NationStates Jolt Archive

It occurs to me that we are just a product of intelligent design. Our entire lives are just a product of an advanced computer simulation simply for the benefit or entertainment of a super advanced civliazation.

It occurs to me that we are just a product of intelligent design. Our entire lives are just a product of an advanced computer simulation simply for the benefit or entertainment of a super advanced civliazation.
So this civilization can harvest your bioenergy. Man, someone should make a movie or something.

Olara']So this civilization can harvest your bioenergy. Man, someone should make a movie or something.

No, it's purely for entertainment/eductaional purposes :rolleyes:.

Anyway, what I said cannot be refuted by "science" therefore it is irrefutable.

In fact, my theory is so good (and irrefutable) that it should be taught in science and social studies classes just so students are aware of all the different perspectives and theories about the world.

If it isn't, I'll sue.

No, it's purely for entertainment/eductaional purposes :rolleyes:.

Anyway, what I said cannot be refuted by "science" therefore it is irrefutable.
Oh. So they just enjoy looking at us and/or use us as a way to simulate potential policy decisions and decide whether or not to implement them? Original. I retract my previous sarcasm and suggest that you do make a movie. For real.

And much like good pitching always beats good hitting, so good pseudoscience always beats good science.

In fact, my theory is so good (and irrefutable) that it should be taught in science and social studies classes just so students are aware of all the different perspectives and theories about the world.

If it isn't, I'll sue.
No, no, there's no need to sue. Just get yourself a majority of the state board of ed.

Olara']No, no, there's no need to sue. Just get yourself a majority of the state board of ed.

I don't know, I feel that students are not being "exposed" or something.

Should be a lawsuit in my opinion. At the very least it should be taught in social studies class.

Anyway, what I said cannot be refuted by "science" therefore it is irrefutable.

Which is why it has been a subject for debate among philosophers for some time now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-in-a-vat

In fact, my theory is so good (and irrefutable) that it should be taught in science and social studies classes just so students are aware of all the different perspectives and theories about the world.

No reason it shouldn't be, although it might fit better into the curriculum of a philosophy class.

Olara]And much like good pitching always beats good hitting, so good pseudoscience always beats good science.

And Vice Versa.

And Vice Versa.
And vice-versa? Would that not mean that good psuedoscience, in fact, does not always beat good science?

Which is why it has been a subject for debate among philosophers for some time now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-in-a-vat


Dude, this has nothing to do with your little "brain" theory. I am saying that none of us real. We only "think" that we are.

No, it's purely for entertainment/eductaional purposes
Hey, you can't just steal my Theory of Why Everything Is So Fucking Stupid (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9812393&postcount=13)!
I was the first one to realize the design behind everything, and I am not about to let some up and coming guy with another funny name steal my credit!

Dude, this has nothing to do with your little "brain" theory. I am saying that none of us real. We only "think" that we are.

My little brain theory? I think you have me confused with someone else. Descarte, possibly? Don't worry, people get us confused all the time.

And the difference between me being the product of a computer program and me being a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer program is vanishingly small, so the fact still stands that this sort of thing is old hat in the philosophy world and that (I expect) it is regularily taught in philosophy classes.

Hey, you can't just steal my Theory of Why Everything Is So Fucking Stupid (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9812393&postcount=13)!
I was the first one to realize the design behind everything, and I am not about to let some up and coming guy with another funny name steal my credit!

Well I'm not. Mostly because your theory has nothing to do with mine. Good job jumping on the bandwagon fiddleboose, however.

In fact, my theory is so good (and irrefutable) that it should be taught in science and social studies classes just so students are aware of all the different perspectives and theories about the world.

If it isn't, I'll sue.
Those flying spaghetti monster people have already beat you to this satire/protest. They were funnier.

My little brain theory? I think you have me confused with someone else. Descarte, possibly? Don't worry, people get us confused all the time.
Thats okay, he mistakes everything for Descarte. Last week he was telling me about how his mail man had created the The Principles of Philosophy and then his cat had been all "I think therefore I am."
And the difference between me being the product of a computer program and me being a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer program is vanishingly small, so the fact still stands that this sort of thing is old hat in the philosophy world and that (I expect) it is regularily taught in philosophy classes.
Hah, that Proves the Second Fiddlebottomsian Theory, the Theory of Theories. It states that the only way for a Theory to be new or dynamic at all any more is for it to come completely out of right-field and make absolutely no sense.

Well I'm not. Mostly because your theory has nothing to do with mine. Good job jumping on the bandwagon fiddleboose, however.
Both of them are based on the idea that life is merely an entertainment for someone else, and that it has been orchestrated as such.
The only difference is that mine has a cooler name and offers an explanation for my reasoning. That and the fact that mine is actually somewhat original, because I am fairly sure that there have been at least 10 posts about "Unintelligent design" on this board alone that were remarkably unfunny, much as yours.

Hah, that Proves the Second Fiddlebottomsian Theory, the Theory of Theories. It states that the only way for a Theory to be new or dynamic at all any more is for it to come completely out of right-field and make absolutely no sense.

Hmm . . . so originality can only be achieved via nonsense. I like it!

My little brain theory? I think you have me confused with someone else. Descarte, possibly? Don't worry, people get us confused all the time.

And the difference between me being the product of a computer program and me being a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer program is vanishingly small, so the fact still stands that this sort of thing is old hat in the philosophy world and that (I expect) it is regularily taught in philosophy classes.

Vanishgly small? I doubt that! And any fool could see why.

Those flying spaghetti monster people have already beat you to this satire/protest. They were funnier.

Yes, well then I am sure that the "programmer" will punish me for it. :rolleyes:

It occurs to me that we are just a product of intelligent design. Our entire lives are just a product of an advanced computer simulation simply for the benefit or entertainment of a super advanced civliazation.
I've said this about you all- I at times don't believe you all really exist and are instead some clever thing my computer does like a Rancor meets Zork trick manufactured merrily for my entertainment. I wouldn't say I'm super-advanced or anything...but there you are....if you really in fact are...

I've said this about you all- I at times don't believe you all really exist and are instead some clever thing my computer does like a Rancor meets Zork trick manufactured merrily for my entertainment. I wouldn't say I'm super-advanced or anything...but there you are....if you really in fact are...
You needn't worry, I'm not real. And that sound of footsteps you just heard, it wasn't real either.
In a few moments, you may also suffer a hallucination where you think that someone has broken into the room with you, that I am quite sure will just be a product of an overstressed imagination.

My little brain theory? I think you have me confused with someone else. Descarte, possibly? Don't worry, people get us confused all the time.
"Descartes" with an "s." Because only an Englishman would put an unnecessary vowel at the end of his name (see "Locke"), but only a Frenchman would follow an unnecessary vowel with an unnecessary consonant.

Which is why it has been a subject for debate among philosophers for some time now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-in-a-vat
"According to such stories, the computer would then be simulating a virtual reality (including appropriate responses to the brain's own output) and the person with the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences without these being related to objects or events in the real world." Except without emotion, d'uh.

This thread proves my theory.

This thread proves my theory.
The only thing this thread proves is your mom!
By which I mean that for more than one person to be conversing with you simultaneously, you are almost certainly a real being.
If you are a human, then you had at least maternal relative (which would be required for cloning), and thus have a mom.
Therefore this thread is proof that your mom exists.

The only thing this thread proves is your mom!
By which I mean that for more than one person to be conversing with you simultaneously, you are almost certainly a real being.
If you are a human, then you had at least maternal relative (which would be required for cloning), and thus have a mom.
Therefore this thread is proof that your mom exists.

My mom is also part of the computer.

Wrong again fiddlebooze.

My mom is also part of the computer.

Wrong again fiddlebooze.
But if both you and your mom are part of the computer, then she is still your mother. If neither one of you is any more real than the other, then she is still your mother (fictional families have mom characters to, remember?)

Olara']"Descartes" with an "s." Because only an Englishman would put an unnecessary vowel at the end of his name (see "Locke"), but only a Frenchman would follow an unnecessary vowel with an unnecessary consonant.

Good line. Very good line.

http://www.venganza.org/images/wallpapers/noodledoodle1600_1200.jpg