth kicking in. The overall framework of your mind - shaped, hopefully, by past reasonings - provides a slant to any new material that comes along. It is this slant which gives one a gut-feeling of how to deal with the new material and how to prompt the mind into making interesting new connections from it.

Obviously, if the overall framework of a person's mind is rational in nature, then his gut-feelings and intuitions will also be far more rational in nature. Einstein's intuitions in modern physics didn't just come out of the blue. They were tailored to be right on the mark by his previous training, mental explorations and insights. So as a rule, the more rational a person is overall, the more penetrating and focused his intuitive insights will be.

This is why women's intuitions are rarely little more than fluff, almost always centered around other people's appearances and emotional states (their main concern in life). The overall framework of rationality is absent, which means that their intuitions are far more random in nature. They are very much hit-and-miss and always lacking in depth.

-

David Quinn wrote:You should never accept something as being true based on your feelings. You need to have far higher standards than that.

Is it reasoning that tells you this?

can a man with no legs run as fast as a man with 30 legs?

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:You should never accept something as being true based on your feelings. You need to have far higher standards than that.

Is it reasoning that tells you this?

Absolutely.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:

David Quinn wrote:You should never accept something as being true based on your feelings. You need to have far higher standards than that.

Is it reasoning that tells you this?

Absolutely.

-

So would it be correct to say then, that your reasoning is telling you that reasoning is the correct method to use?

Indeed.

-

If reasoning justifies the use of reason, then why is it any less valid for emotions to justify the use of emotion?

"My reasoning tells me that reason is the path to truth."

"My emotions tell me that emotion is the path to truth."

It comes down to what we mean by "truth". If we define truth to be "the objective view of the way things really are", then it becomes immediately apparent that reason is far more suited to the task than the emotions.

Emotion is biased by definition. Emotion springs out of people's attachment to the way things ought to be. This is why emotion isn't used to ascertain the truth of mathematical propositions, nor of scientific theories. The collective nature of science eliminates the bias that an individual's emotions can bring.

By contrast, logic, when executed flawlessly, is unbiased by definition. It doesn't matter to logic what conclusions it uncovers. It couldn't care less about the outcome. Only emotional people care. So in regards to achieving an objective outcome, making use of an objective process is the best way to go.

-

David Quinn wrote:It comes down to what we mean by "truth". If we define truth to be "the objective view of the way things really are", then it becomes immediately apparent that reason is far more suited to the task than the emotions.

Emotion is biased by definition. Emotion springs out of people's attachment to the way things ought to be. This is why emotion isn't used to ascertain the truth of mathematical propositions, nor of scientific theories. The collective nature of science eliminates the bias that an individual's emotions can bring.

By contrast, logic, when executed flawlessly, is unbiased by definition. It doesn't matter to logic what conclusions it uncovers. It couldn't care less about the outcome. Only emotional people care. So in regards to achieving an objective outcome, making use of an objective process is the best way to go.

-

I assume you believe that what you've written above is also the product of reasoning. Reasoning which has itself been justified by reason.

Q: Why choose reason?

A: Because my reasoning tells me to choose reason.

Don't you see any problem with this circular justification?

^##$*& $$#$#@# $#$*!@#@ !!!!

-

Sorry, I thought I'd give emotion a go. Didn't seem to work.

-

Jason wrote:I assume you believe that what you've written above is also the product of reasoning. Reasoning which has itself been justified by reason.

Q: Why choose reason?

A: Because my reasoning tells me to choose reason.

Don't you see any problem with this circular justification?

No. Reason doesn't need any justification, other than seeing that it necessarily underpins every coherent thought we have. It isn't a matter of choice. It is part and parcel of being conscious.

In other words, in the very act of being conscious of "things" our minds are already employing logic (i.e. in affirming that a thing is what it is and not something else). Becoming logical (from top to bottom in our thinking processes) is merely a recognition of this fact and a refinement of it.

It is the greatest tribute that we can pay to the gift of consciousness.

-

David Quinn wrote:One of the remarkable capacities of the masculine mind is its ability to compartmentalize and isolate its mental processes. This is how, for example, male pilots are able to deal with extreme pressure situations without their emotions swamping them. Their rational faculties are able to function normally, in isolation from the panic around them.

Similarly, the entire edifice of mathematics is a testament to male compartmentalization. Principles are recognized and accepted on the basis of pure logic, not on what "feels right".

I'm not disputing that pure logic is superior to run of the mill emotional content. In fact I think the basis of logic is in the fact that it is universal and "unbias". It is however bias, it has a bias against anything self-contradictory or otherwise illogical. It has a preference all its own which is what makes it powerful as well. I might be anthropomorphizing the "will" of logic, but if the "will" of man is itself not man's then whose is it? and what precisely does it mean to speak of a will? I'm not suggesting there is an agency behind humans or the universe outside of the objective determination of logic.

What I'm trying to say is tricky. Let's put it this way, in Dan's vid about compartmentalization he also says that it is at once a philosopher's worst enemy because it allows him to hold aspects of their lives apart from the intellect. Actually, Dan's video about it is pretty much the premise for the difference I'm driving at.

David Quinn wrote:If any of you guys imagine that the wise understanding of truth operates in the same fashion, then you don't have a clue. You should never accept something as being true based on your feelings. You need to have far higher standards than that. Something should only be accepted as true if your reasoning mind determines that all possible alternatives are self-contradictory in nature.

It is essentially no different to recognizing a mathematical truth, such as 1+1=2. No feelings are required to make this determination. Just a thorough intellectual understanding of the concepts involved.

This is not to say that gut-feelings and intuitions don't have a role to play. They can help the mind make new, previously-unseen connections. They can open up whole new horizons or provide new light on old ruminations. They are a form of reasoning on the run, as it were. They enable the mind to achieve in one swooping movement what the ordinary reasoning process would take over many, many steps, if at all.

I'm not imagining that, my point is a self-actualization, dare I say the term, of the logical truth which I've come to understand. That is what is the appropriate state of consciousness associated with this realization. And by that I just mean attitude. Basically I'm saying that to take my understanding of the logical conclusions and apply to those to my life, I need to in some respect anthropromophize the universe and imitate it's behavior. In order to be a true person and not rooted in delusion sub-consciously.

You know, if the logical state of the ego is gone what does that entail, all-loving kindness, agape? I think discerning kindness. Is there a better way of becoming true or unbecoming false than to imitate logic in a way that relates to personhood? It may not be an epistemic statement to say that reality is love, but it might be true to say that a logical state of being is love. But again, a particularly discerning kind of love. How else can one imitate logic than by fusing with the truth?

So I figure, as you say logic is concrete and unbiased so I mold the rest of me around it. I don't think a Vulcan is quite the thing.

Finally, I was thinking of the experiential feel of thinking logically and what that entails. I was influenced by Antonoio Damasio's book Descartes' Error in which he hypothesized that reason was useless when disconnected from the emotional system, and various experiments revealed that it was still effective at determining the truth, but incapable of putting it into significant action. The individuals became uninterested in the personal application of what they knew.

So I don't think that experientially, for the task of becoming true its wise to avoid an anthropomorphization of the truth in order to relate the emotional system to it. But I'd say that this has a massive potential for confusing initiates into any specific dogma built on the anthropomorphism... it would be more or less something for the individual attempting to correct their behavior and attitude.

I feel like logic is concrete because things which are self-contradictory cannot be experienced by me, it would be outside of any comprehension at all and simply would not even happen. Still isn't that a feeling I get about the reality I'm supposedly in? At bottom couldn't I say its made of the same stuff but not of the same quality?

Emotion creates God, not reasoning. So David Quinn uses emotion, as he actually tend to speak for God too.

David Quinn....

From God's point of view, there is no purpose to existence. God doesn't care whether we exist or not. He doesn't even care if we abandon our delusions and realize his/our true nature. Nor does He care if we completely ignore Him. Such is the purity of His love.

That is an emotional post without doubt. How could reasoning decide what God thinks?

To expand on this difficult situation, which I think I'm failing miserably at, I've taken a non-dual approach to the issue of objective and subjective existence. That is to say that what it feels like to me to be logic isn't what its like to be logic, and it may be nothing to be logic, but nor would it therefor be appropriate for me to be nothing or try to simulate logic in a cold fashion. The concept of emotions being hot and logic being cold is itself emotional and dualistic. It could just as well be that the emotions are malaligned and could fit nicely with logic if circumstances permit. That is to say, once a person has conquered the ego, I don't mean to speak of purely logical deductions, so much as to paint logic in a different light, or make it itself of a non-dualistic nature in which its not specifically opposed to emotions or different than emotions, but of a completely different quality. I just find that "nihilism" is the immediate assumption of anyone who follows the logic and veterans will say "no no its not nihilism" and that's because they have gained a deeper appreciation for the validity and primacy of logical necessity. As if they as individuals are more emotionally aligned with the "will" of the universe.

How about the fact that Autism creates a large number of savoyant Genius, and yet Autism also restricts emotion. I think that says it all.

Animus wrote:

David Quinn wrote:One of the remarkable capacities of the masculine mind is its ability to compartmentalize and isolate its mental processes. This is how, for example, male pilots are able to deal with extreme pressure situations without their emotions swamping them. Their rational faculties are able to function normally, in isolation from the panic around them.

Similarly, the entire edifice of mathematics is a testament to male compartmentalization. Principles are recognized and accepted on the basis of pure logic, not on what "feels right".

I'm not disputing that pure logic is superior to run of the mill emotional content. In fact I think the basis of logic is in the fact that it is universal and "unbias". It is however bias, it has a bias against anything self-contradictory or otherwise illogical.

Only in that it recognizes that self-contradictory entities cannot possibly exist - such as the four-sided triangle. If you want to call that a "bias", then that is your perogative. It doesn't change the reality of what is going on here.

I'm not imagining that, my point is a self-actualization, dare I say the term, of the logical truth which I've come to understand. That is what is the appropriate state of consciousness associated with this realization. And by that I just mean attitude. Basically I'm saying that to take my understanding of the logical conclusions and apply to those to my life, I need to in some respect anthropromophize the universe and imitate it's behavior. In order to be a true person and not rooted in delusion sub-consciously.

I'm not sure what you mean by "anthropromorphizing the universe" and how that relates to logically realizing the truth. At root, if you're engaging in any kind of mental manipulation at all, then you are not logically realizing the truth.

You know, if the logical state of the ego is gone what does that entail, all-loving kindness, agape? I think discerning kindness. Is there a better way of becoming true or unbecoming false than to imitate logic in a way that relates to personhood? It may not be an epistemic statement to say that reality is love, but it might be true to say that a logical state of being is love. But again, a particularly discerning kind of love. How else can one imitate logic than by fusing with the truth?

So I figure, as you say logic is concrete and unbiased so I mold the rest of me around it. I don't think a Vulcan is quite the thing.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "imitating logic". A true person doesn't need to imitate anything. His behaviour is spontaneous and perfectly reflective of the nature of reality. He doesn't need to make any mental efforts at all. He is true by virtue of no longer having any kind of falseness in him.

Finally, I was thinking of the experiential feel of thinking logically and what that entails. I was influenced by Antonoio Damasio's book Descartes' Error in which he hypothesized that reason was useless when disconnected from the emotional system, and various experiments revealed that it was still effective at determining the truth, but incapable of putting it into significant action. The individuals became uninterested in the personal application of what they knew.

This is a common fallacy. Antonoio Damasio is quite wrong to draw conclusions about enlightened sages from psychotic patients who are disconnected from their emotions - if in fact that is what he is doing. There is a world of difference between the person who intelligently sheds his emotions gradually, in the full light of his wisdom, and the person who is violently separated from his emotions via a medical condition.

I feel like logic is concrete because things which are self-contradictory cannot be experienced by me, it would be outside of any comprehension at all and simply would not even happen.

Indeed.

Still isn't that a feeling I get about the reality I'm supposedly in? At bottom couldn't I say its made of the same stuff but not of the same quality?

I don't really understand your dilemma. How does the intelligent recognition that self-contradictory things, like square circles, cannot possibly exist equate to a mere feeling?

To expand on this difficult situation, which I think I'm failing miserably at, I've taken a non-dual approach to the issue of objective and subjective existence. That is to say that what it feels like to me to be logic isn't what its like to be logic, and it may be nothing to be logic, but nor would it therefor be appropriate for me to be nothing or try to simulate logic in a cold fashion. The concept of emotions being hot and logic being cold is itself emotional and dualistic. It could just as well be that the emotions are malaligned and could fit nicely with logic if circumstances permit. That is to say, once a person has conquered the ego, I don't mean to speak of purely logical deductions, so much as to paint logic in a different light, or make it itself of a non-dualistic nature in which its not specifically opposed to emotions or different than emotions, but of a completely different quality. I just find that "nihilism" is the immediate assumption of anyone who follows the logic and veterans will say "no no its not nihilism" and that's because they have gained a deeper appreciation for the validity and primacy of logical necessity. As if they as individuals are more emotionally aligned with the "will" of the universe.

You're a strange fellow, in that you are very intelligent and yet clearly hampered by self-doubt. You really need to have more faith in your intelligence and logical reasonings. I understand the doubt, though, because having genuine faith in one's own intelligence and logical reasonings requires the kind of abnormal audacity that openly goes against the entire history of the human race. This is no small matter. But as it stands, you're still under the sway of the human race - hence, you still defer to their valuing of the emotions.

Becoming wise has nothing to do with emotionally aligning oneself with the will of the universe. Rather, it is a matter of clearing away all the useless junk in the mind, most of it generated by the delusions of the human race, so that it can effortlessly rest in its own true nature.

-

Pincho Paxton wrote:Emotion creates God, not reasoning. So David Quinn uses emotion, as he actually tend to speak for God too.

Emotion certainly creates Gods that are pleasing to the ego. But this has nothing to do with the spiritual path, which involves the logical uncovering of the nature of reality.

David Quinn....

From God's point of view, there is no purpose to existence. God doesn't care whether we exist or not. He doesn't even care if we abandon our delusions and realize his/our true nature. Nor does He care if we completely ignore Him. Such is the purity of His love.

That is an emotional post without doubt. How could reasoning decide what God thinks?

How could it not? It is only humans reigning in their own reasoning capacity out of fear that prevents them from accessing what God thinks.

-