Re: Loose threads (was Re: virus: From Tao to Tarot)

Dan Henry (
Sat, 04 May 1996 18:14:03 +0600

At 05:02 PM 5/3/96 -0600, David McFadzean wrote:

>3) Definition of Belief
>Reed <> just won't let this one die :) as he
brings it
>up again in the "other reality" thread:
>>I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but way back when we were defining belief I
>>was very serious when I said that:
>>One observed to act as if X were true is said to believe X.
>>Is the most precise definition of belief because it explicitly indicates the
>>primacy of observation.
>I still disagree with the definition on a subtle point, that Reed's definition
>is true for *ascribing* beliefs to another, but doesn't define when beliefs
>*exist*. I'm not going to pursue it until I can come up with a better argument

How about a new tack here? I don't believe were getting anywhere because of
the question of observability. So let's come up with something independent
of observability. And given that this is the Church of Virus, the
definition should fit within the previous framework. Here's a strawman:

To believe (the meme) X is to incorporate (the meme) X into one's

Critique that!

Dan Henry