RE: virus: Strange attractors and meta-religions (was God and

Wright, James 7929 (
Mon, 07 Apr 97 11:37:00 EDT

Tony Hindle wrote:
>Reasonable enough. Lying is not a socially popular behavior to claim in

>any circumstances that I can quickly recall, so no one would. I hope
>I can show that I do not lie to the satisfaction of anyone who asks.<
>> I think its a matter of biulding up credibility over a period
>>time. For what its worth my estimate of your credibility rating is
>>1462.453 plus or minus one.<<
Thanks for the reassurance! (I think: are bigger numbers better or worse
for credibility?(VBG!))
>> Beyond the Fringe,
> Never seen it but I love Derek & Clive.
Ancient comedy.
>>Goon Shows,
> Never heard them (sorry I know this makes me a philistine)
>>Not a philistine. I have a book of the scripts and one recording (the
last, made shortly before one of them died).
> From all this I sense that you have a great sense of
>humour. Have you heard any of Bill Hicks' ?<
Only what you have posted. It is interestingly funny, and I shall have to
find some more (Item #8785 on the list).
> In such a thought experiment it goes without saying that this
would not be the case. <
Sorry, no, I cannot read your mind from here; you must tell me what all
the ground rules are, or we will spend a little time establishing them.
In a multivariant universe, I have found very few things that can be
>Otherwise it would be a trivial question. You have answered this
> "Would you swallow the happy pill if it meant you would die
quite soon?"
> I wouldnt either.
Actually, I thought I had answered, "Would you swallow a happy pill if it
meant you could disconnect from reality?" with "No, reality would
probably kill me quickly if I did." I might "swallow the happy pill if it
meant you would die quite soon," if I were suffering from the last stages
of untreatable cancer; in fact I might make and market such a pill of I
knew how to make it, for the use of knowledgeable, aware other persons!
> Sorry James the last bit is from HG to the Galaxy. I
>cant for the life of me remember how God gets out of the free will
>question but the dialogue in the book goes on and is rich with meaning.
>I hope that small section helps you to see why our discussion has
>brought it to mind.<
Oophon Colluphuid was such an influential source on the future!(VBG!)
I shall have to buy the book anyway, it seems, despite your appealing
brief excerpt.
><Snip backquote: thought experiment on preventing murder>
>>>If you insist there is no alternative to someone dying, then PERHAPS

>>>death is better than two;[JHW]<<
>> Perhaps? I am intrigued. Without changing the spirit of this
>>thought experiment when would one death not be better than two?[T H]<
>The first is a generally law-abiding person under attack by two
>previous murderers; when he sees no alternative (in his mind) between
>their demise and his own.[JHW]
>> Again you have changed the spirit of the thought experiment.[T
The original post (from April 3) was this:
/>> Rationalization is
>>just such a process; because I have a greater good in mind, a minor
>>is tolerable which progresses me toward that greater good.[JHW]<<
> Provided that a rational analysis is made I can't see what is
>wrong with this (example; I would kill a person to stop them from
>killing two others.)[T H]
This is a pretty bland description of a situation: I have spent the last
few posts trying to get sufficient clarification to answer clearly. We
have so far ruled out any alternatives avoiding death altogether, which
led me to observe: PERHAPS one death is better than two. YOU changed the
premise, asking Under what circumstances might two deaths be better than
one? Which I answered, If the first two are criminal murderers already,
and the one individual nominally lawabiding, then when the first is
convinced no alternative exists, he is justified in defending himself.
Nowhere in your original post was there any information on the character,
background or motivation of any party. I did not change the spirit of the
situation (at least, not deliberately); I did try to make sure I
understood how you intended it to be taken.

>>The question you have answered is this:
>> "would you kill two confirmed previous murdering Natzis to save
>>the life of one small innocent child whose poor defensless eyes are
>>filling up with tears? (ok so Ive parodied your position here)
>> You arn't used to doing these kinds of thought experiments are
Actually, I've had similar discussions.
>> When one trys to answer the questions in the spirit in which they
>>were asked it helps one see truths about ones self. (the next step is
>>admitting them in public VBG). <<
I have to be sure we're all talking about the same thing; this is where
we broke down previously.
>> All this leads me to wonder if you might have answered the same
>>way as tim (and myself) if you had been answering the question I had
>>really intended. <<
Would I kill to protect a greater number of persons? No, minor evils do
not justify greater goods. Even if I cannot protect a greater number of
persons from a killer without committing murder myself, I am not
justified in murdering a killer. This eventually leads, in my opinion, to
"murder by the numbers"; count the number of persons on each side of a
conflict, declare the smaller number potential murderers, and kill them
to prevent a greater injustice.
Do NOT try this in the US! The greater number of persons will put you in
jail or inflict capital punishment on you for defending them. If you
cannot incapacitate the killer without killing him, you must let him
proceed, hire him a lawyer to keep him from being punished, and
sympathize with him for having an unhappy childhood. (This may be a
self-correcting meme; after a sufficient number of persons who hold it
become victims of murder, the rest of us will return to executing murders
as per previous practice).
>> Im not sure I understand your meaning of the transient nature
>>objective reality (subjective reality yes).<<
Today the river runs here, in a thousand years it will run over there,
uncovering a rich river bed of mud, drowned shipwrecks & etc. All reality
is thus, today having such a description, tomorrow a different
description, continuously changing.
>But anyway the starting conditions for this example was that the belief
was held. >Maintaining it is the easiest thing in the world if one
believes "if I doubt X I will
>die". <
Giving belief as a starting condition is difficult, since I have no use
for belief. Given that reality changes, as soon as it changes enough to
refute X, then I must give up X, as being the product of a misconception.
Whether or not I die, if X is false, believing X will not make it true,
and reality will reinforce continually that X is false, therefore I
cannot believe it any longer.
Did that help?
>Cheers and beers and (cheap) cognac.
And to you too!