Don't know if this is old news, but I've never heard being discussed here before.

God's Debris is a free book, written by the cartoonist Scott Adams, that is probably one of the most thought-provoking books I've ever read. It's not really a philosophical book, but it most definitely questions your perceptions of reality, and gives new meaning to things you never thought about before. It's pretty short, and Andrews McMeel has a free PDF version of the book at this link:

http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

I especially urge the religious zealots to read it, and it's very thought provoking. It's not anti-religious... on the contrary, it strengthened my religious beliefs. What's cool about it is it's a book meant to be discussed and questioned (Adams calls it a "thought experiment"), so this should be really interesting here at Massassi.

Here's the synopsis:


Give it a read (or skim through it, that's what I did first), and tell me what you think. Then we can discuss!

42!

Downloading it now; I'll read it after I watch Stargate.

i like the way u think (kyle)

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

It's the Dilbert guy!

ah yes, it's a wonderful book. I'd sugest picking up the actual book if you got the money, i got mine when it first came out a few years ago, it's only like $7-8 or somthing i think.

Over the summer, I got a copy for several dollars at Half Price books and finished it the next day. It's probably one of my favorite books. The sequel, The Religion War, isn't quite as good, but is still a fun read.

I'm about three quarters of the way through, and the science in here seems pretty sketchy. It almost reminds me of that stupid "What the bleep do we know?" movie made by new-age idiots that don't understand quantum mechanics.

I'll admit some of the ideas are intriguing though.

I hope you read the intro.


I'm done with the first three chapters (plus the intro). The end of "Your Free Will" is awesome.

I just finished it.

Hm.

Some of it was interesting, but... I dunno. I see this guy as being a little nuts here and there. It was interesting, though.

In the introduction he explains that some of the science is fabricated to fool you, and that part of the "thought experiment" is being able to discern between what he made up and what is actual fact.

I was okay with it up until around page 68. The author ruined a good story (and a great point) by allowing the old man to use a scientific concept that he had previously redefined. From there on the inconsitancies just grew. I finally just had to just stop at page 88. I couldn't bare it any longer.

The underlying principle of the story is that everything you know is a huge collection of concepts percieved uniquely by yourself. While the story often distinctly pointed out the differences between concept and reality, it provided no insight into how to observe reality as it truly is. Mostly, the main thing readers should take from this story are the insights of how science is practiced and, at the same time, how arrogant it can often be.

I finished it .. I actually got the impression that scott adams was very softly making fun of metaphysicians and philosophers. The stuff about trying to figure out what is right/wrong with Avatar's argument, and the stuff about hypnosis .. maybe the actual experiment is how easily people will buy into / feel enlightened with this kind of stuff from a "wise" sounding, guru-like source.

Awesome book, although I think it peaked with the chapter that introduced the mind as a delusion generator. The second half was noticably weaker than the first.

CaptBevvil: I think the point was that there is no way to observe reality as it is, and that every attempt to do so just results in another metaphor rather than understanding. The only progress is in progressive disillusionment; recognizing your delusions as delusions and the futility of seeking understanding, while remaining curious and open. The Curious Bees and Willpower chapters are quality, address your interpretation, and are past the point you stopped.

Perhaps I'll finish it later. I have to disagree that it isn't possible to determain reality...at least in such a way that we (as people) can both A) agree on (aka convention) and B) discover the fundamental driving force, then work our understanding up from there so that we never even have to physically observe an event to know what will happen. I have theorized, on many occassions, that it would be possible to predict exactly how a piece of paper would fall in a controled environment.

My other beef with the "Book" is that of the coin flipping anology. There isn't always a 50% chance of being heads or tails. If you set up a controled environment where you had a machine that flipped the coin the same way every time, and you could control things such as air movement, air density, etc.; then the coin would consistantly land on the same side 100% of the time.

Again, my thoughts are, this "Book" is a good way to get people thinking in the right direction (distinguishing concept from the physical world). However, I think it also stepped over a certain line that probably made the application of such knowledge applicably useless to the reader. Then question then is, what has been gained? My Answer, "Nothing." The "Book", in my opinion, pratically invalidates itself and is an overall 'Failed' experiment.

I'll agree to disagree to the contrary...

I read it a while back. It's excellent.
I actually read Religion War first. It's strange. A scary look at the future. Actually, the whole concept of a coincidental "GOD" name was a little far fetched even for the guy who once theorized that Gravity is an illusion caused by everything doubling in size simultaneously.

-For more God's Debris-esque goodness, read "The Dilbert Future". For the most part, it's just more Dilbert-y goodness about silly future predictions, but the last chapter is sort of a precursor to God's Debris.

Friend14, do us all a favor and stay out of this thread completely. Please.

On page 68, it's very intriguing. Still haven't find out what's wrong with his logic yet.