>Or maybe consistency and logical coherence are necessary conditions
>for other values: honesty, justice, recognition by certain
>respected people, scientific discovery, engineering design, etc.
Maybe not, though. That's kind of the point. It depends how you
define those things. Tad keeps touching on this issue obliquely.
There is a certian implict morality to doing things the cooperative
way...especially in situstions where the chance of your defection
being discovered is minimal. In other words, why cooperate when
there are no direct consequences to defection? It isn't parational
to do so. Anyone that does must be following a program with
a different purpose.
>>>From your perspective, David, genetic and memetic paradigms lead
>>you to the impression that logic and reason must underly the reality
>>and comprise it's deep structure. This rationalizes the high valuation
>>of logic and reason: Since the universe operates according to logical
>>rules one is most successful when one behaves in a logical fashion.
>
>Is it just a rationalization, or is it true?
Why does that matter to you?
>There are some questions that Richard doesn't touch on in the
>book (to my knowledge). Where does the personal purpose come
>from? Can it be changed? The core needs are all things that
>one seeks, what about things that one avoids?
You have to ask Richard. Frankly, I don't actually use his models
in my thinking that much...I just translate my impressions into
them here becuase it's a cultural context the group shares. The
finer details, especially about what he didn't say, are for him
to elucidate.
>>that meme. At no time is it neccesarily consistent with my
>>purpose to act consistently or to place any value at all on truth
>>or reason...though it is very often consistent to program other
>>people to act consistently and the place value on truth and
>>reason.
>
>If they are your competitors. What about your allies?
>From a parsimoniously logical perspective, there isn't any difference.
>>Making people too logical might actually be a terrible danger,
>>as is alluded to in Stephenson's _Snow Crash_. Causing everyone
>>to operate under a universal logical operating system creates
>>an environment in which a "logic viruses" become possible.
>>
>>One example being Rand's Objectivism. Another being science.
>
>Is memetics a possible cure, or just another virus?
I don't know. There is an inconsistency in framing the discipline
itself. Memetics is a way of explaining how ideas propogate:
including the idea of <Memetics> itself...it's kind of a Godel
problem, at least in my mind.
>>A universal operating system makes transmission of information
>>faster...but to what purpose?
>
>I think there is more to it than faster transmission of
>information.
What?
>>---------------------------------------------------
>>What is the purpose of the Church of Virus?
>>---------------------------------------------------
>
>The official purpose or the hidden agenda? :-)
>But seriously, I'll wait for others to answer first.
...
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------