Re: virus: New Ideas

Tony Hindle (
Sun, 25 May 1997 17:54:35 +0100

In message <>, "John
\"Dry-Roasted Army Worm\" Williams" <> writes
>At 05:27 AM 5/25/97 +0100, Tony Hindle wrote:
>> If you believe in some things purely by faith how do you decide
>>which yahoos to have faith in and which ones not to?
>I do so through a process where I attempt to identify
>1) The agenda of the yahoo who is speaking
>2) The "goal for humanity" the yahoo seems to hold
>3) How consistant this is with the agenda and the goals that I hold.

This is interesting,. I have just read your faith
(consolidation) post and I reckon we probably share a similar agenda.
Suppose you encountered a yahoo who believed god was a purple tadpole
that lived on neptune. But his agenda/goal for humanity was otherwise
entirely consistent with yours. Would you say that you shared his faith?
I suspect you might refuse to accept his little bit of faith
that was different from yours, but that is part of the nature of faith,
it comes in an infinite number of forms all equally valid.
BTW I gather you dont believe in an intervening god. This makes
our positions basically identical since a non-imtervening god is of no
consequence what so ever, may he strike me down if I am wrong (oh he
cant, ha ha fuck off you non intervening twat).

>Occassionally, I'll find someone who's agendas/goals are better than mine,
>so that's how those preconcieved notions of agenda/goal are developed and
>changed. Others who have neither the time or the inclination to do it this
>way might have a different method that would be worthwhile.

If agenda/goal is really all you are interested in then I dont
think your position differs significantly from mine I still dont accept
your little eccentric bit of faith in jesus/god. I know of a far far
more likely kind of explanation for religious beliefs, memetics predicts
faiths should spread. The christian faith is a powerful meme. It
originated once on this planet and will never ever originate anywhere
else. Sure other intelligences will spontaneously create other faiths
too, but they will be memes also. Scientific knowledge is capable of
emerging in isolated intelligences repeatedly.
BTW I find this very ironic. From the theory that explains away
the creator god (evolution by natural selection) comes the theory that
predicts the existences of faiths (memetics). The fact that otherwise
rational people still express their eccentric faiths is a confirmation
of a prediction from memetis theory, thus your faith is further evidence
for the power of natural selection in a substrate neutral form.
If you are new to memetics I wouldnt be surprised if when you
think about it you will see what I mean shortly.

>> Its not my definition of faith. This discussion would be easier
>>if you spelled out a statement that you have faith in.
>Uhh.... here:
>>>Do understand how gravity can affect time? Hell no, I can't even begin to
>>>explain the concept. But I believe it does, because Hawking says so, and
>>>Hawking has a great deal of credibility among many other people who ought
>>>to know.
>>>That's *faith*.

Let me try this aproach. The difference between science and
faith is that science gradualy gives an ever more complex model of the
universe. Faith gives an ever less complex model, what is your faith
regarding god, its a very blurred vague statement I fancy.
Tony, I love the phrase "writing so I can read my thoughts", Hindle.