Re: virus: The other

Brett Lane Robertson (
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:42:16 -0500

This is really the root of our disagreement then. I do not assume that
mind is varifiable and has a very high accuracy rate. I can except the
assumption that the mind exists and, for an animal, works to keep the
entity alive and reproducing. As for accurate, I would say the mind is
VERY inaccurate and only through lots of comparisons can anything close
to accurate be gleamed from it. (Sodom)


Would Sodom say that the mind is "potentially" accurate? Does it contain
that potentiality...or does it contain the potential for inaccuracy and we
only get accuracy by going against the mind? If the second option, with
what do we fight this innacuracy, if not mind. Further, are numbers
accurate? Or is it our interpretation of numbers which is accurate (what do
we interpret these numbers with?)? Throw a bunch of numbers on a piece of
paper and watch them for an extended period of time and I would wager that
they do not do anything--by them selves--which vaguely resemble "accuracy".

The mind--in my opinion--is accurate, as it contains the potential for
accuracy and with the external verification that no amount of data *does*
anything meaningful without mental interpretation (which is not to say that
everything is subjective either...only that terms like accuracy and validity
and replicability have little meaning without words like mind and
consciousness and intelligent awareness). Finally, I do not think Sodom can
intelligently argue that "scientific evidence" (for example) has any
accuracy--no matter how many ignorant people accidently assemble it--without
this evidence directly reflecting the accuracy of the mind which assembled it.

As to varifiability...ask anyone if they have a mind, I think most would
varify that they do.



"Why is it that we rejoice at a birth and grieve at a
funeral? It is because we are not the person involved"

Mark Twain