Adams, Scott, –. God's debris: a thought experiment / Scott Adams. p. cm. ISBN 1. Philosophy—Miscellanea. 2. God—Miscellanea. I. Title. Editorial Reviews. raudone.info Review. Scott Adams, creator of the popular comic strip "Dilbert site Store · site eBooks · Literature & Fiction. Read "God's Debris A Thought Experiment" by Scott Adams available from Rakuten Kobo. Sign up today and get $5 off your first download. God's Debris is the.

Gods Debris Ebook

Language:English, German, Arabic
Published (Last):16.03.2016
ePub File Size:24.75 MB
PDF File Size:15.12 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration needed]
Uploaded by: CORENE

Free e-book: God's Debris Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion is a PDF download - pretty much worthless for eBook reading on PDAs. A PDF book about mind and consciousness and the nature of God. I'd like an audio version of this book. Anyone like to volunteer?. God's Debris is the first non-Dilbert, non-humor book by best-selling author Scott Adams. Adams describes God's Debris as a thought experiment wrapped in a story. It's designed God's Debris. A Thought Experiment. by Scott Adams. ebook.

What does it feel like to suddenly understand everything?

You may not find the final answer to the big question, but God's Debris might provide the most compelling vision of reality you will ever read. The thought experiment is this: Try to figure out what's wrong with the old man's explanation of reality. Share the book with your smart friends, then discuss it later while enjoying a beverage. It has no violence or sex, but the ideas are powerful and not appropriate for readers under fourteen.

Fiction Literature Publication Details Publisher: Dilbert debuted on the comics page in , while Adams was in the tech department at Pacific Bell. Marty Cagan. Discipline Equals Freedom.

Jocko Willink. Robert M. Ego Is the Enemy. Ryan Holiday. Amy Cuddy. Way of the Wolf.

Join Kobo & start eReading today

Jordan Belfort. The Alchemist. Paulo Coelho. Measure What Matters. John Doerr. The Rosie Project. Graeme Simsion. Dan Brown. Stealing Fire. Jamie Wheal. Weaponized Lies Deluxe. Daniel J. High Performance Habits.

Brendon Burchard. Why Buddhism is True. Robert Wright. Perennial Seller. The Power of Now. Eckhart Tolle. Philip E. Anders Ericsson.

The Laws of Human Nature. Robert Greene.

Angela Duckworth. Tony Robbins. The Daily Stoic. Hans Rosling. Jake Knapp. Dare to Lead. Enlightenment Now. Steven Pinker. Barking Up the Wrong Tree. Eric Barker. American Gods: The Tenth Anniversary Edition. Neil Gaiman. Adam Grant. The Power of Moments. Chip Heath. Devil's Bargain. Joshua Green. Tommy Baker. Building a StoryBrand.

Donald Miller. Thank You for Arguing, Third Edition. Jay Heinrichs. Atomic Habits. James Clear. The Inevitable. Kevin Kelly. Stick with It. Sean D. Make Your Bed.

William H. Good Omens. Impossible to Ignore: Creating Memorable Content to Influence Decisions. Carmen Simon. Great at Work. Morten T. Extreme Ownership. Chaos Monkeys.

Antonio Garcia Martinez. I Contain Multitudes. Ed Yong. Small Data. I think many people will find meaning is this book. And many people will recognize it among a series of media available that presents things in this way and will pass it up just based on the fact that they've heard it many times before and have found for themselves what works and what doesn't in their own authentic lives.

I think that questioning one's reality, looking for the truth, analyzing and such are very important parts of being human and I think these activities should be encouraged. But I would like to see a new way of looking at the world rather than this idea that seems to be on repeat for the past decade and more, possibly starting with The Celestine Prophecy.

The typical college aged pseudo-intellectual preaching at me with half-truths to present "logical" explanations for things that don't exist on a logic plane isn't the kind of person that I want to hang out with anymore because I've grown out of the questioning stage in my life - on that level. And believe me, it's not that I don't get what is being said nor that I don't accept some of it as true; I do. I just no longer think that any of this "wisdom" is special or known only by the truly enlightened.

I just, you know, know , you know? View 1 comment. Jul 31, Richard rated it did not like it Recommends it for: People who know enough math and science to recognize pseudoscientific claptrap when they see it. If it had been written as comedy, God's Debris would have been an enjoyable read, since Adams does come up with some funny and interesting conceits.

Unfortunately he takes them seriously, and hides behind the weak excuse that he's challenging the reader to find the flaws in his arguments. Unfortunately, when someone who -- by his own admission -- knows nothing about quantum physics or probability theory writes very seriously on those subjects, the result is a lot of annoying gibberish. This book If it had been written as comedy, God's Debris would have been an enjoyable read, since Adams does come up with some funny and interesting conceits.

This book can be legally downloaded free of charge at the publisher's website. And yep, it's the Dilbert Scott Adams. View all 3 comments. Jul 23, 1invisiblegrl rated it it was amazing.

This is available as a free pdf file- just google it. It's short enough to read in a few hours. I loved every bit of it. May 21, Siddharth rated it did not like it. I found 'God's Debris' an extremely tedious read.

Not only is it riddled with factual inaccuracies and logical flaws but it's not thought-provoking as Scotty advertises in the admittedly intriguing introduction by any standards. Adams challenges the reader to identify said inaccuracies as part of the "fun". Sadly, it isn't fun, just infuriating. I mean, who really wants to go through a book saying "oh, that's wrong" or "yep, that's right". Anyone with a reasonable amount of knowledge of ma I found 'God's Debris' an extremely tedious read.

Anyone with a reasonable amount of knowledge of mathematics, science or philosophy would be appalled to see the dismissive treatment meted out to these subjects. Some sections of 'God's Debris' are downright ridiculous; the one about the Five Levels comes to mind. Is Adams trying to create a cult or something? The further I read the book, the more disinterested I became. Thankfully, it is a swift read. This and the fact that I paid no money for it the e-book can be downloaded for free are the only redeeming qualities I can see.

Slashdot Top Deals

Scott Adams is a bright guy and a talented comic writer but I don't know what he was thinking while writing this. A thought experiment it may be; it's just not a good one. Jan 01, Ben Babcock rated it it was ok Shelves: Scott Adams is an interesting figure. I'm an unabashed Dilbert fan; I have the massive, slipcase-clad twentieth anniversary book, and I particularly love the short-lived TV series. I don't regularly read the comic anymore, because I feel like it's a little stale these days.

The setting, content, and style are almost as far from Dilbert as it's possible to get—though, interestingly enough, many of the themes and philosophical questions have appeared in the comics over the years.

As Adams warns in the preface, you need a sense of humour. He also mentions the difficulty the book poses when it comes to classifying it as fiction or non-fiction.

This is essentially a Socratic dialogue for the twenty-first century. As the title suggests, the existence and characteristics of God is central the discussion. Socratic dialogues have fallen somewhat out of favour in this millennium. Actual novels, with the philosophy left in the subtext, tend to work better.

And the reason for that all comes down to layers. If a novel or any fictional form is well-written, then I can still be entertained even if the philosophy goes over my head or, as in the case of certain Sword of Truth novels, the philosophy is contrary to my own personal leanings.

Furthermore, the narrative offers its own ways to access and metabolize the philosophy—for example, the characters must confront moral dilemmas, and by experiencing those dilemmas through them, we wrestle with philosophical questions ourselves.

Whatever the reason, each chapter flowed over me like so much water: Oct 26, Sajjad thaier rated it really liked it Shelves: Seriously I wonder who one man can came with all these ideas and In very small book like this. On the other hand,if your soul is guided by rules, which in turn guide you, then you have no free will.

You are programmed. There is no in between; your life is either random or predetermined. Which is it? If people believed in God, they would live every minute of their lives in support of that belief. Rich people would give their wealth to the needy. Everyone would be frantic to determine which religion was the true one. No one could be comfortable in the thought that they might have picked the wrong religion and blundered intoeternal damnation, or bad reincarnation, or some other unthinkable consequence.

People would dedicate their lives to converting others to their religions. In many countries, more people die from hospital errors than religious wars, but no one accuses hospitals of being evil. Religious people are happier, they live longer, have fewer accidents, and stay out of trouble compared to nonreligious people. The Easter Bunny lives in the same place. They are equal. But when you hear the crazy views that some people have— actually, most people—how can you just let it slide?

The rest is details. Jul 01, Paul rated it it was amazing. Imagine a page modern day Socratic dialogue between a package delivery man and an old man in a comfy chair. The premise is something out of Tipler's "The Physics of Immortality" -- the idea that because of probability, one day, we will all be "redone" by a very powerful computer -- with a little bit of Leibniz' monadology thrown in; and while neither are mentioned by name, very similar ideas are brought up in this very interesting answer and qu Imagine a page modern day Socratic dialogue between a package delivery man and an old man in a comfy chair.

The premise is something out of Tipler's "The Physics of Immortality" -- the idea that because of probability, one day, we will all be "redone" by a very powerful computer -- with a little bit of Leibniz' monadology thrown in; and while neither are mentioned by name, very similar ideas are brought up in this very interesting answer and question exchange between a level 4 'rational' being the delivery guy in the wrong job?

Without ruining the book, I can confidently explain the title's genesis: God used to exist as a whole. He set things in motion and then he exploded and everything in the universe is his debris. As we 'advance' it is God re-assembling. How we use our 'free will' governs how well and quickly we reassemble. The subtitle of the book is "A Thought Experiment" and it certainly makes one think. It's a book that makes you say "yeah" on a lot of the pages as you nod in agreement with things that "I thought of that before" but never wrote down or told anyone about.

It is a vision of a possibility of an alternative religion, that in these days, makes about as much sense as any does. But Adams doesn't play favourites. He sets up arguments and then rips them apart. He presents all sides of many theories and debunks or confirms without real prejudice. Overall, this book is a breeze to read and should be done so in one sitting as it flows continuously.

There are funny parts, there are very poignant parts. There are parts that sound as looney as "The Celestine Prophecy" and there are parts that sound like they were written by M.

Scott Peck or maybe even Dr. There are still other parts that sound like Plato himself. It's karmic, ironic, circular, tutelar, satirical, informative and enjoyable. The ending made me think it especially appropriate for the Easter Holiday. Not in a sense of the especially Christian religious significance, but of the metaphorical significance of the story of Easter and I'm not talking about Bunnies this time. In a way, I think Adams, in setting out to be especially secular has actually woven a whole lot more religion in than he intended.

Or maybe I'm just a level '2'er who doesn't quite get it yet. View 2 comments. Dec 28, Hannah rated it it was ok. I think the whole thing was one huge LSD trip. Think about it. It makes sense. But it all seriousness: I was willing to accept some of the ideas and tolerate others until the whole levels of awareness thing. Scott Adams made that crap up. I mean, seriously? You expect people to read this and think that it will change the way they see the world?

How full of yourself are you? There were a few basic ideas in this book that made sense to me, and even some that I agreed with. Yes, it di I think the whole thing was one huge LSD trip. Yes, it did make me think. Yes, some classic thought experiments like the ship of Theseus and the allegory of the cave were addressed.

But the majority of it didn't make sense in any context. The ideas that probability controls the world and that God destroyed himself just for kicks and giggles are ridiculous and do not make sense to me.

You can't consider the world and humanity as one giant delusion, all governed by probability. According to the logic of the book, you cannot escape God's will and you are basically a puppet. However, the old man clearly believes that he has escaped and that he is above it all.

Yes, the old man is fictional, but Adams obviously believes that he has created a masterpiece of thought and philosophy that will single-handedly influence the worldview of every intelligent person who comes into contact with it.

There's a delusion for you. God, I just hate pretentious drivel like this. Fifth-level awareness? I can't get over it; seriously, what the hell is that? The construct of the story is absolutely ridiculous. The problem with the old man's explanation of reality that we are meant to find is that it's a complete load of bullcrap. And I seriously doubt that that's what Scott Adams was going for. Guess I'm not smart enough or thirsty enough to appreciate and discuss this book over a beverage.

Oh well. Get over yourself. Your intelligence will stay about the same over your life.

Get A Copy

Awareness is entirely different Most people's awareness will advance on or two levels in their lifetime. A Thought Experiment will give one's awareness a smart kick in the pants, and the world shifts to accomo "Intelligence is a measure of how well you function within your level of awareness. A Thought Experiment will give one's awareness a smart kick in the pants, and the world shifts to accomodate. The only thing I disagreed with was the caution in the introduction.

Yes, this is a serious book, but it is also very funny. Somewhat like reality. Jan 26, Sean rated it it was amazing. This is easily my favorite book that I have ever read. As the sub-title says, it is not quite a story, but more of a thought experiment. The author is Scott Adams the creator of Dilbert , but this is far from a humor book. The simple plot is this: What if there was a person who knew literally everything? Including how all of our current notions about the world around us -- sci This is easily my favorite book that I have ever read.

Including how all of our current notions about the world around us -- science, philosophy, religion -- are wrong. What would a conversation with this person be like? Adams doesn't hold the beliefs in the book, and doesn't ask the reader to either. In fact, it's a lot more fun if you don't believe the theories, and try to figure out how they could possibly be wrong.

It's a lot more difficult than you might think. When I said that this is my favorite book, I mean that I will read it about 4 times a year. It clocks in at under pages, can easily be read in a few hours, and is even available as a free. Sep 13, Babs rated it did not like it. It's great. Really great. Really, really great. Meanwhile the author gets in on the act of hyping up his own work starting with his recommended reading age "" He further goes on to claim that the target audience for the book are "" To put it politely - it's all a load of codswallop.

This book is truly awful. The author claims there is some debate as to whether the book sits in the ""fiction"" or ""non-fiction"" camp. In fact, he actually further claims there is no publishing category into which his book sits. I have no such qualms about labelling this. It's fiction. Sub-section - bad.

I am a scientist. I work with computers. I have an honours degree in psychology. I studied biology extensively throughout university, and am widely read in popular science.

I am not, however, a philosopher nor a physicist. The parts of this book that touch on biology, psychology or artificial intelligence of any sort, I disagree with. I can therefore only assume that the relevant philosophical and physical books are similarly ill-researched, but can't know this for sure. This book reads like a bad ""Tuesdays with Morrie"". Mitch Albom's book was a delight to read. It introduced philosophical concepts to the readers via a wonderful blooming or re-blooming relationship between an ex-pupil and his mentor.

It was thoughtfully written, used beautiful language, and swept the reader up into a number of concepts which require further contemplation. This book achieved none of these things. The two protagonists are introduced to each other through the relationship of parcel delivery man and parcel addressee.

Yet the reader is to assume they have this deep and meaningful discussion over a number of days certainly, my postman or FedEx deliveryman has never been quite so forthcoming, but maybe that's just my bad luck or a result budget cuts in the Royal Mail.

The book is badly written, divided into a number of chapters which only serve to interrupt the flow of conversation, and distract the reader. For a book which attempts to excplain such concepts as the origins of the universe, quantum physics, and electromagnetic theory, the use of words such as ""formulas"" formulae and phrases such as "" No concept is examined in detail, while a number are glossed over with unsatisfactory and incorrect philosophising.

Anyone who wanted to read this with a view to learning something new in their scientific education, or as use as a starting point for a discussion of the issues, would be left sorely lacking. The chapter entitled ""Evolution"" alone almost had me throwing the book across the room in disgust. The analogy made with the plates and cutlery, although bad, would have some merit if it had been properly described. The fact that he doesn't even try to descibe the evolution of crockery just makes his example so bad it's almost painful to read.

He dismisses such suggestions of forks evolving from spoons, or pots evolving from bowls. However, how did early man move from primitive tools albeit 2nd generation tools such as spoons and bowls without evolution of a nature? If he's going to use this very very bad analogy, he should at least have the decency to do it properly.

He then goes on with the following Where are the two-headed humans who will become overlords of the one-headed people, the fish with unidentified organs that will evolve to something useful over the next million years, the cats who are developing gills?

We see some evidence of mutations today, but mostly trivial ones, not the sort of radical ones there must have been in the past, the sort that became precursors of brains, eyes, wings and internal organs"""" pp. For a start we are seeing evidence of evolution taking place on current species. For one, humans are evolving and it is now seen that some hand bones are fusing together, providing no disadvantage to those affected.

Evolution is random, and it is only those mutations that confer an advantage on the individual that are selected upon.

Any neutral or negative mutation is not selected upon and does not continue in the gene pool. I am therefore at a loss to try and work out why such things as ""two-headed humans"" would become overlords of the ""one-headed people"", why fish are evolving into anything else whatsoever just because aquatic creatures did so in the past, and why cats would need gills, as any cat owner will tell you, cats just abhor water.

The whole thought also that the mutations that produced "" How people can think that a creature was suddenly born with a fully functioning eye, brain or lung, is just unbelievable.

Such things came about by very very small differences that conferred an advantage on the beholder so that they were passed down the genetic line. The tiniest of light-sensitive spots enabling the evasion of a predator for instance, which went on to have another small mutation, and another, and another, and another, for a million times or more, before it resembled anything close to a basic functioning eye.

They didn't suddenly appear, fully developed and functioning, out of nowhere. The author also fails to discuss the impact of humans on the current state of evolution. If there were to be a mutation like he seems to want - for two-headed humans, for instance - don't you think that the world's best doctors would be all over the ""patient"" before they'd reached their first birthday? Such anomalies would be operated away before you could even discuss what was happening.

In the natural kingdom humans are routinely artificially mutating animals and plants for our own ""benefits"", while we're destroying natural habitats at such a rate we're killing the creature who live there.

How are we to know how the dodo may have evolved, or how pandas or tigers may evolve, when we're doing our level best to manually make them extinct as quickly as we possibly can? There is no such thing as ""natural selection"" any more because humans seem intent on removing everything ""natural"" from this world.

I gave this book a score of 1, partly because there isn't a 0 score, but also it has been beneficial to me in one way. It's spurred me on to start reading some proper scientific books again. These will provide you with much more interesting material, that will be a much better use of time spent, and which will be much more enjoyable to discuss with that ""smart friend Scott Adams.Friend Reviews.

Books like this make me feel great about my journey of apostasy. Mark Manson. Everyone, including skeptics, will generate delusions that match their views. If God is guiding your soul and your soul is guiding your brain, then you are nothing more than a puppet of God. Hans Rosling. Librarian Note: It's great, and quite reminiscent of Ishmael:

ANDERA from Columbia
I do like studying docunments unnecessarily. Look through my other posts. One of my hobbies is juggling club.