RE: virus: Rationality

David McFadzean (
Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:28:38 -0700

At 04:37 PM 27/02/97 -0800, Richard Brodie wrote:

>The "argument from personal incredulity" is never a big winner with me.

No, but isn't that what all argument's come down to ultimately? Even
something as simple as:

1. A -> B (axiom)
2. ~B (axiom)
3. A (assumption)
4. B (from 1 and 3)
5. B and ~B (from 2 and 4)
6. therefore ~A (from 3 and 5)

The proof of the logic depends on not being able to imagine (B and ~B)
being true, i.e. "argument from personal incredulity".

>Rather than call things "laws of the universe," why not use Dennett's
>"good tricks" terminology? In other words, there are certain
>furmulations that naturally occur because they are efficient ways of
>doing things. Logic would seem to be one of these in the memetics world.

Because "laws of the universe" refers to something independent of
humans and their culture, whereas "good tricks" does not.

>What "effects" does logic have? Logic is a description, not a force. I
>>don't get it.

That was actually Drakir's phrase, but I took it to mean the natural
consequences/implications of logic.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus