Considering that early computer owners/users were also dubs, I might even be convinced by that simplicity argument.
bang
Complexity, er..no, Simplicity demands a Designer
by SixofNine 15 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Zechariah
Bang..........
You are not processing this data correctly in that our becoming Jehovahs Witnesses came first. The large number of early computer users are now Ex-JWs as the object lessons provided them from their experience with early computers forces them to understand the true complexity of life. .................. It also made people question old opinions and ideas which was both a blessing and a malediction depending on your point of view. It no doubt has given each of us an enormous object lesson that we are far more than physical beings. We are physically embodied spirit creatures. The spirit is the most real thing about us. Ou bodies is the hardware and all things invisible is the software (thoughts, events, emotions, etc.) telling the hardware what to do and when to do it. It stimulated our desire for new experiences and increased our openminded about new ideas. This in turn has lead to our early departure from WT captivity. It sounds like it would have done you well to also have had this experience. Maybe you wouldn't have stayed captive as long as you may have. Maybe your thinking would not be so chaotic and confused as your name implies (Bang as in Big Bang) . ............. This entire discussion has set the stage for for a decade of personal meditations on life. I am beginning now to share. IBM Corp. for whom I worked for 25 years has a motto. THINK has been its longtime slogan. Early experience with computers has stimulated and encouraged free thinking. What do you THINK about that. ............ =============== Zechariah =========
Edited by - zechariah on 6 August 2002 7:37:37
-
BluesBrother
O K , I am just a layman with a basic education but I read
"Keeping time requires above all else absolutey reliable motion to guarantee near perfect predicabilityNature......produces complexity with wild abandon"
Surely any timepiece made by man, be it a Victoriam pocket watch or a modern digital , is only set to follow the timekeeping of the rotation of the Earth ,in 24 hours and the orbit of the Earth in c 365.25 days. Those time periods are accurate to a final degree , no "Wild abandon " there!
Sorry, I can nowadays read such articals with interest and a more open mind, but nothing has yet shown me that we are not the product of a wonderful designer.
-
simwitness
Surely any timepiece made by man, be it a Victoriam pocket watch or a modern digital , is only set to follow the timekeeping of the rotation of the Earth ,in 24 hours and the orbit of the Earth in c 365.25 days. Those time periods are accurate to a final degree , no "Wild abandon " there!
The only ones that I know of that are "set to follow the rotation of the earth" are the old "sundials"... surely that is simplicity at it's best, and since the ones I have seen are set in "stone", there is certainly little room for "wild abandon".
The other ones you mention require someone to "design" something (gears, electronics, etc...) to mimic those natural forces, or atleast keep "time" with them based on rules, which, at times, unneccisarily complicate the simplest of things.
Interesting article, nonetheless.
-
SYN
Ah yes...a succint statement that used emergent behaviour to refute Creationism. Sweet.
-
Xander
Hmmm...little pro-evolutionary comments. I guess I'll chuck mine in.
As usual, many of you seem to be missing the entire point of the analogy.
A clock can do one thing and one thing only - keep time. That's it. It has no other purpose. Thus, it is 'simple'. How difficult it is to make has nothing to do with the matter at hand - only that it has 1 function, and it has to be as complicated as it is to do that 1 function well.
Take an ink blot test, for example. It could be seen as a butterfly, star, elephant, bird, tree, etc. It can be essentially anything. Useful for art, examining someone's mind, etc. In its simplicity, it gains many uses.
If you want it to be useful for one thing and one thing only, you must start adding rules. Adding complexity.
What the author is saying, basically, is that the human mind is more like the ink blot test than a clock. It DOES NOT have one and only 1 function - it has many. Literally, it can be used for anything at all. Thus, it's design is 'simple'.
At least, that appears to be his point.
I don't happen to agree, but at least I have an open mind about it.