Re: virus: Free thought and control

chardin (chardin@uabid.dom.uab.edu)
Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:09:53 CST+6CDT


> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:47:36 -0400
> From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
> Organization: Hedonism Unlimited
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: Free thought and control
> Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com

> Nathaniel Hall wrote:
>
> > Sodom wrote:
> >
> > > Nathaniel Hall wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tim Rhodes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nateman, a question for you:
> > > > >
> > > > > Who controls your thoughts when you choose to think freely?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Prof. Tim
> > > >
> > > > I do. That's what the point was
> > >
> > > you are both wrong, Nateman does not control his thoughts, he IS
> > his
> > > thoughts.
> >
> > I'm my thoughts and my body, and I control both of them at least
> > partially.( I can't will a new arm to grow for example)
> >
> > > He is simply aware of efforts to affect him (his thoughts).
> > > Thinking freely should mean: To be aware of efforts from outside
> > "you"
> > > that have an effect on "you" - and to avoid letting outside stimuli
> > > direct internal actions.
> >
> > A good argument can change my internal actions. Happens all the
> > time.The
> > Nateman
>
> To add to this, the point is to discover new information all the time
> and thereby have a constantly changing "you". Hopefully improving in the
> process, which is what logic is for. The real difference is information,
> or propaganda. Supportable evidence is not an outside influence, it is a
> course correction. Propaganda is falsified information designed to
> influence. Nateman, you have a tendency to add to some of my postings
> in a way that makes me want to work with you sometime. It seems that we
> have different ways of looking at the same thing.
>
> Sodom
>
Experimentation has shown that when we have a theory which is not
correct and we receive new information, the new information is seldom correcting at all, but we
tend to "elaborate" on an already incorrect theory. Thus, some
scientific theories become more and more bizarre as new information
is added. This is discussed at some length in Paul Watzlawick's book
"How Real is Real." I find this very interesting as I see some
theories in science (which I think to be incorrect) being elaborated
on more and more. The elaboration does not convince me that they are
right by any means, though the presentors think it should. Hardin
>