RE: virus: Technology (was manifest science)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ]In reply to: Carl Wagener Next in thread: Joe E. Dees

<I see nothing that indicates that your definition is accepted.

The internal logic of the post argues for the interpretation which I suggest.

<Please quote sources rather than making unsubstantiated statements...

Though you assume that I must defer to an accepted authority to substantiate my arguments, I do not follow that truth is merely something based on a string of authorities (SOMEONE must work out the logic of a thing).

<<... that are prima facia you redefining words on the fly such that your meaning is "private", i.e. unshared and worthless.

I also disagree that there CAN BE a "private" argument (*private* worlds suggest the "you can't get there from here" paradox); as well, I disagree that what is "unshared" is thereby "worthless" (a falsehood which is shared is still a falsehood and a truth does not need to be agreed upon to be true).

<Where do you imagine that your supposed pre-selection facility originated? As it stands, this is an unsupported hypothesis. A poor one, as it pre-supposes that the supposed "pre-selector agent" was
"pre-selected" which leads directly into the "first cause" fallacy.

That a thing might be caused to happen is not a "fallacy"... you are misinterpreting *logic* (reasoning which is founded on a principle of
"non-contradiction"-- an idea which suggests a unified [non-divided]
source)... you are refuting logic using your bias AGAINST anything which suggests order: Do you think that order might be derived from a) that which does not exist (is not prime)? or b) that which is not caused to happen (Is arbitrary? Is without logical effect?).

Still, you ALMOST asked a non-pointed question ("What is a
"pre-selector?). I answered this below... but will expand upon my
answer.

<<This *pre-selection* criteria [follows from a simple logical assumption. It is assumed that material reality seeks an optimum arrangement. This ideal organization (ex. water flows, IDEALLY, to the sea) materializes as a pattern of events (ex. river systems are formed to accomplish this in ever increasing levels of efficiency). This ability to form an ever-evolving, increasingly efficient and consistent pattern... ] suggests a meta-physical environment (one which includes non-local survival strategies), a post-chance selection pattern (a pattern which has the potential ordering to NOT be negated through competition to an 50/ 50 chance for survival), and a logical action (a necessary effect which REPLICATES successful patterns-- showing
"intent"... as contrasted from the idea of mutation).

<Why should a "preselection criteria" suggest a "meta-physical environment" to you?

If one assumes a PATTERN of optimum efficiency and consistency, this is one-and-the-same as assuming an abstract *selection criteria*: Support for such assumptions will always be "non-local* (ex. water in an upstream lake does not prove the "water flows to the ocean" theory... the "proof" is in the ocean. Such proof must be found in the "meta" environment).

<Would a filter acting as a "pre-selection criteria" (e.g. two rocks in a stream bed selecting the maximum size of flotsam that could appear downstream) imply a "meta-physical environment"... Why does
"pre-selection" imply "post-selection"?

Yes, this is a good example. The selection criteria ("two rocks") only
"pre" selects assuming a meta-environment (which is forever
"downstream") and the *post-selection* event (a particular type of
"flotsam" arriving at any point) may only be definable, as such,
according to the established (pre) selection criteria.

Because of this, "pre" and "post" would appear to be context dependent on how "now" is defined. This confusion may be resolved using the rationale provided by the proposed optimum pattern-- perhaps a "protomeme". The *proto-meme* may be thought of as a true (non-context dependent) "preselection- criteria"... OR it may be described by a physical law (or standard) according to which continued filtering (in this case) might work toward a prime effect (clean water... and whether affirmed by human or divine agents, or not... BTW).

In this way, "here-and-now" is seen as a spatial-temporal "event-action" (as if the water has already arrived downstream in a FILTERED form). It is only according to such patterned-events that we might justify the perception whereby rocks are FILTERS and flotsam is FILTERED-OUT.

<... To have a difference, you need to refer to two things...

To have a difference requires only one "thing" and/or an action. Difference is a property of space and time (here is different from there, now is different from then): Space and time are concepts which are inseparable from the properties of existence (height, width, length) and action, or being (now, then, again, yet...).

ps. I do not have the time or energy to think for you. You may have to dispose of your tendency to doubt and explore some of the ideas my posts outline-- for yourself.*

*Failing to think for yourself, NO amount of explaining can convince you of something which you choose to doubt... I suggest you internalize a standard for ACCEPTANCE, instead of doubt, and use this to discern variations of "truth" (as opposed to pursuing arguments which maintain your skepticism-- which only "proves" falsities).

Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!:
http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876

• [ Next ] In reply to: Carl Wagener Next in thread: Joe E. Dees