RE: virus: pale religious lechery

Richard Brodie (
Mon, 8 Mar 1999 07:39:04 -0800

I think I'm with you, but one can pretty much construct a story S(x) to demonstrate anything. That reduces your theorem to "one can construct a line of reasoning R(x) to show anything is useful," which I happen to agree with, but I bet you don't.

Richard Brodie Author, "Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme" Free newsletter! Visit Meme Central at

-----Original Message-----
From: []On Behalf Of David McFadzean
Sent: Monday, March 8, 1999 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: virus: pale religious lechery

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Brodie <> To: <> Date: Sunday, March 07, 1999 11:29 PM
Subject: RE: virus: pale religious lechery

>I think there is what Hofstadter would call "level confusion" (not to be
>confused with Level 3) here. Having a belief in faith is not the same as
>having faith. Arriving at a decision using reason is not the same as
>arriving at a decision using faith. For one thing, it takes longer.

You're right, it is not identical. But that's not what I set out to prove. Let me try again: For every believe x, if x is useful than there is a story S(x) that shows how and why x is useful, and there is a corresponding line of reasoning R(x) for arriving at the same belief x. If there is no S(x), that x is not useful, and one would be better off using reasoning to avoid believing in x.

If you're with me so far, we can go on to the next point of reasoning taking longer.