Re: virus: Strange attractors and meta-religions (was God and Level-3)

Tony Hindle (
Wed, 2 Apr 1997 08:27:49 +0100

In message <v02140b06af65cdb12318@[]>, Reed Konsler
<> writes
>This post is addressed to the Tony, David M., Dave P., Richard B.
>and everyone else following the "true beliefs vs. positive beliefs"
By the way folks I love these thread summaries more please (I
know there are dangers).
>Aren't we discussing a sort of placebo effect?
> It seems reasonable
>based upon medical evidence that positive thinking does cause
>some illnesses (especially psycogenic ones) to remit, pain to
>disappear, and acomplishments to be acheived despite apparent
This paragraph as I read it contains the paradox I see in this
whole thread (in my own position especially). The paradox is that it
looks to the evidence of the results of positive thinking to evaluate
it's usefulness. But my interpretation of positive thinking is a belief
over and above one's rational evaluation of the situation. (anything
else isnt positive, it is simply spot on.)
Retrospectively one can look at the studies and discover that
people who were utterly convinced they would beat the illness had a
higher chance of doing so. But this information alone wouldnt utterly
convince me to believe I would beat the illness (This is an example, I
have no dreadfull ilness (thank luck) so dont think you can take away
any last hope or anything).

>I don't think David is arguing against "positive thinking". He's
>arguing against intentional "self-deceit".
I would like to be certain of this. David in fact ANYONE. if you
could swallow a tablet right now that would have the effect of making
you believe the world got better and better (imagine anything you like)
would you? (you forget you've taken it instantly etc)
What you would get in return for this one act of self deceit
(which you would not remember) would be a world free of [starvation/wars
/ choose].
>But you believed DESPITE significant evidence to the contrary.
>You decieved yourself willfully in order to accomplish your goal
>(in this case, to remain solvent). That willful false belief, or
>intentional self-deceit is what, I believe David is arguing against
I see nothing morally wrong with as much self deceipt as one can
manage (my own sense of morality would prevent me from atempting any
self programing that would lead me towards behaviour I considered
Seriously if I am missing something here please tell.
Tony Hindle.