David Rosdeitcher wrote:
>
>Similarly, Richard B dismissed
>'existence' as a 'meme distinction' while making an implicit claim
>that
>"there's a situation out there where someone is treating 'distinction
>memes'
>like it's not just an invention of the mind".
Giving this remark a VERY generous reading, I'm interpreting you to say
that my simply making an assertion about the way things are implicitly
lends credence to your particular definition "existence." If this is a
correct interpretation, do you now see the fallacy in that line of
thought? (By the way, Virions, this is an excellent example of a Level
2/Level 3 mismatch.) [Ducking from Tad's missile attack]
> A few other people made the same
>mistake of refuting their own statements.
The "refutation" is only there when taken in your particular Level-2
frame of mind. But I agree that it does exist there.
> Vicki made an interesting point that axioms can change, depending
>on
>context. And, she gave an good example of how Euclidean geometry has
>different
>axioms than the new and improved non-Euclidean geometry. However, this
>change of
>axioms does not apply to philosophy because in philosophy there is only
>1
>context -the context of existence and human knowledge. (I think
>Bertrand
>Russell
>made a similar mistake of "creating his own logic" because it was
>mathematically
>possible to start out with different assertions.)
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" is a good book to help
disabuse you of this notion. It's available from the Amazon.Com Memetics
Bookstore, http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/books.htm
> Richard made an argument that free will is not necessary to try to
>improve
>yourself and gave an example that Windows '95 has programs that correct
>its
>own
>mistakes. The problem with this argument is- who activates the
>programs,
>and who
>activates the activators-it is an infinite regression that must come
>down to
>individual free will.
Non sequitur. Who activates individual free will?
> Why are these axioms like 'things are what they are' important
>and
>what
>does this have to do with memetics? In a nutshell, if you understand
>that
>there
>are no contradictions, then you can identify and eliminate 'good memes'
>that are
>bad or false. Furthermore, this would make it possible to know when
>certain
>dishonest people manipulate others through 'good memes'.
Unfortunately, Objectivism is not the only possible self-consistent
belief set (Level 2). Many have claimed a corner on the Absolute Truth
throughout history. But they disagree with one another.
> Objectivism will dominate cyberspace through natural selection.
Geez, you read my book and you still don't get that ideas don't spread
because they're good ideas? Come on, David, you know better than that!
> Most
>people
>will acknowledge when something is logically true or false, (like
>Thadeusz who
>pointed out that the 'distinction-meme' idea was self-refuting and Dan
>P who
>showed why axioms are valid.) Also, when hoaxes are exposed, people
>won't
>return
>to them. In cyberspace, irrationality gets busted.
Hmm...you must be in a different cyberspace from me. Do the words MAKE
MONEY FAST mean anything to you?
>
Thanks for contributing!
>
>Richard Brodie RBrodie@brodietech.com +1.206.688.8600
>CEO, Brodie Technology Group, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA
>http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie
>Do you know what a "meme" is?
>http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm
>