To the first question, not in the least. This discussion is also superdetermined, including the illusory sense of a "me" who "chose" to write these comments.
To the second question, yes. It's beyond comprehension and wondrous. It's maximum novelty and total absurdity.
Might be worth it to brush up on computationally reducible phenomenon and computationally irreducible phenomenon. Breaking determined systems into these constituent parts lets you conjecture with respect to intelligent agents. Critically it shows that arguments from observed inability to successfully model the self are evidence for, not evidence against, the presence of an intelligent agent. The enlightenment view misattributes the evidence for agents as evidence against agents.
An anti-enlightenment koan could be: The student came to the master and asked, “Why are tigers green?” The master responded, “The deer they are hunting can’t see orange.” The student then asked, “It is not therefore it is? How mysterious and inscrutable your answers!” But from that moment onwards the master was de-enlightened.
To the second question, yes. It's beyond comprehension and wondrous. It's maximum novelty and total absurdity.