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

Tony Hindle (
Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:35:38 +0100

In message <>, "Wright, James 7929"
<> writes
>OK, I'll bite: what kinds of self-delusion cannot be twisted to take
>advantage of you?
Ok. Perhaps they all can. The point is if one can foresee this
and still believes it is worthwhile then one will want to do it.
> I assumed you were 79 yrs old.
>Actually I'm about half that.
>Your reasons are your own,
I will never reveal them then. But I will tell you a funny story
about something that an idiot friend of mine did. He was talking to a
cyberfriend who's Address started as malcom, 90210.... But my friend's
mailer only displayed malcom, 90. The stupid cunt never really thought
about this and just asumed it meant malcome was giving his age (90) for
some strange reason (you meet all kinds in this cyberplace he thought.)
What an idiot eh. Ha haha He said he felt such a twat but couldnt resist
telling cos it was funny.
>>>I do not lie.<<
>> This is the liar's paradox.

>My statement "I do not lie" is based on the classical definition of
I understand. The point I was making is "I do not lie" is the
reply one would expect no matter wether the person saying it was telling
the truth or lying.

> but try always to remember to indicate such with
>>>emoticons (:-)) or abbreviations (VBG!).
It was these that I dont know about. (although I must admit I
never knew what a hyperbole was either.) Thanks for the VBG =very big
grin, any more?

>> Now you are reminding me a little of Data or more closely Kryten
>>from red dwarf.<
>Who is Kryten the red dwarf?
A charector from a British Sit com (Red dwarf). It is very very
very funny. Watch it if you ever get the chance.

>If you have children, would you not risk death
>>>preserve them from harm?
>> Yes of course, but you are saying you would do much more.
>No, actually less. My being deluded is really a small matter if the rest
>of humanity would not be.
I was refering to the implications of your choice not to swallow
the pill. I interpret that you would exchange a lifetime of personal
total bliss for staying in this (real?) world to do your small part in
making it better. I want to make the world better but if I got a chance
to jump ship to paradise it would be a case of:
"Bye all..have fun...I wont be thinking of you because I wont
know you exist" Cinsider Prof Tim's response.

>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)
>Oddly, there's an entry in my journal to the effect that I was about to
>swallow such a tablet. Although I don't recall ever doing it. Funny,
>that. Oh, well... Sure is a great day today isn't it? And I hear
>tomorrow will be even better! Things sure are looking up around here!!!

> I have difficulty following how
>deluding oneself would constitute self-improvement.
This was explored recently in a thread with Dave mcf and others,
part of the God and level 3 thread.
>>> I fail to detect how deceiving yourself about the morality of a given
>act is >>prevented. After the first use, any more use would seem to be a
>given (having >>deceived yourself that the actual use of such a button,
>even just once, was >>justified).
> > I could only ever press the button if it was morally justified
>>I don't think it is morally justified to deceive oneself about
>This has gone extremely recursive, and implies that personal morality
>would be exempt from the effects of the deception button.
I tell you what all this brings to mind. A dialogue between man
and God about free will which is near the beginning of "the mind's eye"
fantasies and reflections on self and soul. (Dennett & Hofstadter.)
> Rational analysis in this focused thought
>>experiment is easy, you can act so that one guy dies or two guys die.
>If you cannot disarm or incapacitate the murderer, can you remove or
>conceal the potential victims? Create a barrier between them? Divert or
>distract the potential murderer with a great danger from another
>One of the few things I actually liked from the Thomas Covenant novels
>was the warrior code: (paraphrased here) "It is better to hold than hurt,
>to hurt than cripple, to cripple than kill. The greatest warrior is he
>who never needs to kill."
I agree wholeheartedly.
>If you insist there is no alternative to someone dying, then PERHAPS one
>death is better than two;
Perhaps? I am intrigued. Without changing the spirit of this
thought experiment when would one death not be better than two?
>>>Empire Strikes Back, "Do or do not. There is no TRY."<<
>>I don't believe this, I don't believe I ever will. I want to though.<
>It should be demonstrable logically; if you do succeed, it was because
>you could succeed. If you did not succeed, some element of success was
>missing (ability, motive, method, whatever). Whether or not you try
>influences final success only by allowing a starting condition to be met;
>belief is only rigorously necessary to begin, not to succeed, at least to
>my understanding. What do you propose?
I think that we are programed with beliefs that exapt all our
mental energies for their preservation. Some of them can be a real
hinderance because they stop us from achieving certain goals. Take as an
example a belief held thus:
If I doubt X I will die.
Unless one decides one can sccept dying one cannott
doubt X and thetrefore cannott unbelieve it.
>> If I fail too often I give up.<
Because rationaly I evaluate the evidence and accept the
apparently true conclusion "Its no good trying again Tony, You will
never get Claudia in the sack"

Tony Hindle.
This is such a long, in depth exchange James. I reckon nobody else will be
reading all of it so keep quiet about my friend's stupidity please.