RE: virus: C of V: Another Religion

Richard Brodie (
Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:43:50 -0800

Dan Plante wrote:

>>Actually, research shows that publicized suicides CAUSE more suicides.
>>So even those deadly memes spread.
>Certainly. But not to 95% of the population. Why? Because an
>reality ensures that any system (genes, memes) that are not consistent
>with it will do poorly or go extinct.

An independent reality? Independent from what? Reality is just a word we
use to describe what we think is going on. Some facets of it, such as
gravity and solid objects, are widely, almost universally, agreed upon.
Other aspects, such as the spread of ideas from mind to mind and the
influence upon people of planetary bodies, are widely disagreed upon.
But as far as I know there's no "ensuring" going on by your God of

> They may not be completely
>erradicated (due to a myriad of probabilistic factors), but they will
>never dominate, either.

But Dan, isn't "dominate" a subjective value judgment? Who dominates the
earth? People? Cockroaches? Microbes? Many would say "people," but
there's a lot fewer of us!

> Your statement sounds an awful lot like "using
>an exception to prove a rule",

??? Exceptions DISPROVE rules, not prove them!

> and it also doesn't address the essence
>of the preceeding statement; that, whether an independant reality
>/supports/ a "suicide" meme, or whether an independant reality
>/supresses/ a "suicide" meme, there is, nevertheless, an independant
>reality, and it is by virtue of the particular qualities of /our/
>shared independant reality, that allowed memetics, rather than some
>other system, based on some other hypothetical reality, to emerge and
>do their thing inside your mind and mine.

You have it backwards. Reality doesn't "support," "suppress," or "allow"
anything. Reality is a description (that people don't fully agree on) of
>>>I can't see myself contributing further to this thread. Unless someone
>>>has a rebuttal that isn't logically inconsistent, a counter-proof that
>>>isn't self-referential, self refuting or semantically imprecise, then
>>>I'd love to see it die an ignoble death :-)
>>A rebuttal of WHAT? You guys are saying you have some definitions of
>>existence, consciousness, and reality that are irrefutable and
>No. The assertion was that the very concept of existence, as a fact,
>/trancends/ definition, not the other way around.

OK, I think I agree with that.

> It cannot be
>/defined/, itself.

??? Sure it can. If you mean it cannot be defined with complete accuracy
regarding everything in the universe, that is true about all
definitions. No words can capture the whole of all. There aren't enough

> It is a fundamental axiom, beyond refutation, that
>is used /in/ definitions. I believe this point was made on no fewer
>than five seperate instances in this thread.

...which may indicate that you're not successfully communicating your
point. Again, you can't refute an axiom. An axiom is a hypothesis. It's
something that, if you start from there, you may make logical
conclusions in a formal system. You're saying that it's impossible for
anyone to be rational and not to found their belief system in your
axiom. Again, it's impossible to dispute that if that's how you define
"rational." But I know lots of cool people who aren't obsessed with the
question of objective reality. Their belief systems don't affirm or deny
your definitions; they just don't bother with them.
>>Well isn't that nice. And excuse me if I get on with my
>>life and ignore your little cult of consistency. Consistency has gotten
>>me into more trouble...
>Ahhhh.... I see, now. A spontaneously instanced (independantly learned)
>aversion meme ;-) Hmmm... I'd sure hate to think the ideas put forth in
>your book are inconsistent ???

Yup, sorry. Level 3 is an inconsistent place to be.
>Richard, I still can't bring myself to beleive you're not yanking my
>chain. Maybe you're doing imperical measurements on the acceptance
>threshold of an "internally inconsistent idea set" meme in a selected
>Net population ...?

Not at all. I just think Level 3 people are so cool that whenever I see
someone on the verge, I do my best to give them a little push...

Richard Brodie +1.206.688.8600
CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
Do you know what a "meme" is?