Re: virus: conscious/subconscious (form. level 0)

XYZ Customer Support (
Tue, 17 Dec 1996 17:32:42 -0700

> From: Schneider John <>

> Everybody speculates.

Once again, you are wrong. Do you always make sweeping

> The difference is that some will believe
> irrationally in whatever they speculate, and do so even after the
> evidence is mounted against them. I don't believe the person who
> made the above speculation is that daft. Why not just give your
> contradictory evidence and spare us the smartass remarks?

Did you read the evidence I gave, or did you once again, wave
evidence away with your hand?

> (Note, I am not defending that particular thread of speculation,
> in which I agree with XYZ - it is just speculation; I only defend
> the right to go ahead and speculate!)

In your opinion it is OK to speculate about irrational things as
though they were truth. I guess that is why no one in this
email list is going to accuse you of being scientific or

> [clip of summary, the gist of which is: the non-REM-sleeping
> echidna can function with an extremely large prefrontal cortex,
> but other mammals get by having smaller brains and REM sleep.]

YOu missed the point again. You are pretty stupid. How can you
make conclusions before you have the facts?

> No - I cannot see how you come to that conclusion. The summary
> you posted says nothing about the /mechanics/ of 'dreaming'

Yes it did. Try reading that person's article instead of my summary.
Can you do that all by yourself or would you like someone to hold
your hand and read it for you?

> So, would you be opposed to the notion that the 'minds' contained
> in these simple experimental neural networks developed 'dreaming'
> in order to survive, and did so because, 'living' in such a tiny
> neural structure, it had to 'evolve' a new 'brain mechanism'?

It didn't evolve a new brain mechanism.

> Or, is that mindless speculation akin to new-age theology?

If it was, it would be at your level or "reasoning".