Re: virus: Re: Rationality

Tadeusz Niwinski (tad@teta.ai)
Sat, 08 Mar 1997 11:43:52 -0800

Dave Pape wrote:
>At 10:33 07/03/97 -0700, David McFadz wrote:
>>At 10:02 PM 06/03/97 -0500, Alexander Williams wrote:
>
>>Do we want to make 'free will' an attribute only of memetic environments?
>>i.e. can anything else have free will? A more serious problem is we can't
>>know the future state of anything precisely, so this definition isn't too
>>useful.
>
>Which is pretty much why I want people to stop using the word. As far as I'm
>concerned, free will is an illusion, and is not useful as a term, so we
>shouldn't really worry about keeping it in usage very much.

Now, we are talking, Brother Dave! I also WANT PEOPLE to stop using the
words: "objectivism", "science", "laws of nature", "truth", "reality",
"rationality", and most of all, "memetics" and "on the fly". We SHOULDN'T
really worry about keeping them in usage very much. They are useless.

>>How about definining 'free will' in terms of control and/or influence
>>rather than predictability?
>
>I wouldn't want to... how would you do that?

And I wouldn't want to define *anything*. It's useless and impossible.
Free will does not exist, it's an illusion, as everything else.

We are helpless, Brothers!

Now, we can go back to our favourite pastime, mental masturbation.

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159