Re: virus: Logical beliefs

David McFadzean (
Sat, 31 May 1997 12:42:04 -0600

> From: Reed Konsler <>
> Date: Saturday, May 31, 1997 11:48 AM
> Oh, come ON, David!
> Talk about non-seqitors.
> Has Richard been teaching you NLP "embedding" techniques?
> ;-)

Let's look at the archives, shall we?
Robin said "#2 and #3 are, IMHO, too vague for use in careful thinking."
I simply substituted the definition of #2 into Robin's claim:
2. in accordance with the principles of logic or reason; reasonable

Yielding: "The principles of logic are too vague for use in careful thinking."
I admit it would have been more accurate to paraphrase Robin as
"Rationality as according(?) with the principles of logic or reason is
too vague for use in careful thinking", and I considered writing that,
but I think what I ended up saying means essentially the same thing,
and brings the point home more clearly.

Now explain "real slow like" how that is a non-sequitur.

> Seriously, though. I was going to send a post saying almost
> exactly the same thing that Robin did. You've chosen the
> broadest definition (#2) and the most vague (#3). If you
> mean "reasonable" why don't you say so?

I think #2 is the narrowest definition. It is very well defined
what it in accordance with the principles of logic. It is not at
all well-defined whether someone makes a decision based on
those principles through conscious deliberation or through
instinct or luck or some combination of those.

> "Well, you can believe in God, but that isn't reasonable."
> "Well, you can beileve in God, but that isn't sane."

I'm having trouble believing you guys aren't having a joke at
my expense. Here's how this thread has gone so far:

I said: Animals usually act rationally when they act on instinct.
Response: Nonsense!

After much discussion, I figured out that it was my definition of
rationality that was disliked so I gave an explicit game-theoretic
Response: Non-standard!

Maybe that's true, I thought. It wouldn't be the first time. So I
looked it up in the dictionary, and sure enough, there it was. So I
quoted it from the dictionary.
Response: Too vague!

Too vague? That's doesn't make much sense because that would
imply that the principles of logic are too vague. So I point out this
Response: Non-sequitur! NLP-trickery!

OK, I'm ready to give up. You guys win.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus