It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Though Experiement: A computer in a lab

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Abysha

A big middle finger.


Is the computer infected with a virus that displays some sort of graphic of a middle finger?




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

en.m.wikipedia.org...

'David Hume (1711-1776) offered a number of the most memorable philosophical criticisms to Paley's watch analogy before Darwin's theory of evolution had been discovered. His criticisms can be separated into three major distinctions:

His first objection is that we have no experience of world-making. Hume highlighted the fact that everything we claim to know the cause of, we have derived the inductions from previous experiences of similar objects being created or seen the object itself being created ourselves. For example, with a watch, we know it has to be created by a watch-maker because we can observe it being made and compare it to the making of other similar watches or objects to deduce they have alike causes in their creation. However, he argues that we have no experience of the universe's creation or any other universe's creations to compare our own universe to and never will; therefore, it would be illogical to infer that our universe has been created by an intelligent designer in the same way that a watch has.

The second criticism that Hume offers is about the form of the argument as an analogy in itself. An analogical argument claims that because object X (a watch) is like object Y (the universe) in one respect, both are therefore probably alike in another, hidden, respect (their cause, having to be created by an intelligent designer). He points out that for an argument from analogy to be successful, the two things that are being compared have to have an adequate number of similarities that are relevant to the respect that are analogised. For example, a kitten and a lion may be very similar in many respects, but just because a lion makes a "roar", it would not be correct to infer a kitten also "roars": the similarities between the two objects being not similar enough and the degree of relevance to what sound they make being not relevant enough. Hume then argues that the universe and a watch also do not have enough relevant or close similarities to infer that they were both created the same way. For example, the universe is made of organic natural material, but the watch is made of artificial mechanic materials. He claims that in the same respect, the universe could be argued to be more analogous to something more organic such as a vegetable (in which we can observe for ourselves does not need a 'designer' or a 'watchmaker' to be created). Although he admits the analogy of a universe to a vegetable to seem ridiculous, he says that it is just as ridiculous to analogize the universe with a watch.

The third criticism that Hume offers is that even if the argument did give evidence for a designer; it still gives no evidence for the traditional 'omnipotent', 'benevolent' (all-powerful and all-loving) God of traditional Christian theism. One of the main assumptions of Paley's argument is that 'like effects have like causes'; or that machines (like the watch) and the universe have similar features of design and so both also have the same cause of their existence: they must both have an intelligent designer. However, Hume points out that what Paley does not comprehend is to what extent 'like causes' extend: how similar the creation of a universe is to the creation of a watch. Instead, Paley moves straight to the conclusion that this designer of the universe is the 'God' he believes in of traditional Christianity. Hume, however takes the idea of 'like causes' and points out some potential absurdities in how far the 'likeness' of these causes could extend to if the argument were taken further as to explain this. One example that he uses is how a machine or a watch is usually designed by a whole team of people rather than just one person. Surely, if we are analogizing the two in this way, it would point to there being a group of gods who created the universe, not just a single being. Another example he uses is that complex machines are usually the result of many years of trial and error with every new machine being an improved version of the last. Also by analogy of the two, would that not hint that the universe could also have been just one of many of God's 'trials' and that there are much better universes out there? However, if that were taken to be true, surely the 'creator' of it all would not be 'all loving' and 'all powerful' if they had to carry out the process of 'trial and error' when creating the universe?

Hume also points out there is still a possibility that the universe could have been created by random chance but still show evidence of design as the universe is eternal and would have an infinite amount of time to be able to form a universe so complex and ordered as our own. He called that the 'Epicurean hypothesis'. It argued that when the universe was first created, the universe was random and chaotic, but if the universe is eternal, over an unlimited period of time, natural forces could have naturally 'evolved' by random particles coming together over time into the incredibly ordered system we can observe today without the need of an intelligent designer as an explanation.

The last objection that he makes draws on the widely discussed problem of evil. He argues that all the daily unnecessary suffering that goes on everywhere within the world is yet another factor that pulls away from the idea that God is an 'omnipotent' 'benevolent' being.'

To get out of the room you just make mention of all computers you have experienced in your life and say there are absolutely no examples of a computer coming together naturally.

Coomba98
edit on 16-4-2017 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: SolAquarius

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Abysha

A big middle finger.


Is the computer infected with a virus that displays some sort of graphic of a middle finger?



I'm guessing it's also a picture of Jesus doing the fingering. A white one, at that.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: SolAquarius

What the tools are, are not important, but they are sufficient to learn everything there is to know about how the computer works.


I think everything that is in this room that I could possibly use to escape is of great importance to me.

If one of those tools is a sonic screw driver then I'm definitely breaking out.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



some progress toward the truth


Going on your thread history you you aren't interested in truth - or maybe I should say you are only interested in some "truth", in your mind (THE Truth) that aligns to your own propaganda.

You know the outcome of your own experiment. All you're doing in this thread is "mental masturbation". Guess what you've accomplished, nothing. Doesn't it say in the Bible that a man is brought to Christ through the heart by the Holy Spirit?
Your playing with your mind hoping to "save the world". The world doesn't need saving. You need a bigger computer, more ram and an internet connection. You need to also get out once in a while and experience life in Nature; You will never find your meaning for existence within the self referential deluded mind.

It's funny that you used the idea of being locked in a locked lab as a thought experiment. I see you are still trying to break free from your creator.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ChipForBrains

I mean he thinks about the creator because computers are created. That is a bit of a leap no? People are assuming because I used the word creator in relation to a computer that it implies that I am arguing for a creator. I think that is a bit of a leap, but hey.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

Precisely. And it says Trump on it.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Let us imagine that someone has locked us in a lab


Did the person in this situation kidnap us prior to being locked in this lab?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb



I used the word creator in relation to a computer that it implies that I am arguing for a creator


You put this in the "religion, faith, and theology" forum - not in the philosophy forum or "life hacks 101- how to break out of a room" forum. Own up to your own bias



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

This isn't like the watch analogy.



To get out of the room you just make mention of all computers you have experienced in your life and say there are absolutely no examples of a computer coming together naturally.


The psycho that has you locked in and your personal testimony of these other computers isn't evidence of the creator. Did you ever stop to think that the question I ask at the end is a big hint ?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

And raped you.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

? huh - you need help



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I mean he is being goofy. I might as well throw in a bit of shock humor for him



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SolAquarius

Virus: VBS/Jesus
www.microsoft.com...



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Its exactly like the clock example. Otherwise why put it in this forum if its not related to religion.

Also you keep adding to the question. First its someone, then its a scientist and now his a phsyco.

My question to you is what is the intent of this thought puzzel? Just curious.

Coomba98

Edit...

Also person testimony is ok given computers are so abundant in life/reality. Everyone knows what a computer is and thats its created by man.
edit on 16-4-2017 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Who is being goofy - your other self? What are you even referencing?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

The intent is to help us think about an appropriate standard of evidence required for God, but in a way that is disguised from religion so that it can be approached without bias.
edit on 16-4-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

And raped you.


Wow things got real dark.

This is sounding less and less like a thought experiment and more like a very twisted fantasy.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

BWHAHAHA. I responded to the wrong person. The and raped you thing was meant to be a response to




originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb Let us imagine that someone has locked us in a lab Did the person in this situation kidnap us prior to being locked in this lab?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: SolAquarius

Its for my movie!




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join