Re: virus: belieph/rationality ratio

Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:22:32 -0800

I have yet to finish my work for the day (on panel to go) so I'll only allow myself a partial response for now. I'll tackle the wieghtier stuff when I get back from Prof. Tim's birthday party tonight, or tomorrow morning.

carlw wrote:
> In my opinion, the use of "i" as a significator is also nice
> as i represents -1^0.5.

Does that read "i represents negative one raised to the power of one-half?" If so, I don't understand what it is meant to signify.

> While granting that rational/irrational may offend
> some people, the words are there, mean exactly what what they sound like
> i.e. talk to the kind of phaith involved, and should not be perceived as
> carrying judgemental overtones. Adaptive/maladaptive would be completely
> inappropriate as it sounds as if it implies that it applies to the
> "goodness" of the phaith in achieving certain results which is, as far as I
> know, not the intention at all.

I meant "adaptive" in the sense that Dawkins frequently uses it, i.e. "confering a survival advantage." Still, I realize that this meaning is not the familiar one for most people, and in the interest of controlling the proliferation of jargon, I'm happy to let it go by the wayside.

> /me pulls on his jackboots and stirs it up :-)
> </flame bait mode on>
> Well of course it is. Phaith[r] is rational and rational implies that it is
> responsive to the environment.

The process of evolution by natural selection is responsive to the environment, and it isn't even conscious, much less rational.

> Phaith[i] is driven from some internal
> belieph[i] source, or from dogma, and neither can possibly react as
> effectively to environmental changes as Phaith[r].

Still sounds like an unsupported assertion to me.

> </flame bait mode off>

I'll leave the flaming to the flamers.

> Having said that; and this was one of the reasons that I suggested that the
> ratio of the roles of belieph and reason be left undefined; I suspect that
> phaith[r] can sometimes be just as dogmatic as phaith[i] and that sometimes
> phaith[i] can lead to faster results (e.g. following one's gut reactions
> where one is well versed in the decision field) and (results in?) choices of similar
> quality to phaith[r]. It may not be as certain, but in many choice
> environments, making a decision and implementing it is more important than
> the decision itself.

Like deciding what to say to that hot chick before the light changes and she crosses the street. Say SOMETHING!

> </flame bait mode on>
> Of course, I and most of the phaith[r] modus people would argue that this is
> the only thing that prevents phaith[i] modus people from making asses of
> themselves all of the time, and allowing them to muddle their way through
> life. :-)
> </flame bait mode off>

<Shrug> Could be.

> P.S. I like 'chicks' too. But they are much better IRL and in the flesh than
> on CoV! :-)

Well, I think the goal is to expand the CoV into RL. The Seattle-based Virions get together from time to time, and once I've got a productive rhythm firmly established and the compact and portable personal technology to produce my comics on the road, I plan to do a LOT of traveling, so I expect to be seeing quite a few CoV regulars in RL.