RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

Richard Brodie (
Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:53:41 -0700

On Tuesday, September 30, 1997 3:18 PM, David McFadzean
[] wrote:
> there are inherent properties of reality, namely patterns.

What if patterns are not inherent properties of reality, but rather labels
we put on reality to approximate parts of it, thereby making it a

It is the fact
> that the mass-energy pattern that fits the description of "Richard
> is often co-located in the space-time pattern called "Seattle" that makes
> the statement true, and if the pattern lived elsewhere the statement
> be false. You are so caught up in your maps you seem to have forgotten
> the territory.

No, I'm actually saying something that you're not understanding. I've tried
several techniques to communicate to you and seem to have failed. It's
frustrating, but in a way ironically amusing to find myself on the "other"
side of this learning experience. My teachers were exasperated at how
difficult it was for me to break out of my scientific/analytical/rational
mindset, but they sensed my commitment and stuck with me. It's a very
powerful level-2, and produces some extremely powerful level-3 players.

> >The problem I have with your counterexample is essentially what Eva
> >out, that wrapped up in the distinction-meme "objective reality" would
> >to be the notion of self-consistency, so that hypothesizing the
> >inconsistency of objective reality is nonsensical. As Prof. Tim
> I think I already demonstrated that true statements about objective
> aren't necessarily non-contradictory by providing an example that would
> amount to a falsification of the proposition. If you have any reasoned
> objections to the hypothetical counterexample, let's hear them.

You could use the same smoke and mirrors to prove that true statements
about ANYTHING aren't necessarily non-contradictory. So again, you haven't
said anything about objective reality.

> >you simply have faith that there is an underlying consistent physical
> >reality. This can never be proved, but it sure feels obvious. And
> >discussing it seems fairly pointless.
> I don't have faith in that conjecture but I do have a large amount
> of evidence that suggests that it is true. Here's another possible
> counterexample: what if you could summon a ghost that we can all see
> but that doesn't appear on film or any recording? The ghost can
> tell us information that we have no way of otherwise knowing. James Randi
> and all of his skeptical pals run every test they can think of to debunk
> the trick, but they can't because it is real. This would change my mind
> about the nature of objective reality, therefore it is not faith.

People change their faith every day. Just because a miracle would change
yours doesn't mean you don't have any.

OK, back to the baseball game...

Richard Brodie
Author, VIRUS OF THE MIND: The New Science of the Meme
Visit Meme Central: